User talk:Keepthefactsinwikiplease

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Nlu (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA request
I am requesting AMA help because NLU has banned me from editing on my second day of contributing, without having any just cause for doing so. In addition, NLU also deleted all of my totally legitimate content. NLU also deleted my legitimate content from the Discussion page which he told me to post on.

My edits were adding factual information to the article. The article currently does not have a NPOV, it has a biased point of view that promotes StormPay as a clean and legitimate company despite vast amounts of factual evidence to the contrary, any such contrary evidence is censored and deleted. My contributions were in line with NPOV policy. In fact, they were bringing the article closer to a NPOV. --Keepthefactsinwikiplease 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

15:15, 13 August 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "Keepthefactsinwikiplease (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll/soapboxer)

Update
Your block has been reduced to (as of now) about 30 hours and the admin involved made this comment. Addhoc 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added a template giving suggestions of article you could be interested in editing... Addhoc 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding StormPay, I've got no interest in that article, and am not interested in mediating any dispute in place there. Your blocks (which I was uninvolved in) appeared to be related to potential non-neutral edits to that article.  A request was made to have your block reviewd by a mediator, and after reviewing it I felt that an indefintie block was excessive and reduced it to ~month (about a day and a half from when I placed it, to give any other admins a change to adjust if they wanted to).  To clarify my comment, placing point-of-view entries in the the encylopedia itself is nto vandalism, but having them identified, recieving warnings and blocks, then continuing to place them MAY be considered vandalism.  If there is a dispute as to what should be included in that article I suggest you continue the dispute resolution process perhaps with a RFC. Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk  02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)