User talk:JIM ME BOY 2

Hi Jim. I've undone your recent edit to Harvard and Paul Krugman because they really aren't encyclopedic. Edits need to be neutral in tone. I've attached a standard welcome with some links if you'd like to look at them. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Last warning
Since you have already received several warnings on your previous user talk page, this is your last warning: Do not make changes to biographies of living people without citing reliable sources. You should always make sure your information is 100% correct before you make any changes, but especially on biographies; even seemingly small ones such as religion or place of residence. And potentially libelous comments such as this are completely unacceptable. Before you make any more edits, please see our pages on biographies, citations, verifiability, and what constitutes a reliable source. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
'''Due to persistent violations of our Biographies of Living Persons policy, you have now been blocked. Because this account has not been used to make any productive edits, the block is indefinite.' You were warned not to make changes to biographies of living people without citing reliable sources, yet your first'' edit after the first block was removed was to quote Keith Olbermann without an independent source. While I fully expect you to argue that you thought the link to the website was sufficient, if you had read the BLP policy (as I asked you to) you would know that a site whose sole purpose is to disparage the subject is not considered an independent source.

There appears to be no other course of action but to block this account until you can fully demonstrate acceptance of our policies, as well as an understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you were trying to smear him. But the rule isn't "As long as you're not trying to smear them, go ahead and edit biographies without proper sources." I warned you not to edit without sources. I told you to read the policies before editing, which would have told you that the source you used was unacceptable (and was not properly cited, by the way). Where does that supposed quote come from? I tried to find a source for it, but the the only place I can find it is on that attack blog (and its mirrors). If you don't have a reliable source, you shouldn't be putting it in.
 * I'm not out to get you banned, but I am out to make sure BLP is followed. If you can't do that, you can't edit. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Olbermann Watch's goal is not to disparage Keith Olbermann's character. It's goal is to point out the outrageous bias that Keith presents in his daily "news" reports. Read the website and you will learn.
 * I'd say that statement speaks for itself, as far as determining whether or not you are using this account as a soapbox. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete portions of block review discussion you don't like, as you did here. It's not vandalism, it's relevant to the discussion, and it will remain in the page history even if you try to remove it. If you can't conduct yourself with civility on your own talk page, you will lose the ability to edit here as well. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)