User talk:James edwin

Kobe Bryant
Others have removed your recent edits to Kobe Bryant. I would suggest you gain consensus at Talk:Kobe_Bryant if you wish to pursue this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please gain consensus on Talk:Kobe Bryant for your proposed edits in lieu of edit warring to add information to the lead about his championship appearances, changing the opening paragraph to add undue weight to his high school career and draft info, and removing his feud with O'Neal. Your contributions are welcome, but persistent edit warring can lead to your being blocked from editing. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Dan56. I noticed that you made a change here to Recovery (Eminem album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add the unsourced portion, please do so! If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I will. My apologies.James edwin (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NBA Finals in lead of biographies
In relation to your recent edits of Kobe Bryant and James Harden, you are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association to help reach a consensus on the subject.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kobe Bryant. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

My edits have improved the article. Listing accomplishments in order correctly and made it a cleaner and smoother lead. I also stopped it from being bloated with too much material.James edwin (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing. I appreciate that you are trying to improve Wikipedia. However, we do operate on consensus. Free free to follow Dispute resolution if you are not in agreement regarding any ongoing discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much.James edwin (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did here to Recovery (Eminem album). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I did list citations and explained its a year end chart by Billboard of the biggest hot 100 hits of the year. How could that possibly be seen as vandalism?James edwin (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Check "as you did here to Recovery", as linked above? Dan56 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A glance at the article's "view history" subpage couldnt hurt either. Dan56 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

what are you talking about?James edwin (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC) im confused as to why I was blocked.James edwin (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

unblock me
You THINK I'm a sock puppet? That gives you the right to block me w/o any actual proof? You are so full of shit.James edwin (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we think so, and since it's effectively our website that's all that has to be good enough. And as noted above, we don't just decide this; it was based on evidence. So there was, indeed, actual proof. Just not any we're going to share with you anytime soon, because we wouldn't want to help you become a better sock puppet now, would we? Besides, cussing me out doesn't get you unblocked any faster. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And I demand an explanation
It says on "Signs of Sock puppetry", it is impossible to look through the wires to determine if the same individual is operating all the accounts in question. "With or without a checkuser inquiry, there are other possible signs that two or more accounts could be operated by the same person. Still, none of the signs are particularly clear, and the only definitive proof is an actual admission." I have admitted to nothing nor was I made aware of any checkuser inquiry taking place. Not that one would prove anything since you said the only proof is admission. I just started editing and I am extremely annoyed for getting no response as to why I was blocked or for what it was that lead you to believe I was a sock puppet. I had to Google just to know what you people were talking about.James edwin (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it is impossible to be certain one is operating sockpuppets short of an admission does not make a sockpuppet block assailable, especially if there is technical or behavioral evidence that pushes the likelihood of a user being a sock-/meatpuppet (both are treated similarly) into "beyond a shadow of a doubt" territory. In this case, there exists such evidence according to the relevant SPI.
 * Also, you are not required to be notified of an SPI taking place against you, especially if behavioral evidence is very compelling, severe and sustained vandalism is ongoing at the time of the report, or the user is a unrepentant recidivist. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 09:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What vandalism? I had edit conflicts maybe. But you don't block people indefinitely for that. As I said before I just started editing so I was not aware of the penalties for editing consistently w/o consensus. You people are full of crap. You have NO proof. Other than your stupid ass opinions. Again what have I done? Absolutely nothing. WE think this or that is not a justifiable reason for indefinitely blocking me. You people are full of shit.James edwin (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, just keep proving to us we were right to block you by using such foul language. Yep. Really helps you there. Meanwhile, you might want to read up on the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "possible doubt". You might also want to consider the fact that if someone who owns private property thinks that, say, you're carrying drugs on you and they have said they will not tolerate that on their property, then that's good enough for them to bar you from said property absent any law to the contrary. In short, you have no right to be here. You are here at the pleasure of the Wikipedia community, nothing more, and that seems to be in rather short supply (and diminishing every time you post, at that). Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's convincing behavioural evidence that says otherwise. Go away. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 06:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)