User talk:Thrillfreakunclesam

To: User:Thrillfreakunclesam From: User:Kimedit14

Dear Thrillfreakunclesam, The reason your posts are being deleted on the article about Phil Ranstrom are for two reasons:

1. Your posts are not relevant to the subject of the article. The Wikipedia article is not a personal biography, but one highlighting Mr. Ranstrom's professional achievements, much like a resume. If he wishes to include personal background, that is his prerogative, not yours.

2. The criminal case you cite is speculative. You have not provided any proof that the "Phillip Ranstrom" (in the criminal case) is the same "Phil Ranstrom" in the article, as requested by User:MadZarkoff.

At best, the criminal history you cite is simply inappropriate given the theme of the article. At worst, it appears to be a personal vendetta, which, if so, should be resolved elsewhere.

Under Wikipedia:List of policies (Harassment), it reads: "Do not ... (engage in) repeated personal attacks or posting personal information".

Also, please consult Wikipedia:Edit warring. The three-revert rule" states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period ... Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." You have clearly violated this rule.

Not only do you risk your account being frozen for harassment, but are also stepping over the lines into criminal conduct.

Please read the Wikipedia article on Cyberstalking and you will see how it is defined: "It may include ... monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information that may be used to harass... (among which include) ... Attempts to gather information about the victim Monitoring their target's online activities

Your reference to Mr. Ranstrom's resume in one of your posts demonstrates you are gathering information about him. If you have also put this page on your Watchlist, which can easily be determined, you are monitoring him, as well.

In plain language, no matter if what you claim is true, whenever it is used to harass or harm someone, it becomes Harassment. Another example is ringing a person's doorbell. While this is a perfectly legal activity, when done for the purpose of harassing someone, it becomes a criminal offense. Stepping up the frequency or intensity of this can easily be construed as Stalking ("Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person).

Your digital footprints are all over this and I think it would be a good idea for you to stop making these posts, since repetition is a key element in determining what is harassment/stalking and what is not. There is no logical reason for you to persist in this, except only if you are determined to harass him. If you have a personal issue with Mr. Ranstrom, please resolve it elsewhere. Since editing disputes should be first resolved on a Talk page (here), please feel free to respond. But before you do, please read the guidelines for Talk pages at Talk page guidelines.

Thank you, Kimedit14 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on article Phil Ranstrom
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Marek  . 69  talk 00:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for BLP violations and edit-warring, as you did at Phil Ranstrom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)