User talk:JSL5871

Welcome!

 * }

Your recent contribution to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher
Hello,

Please note that your contribution [ here] is unsuitable in tone to establishing and maintaining a collaborative editing atmosphere.

In particular, you are being reminded to assume good faith of other editors, avoid soapboxing and remain civil at all times. Unfounded accusations of censorship or of "hijacking" in particular are not acceptable. For instance your claim of article hijacking for Amanda Knox is demonstrably false since the article was first redirected and merged to MoMK by the very same editor who created it in the first place. That claim obviously only serves to inflame the discourse.

Further, regarding your draft here, you will want to familiarize yourself with this discussion, which will not only explain why the latest rewrite was redirected again, but also give you a clear indication of what policy issues you would have to overcome in order to promote it as a standalone article.

Last but not least, please be mindful of your tone. You are more than welcome to present arguments for the improvement of any article. Doing so in a wildly inappropriate tone will however lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Your current post to the Kercher talk page, accusing editors of acting like they're in 1930's Germany, is particularly unpleasant and violates numerous Wikipedia policies. Please remove it, or I will be forced to take the issue further. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you have not redacted your posting, despite being active on the site, I have done it for you. Please take this as a warning, and be very clear that if you post anything similar (i.e. attacking other editors or similar) on the talk page of the Kercher article or anywhere else, I will block you immediately. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba (Talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When you get repeatedly warned against specific behaviour and repeat it, claiming "I will probably get blocked for this" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Enough. Once you have understood the norms of interaction with others on this site, you can post an unblock request. If you can't adhere, at the very least, to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, there is simply no point to your presence. MLauba (Talk) 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: large context at ANI, where this block has already been submitted for comment and review. MLauba (Talk) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * JSL5871 has probaly forgot that he made this outrages comparrison before.TMCk (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you look just above, I removed it and told him I would block him if he repeated it. Some people have very bad memories, it appears. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

MLauba has consistently blocked and/or banned other people from editing on this page. She clearly has agenda that will not be blocked. I was not attacking her or anyone else, merely pointing out with very fine memory that censorship of one's ideas is dangerous, based on past history. It is unfortunate that MLauba's actions are consistent with other people's in history, but that doesn't make it a bannable offense. Unless, of course, Wikipedia sponsors it. JSL5871 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)