User talk:Truthful data

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If there's really a reason for deletion of this content, please use the article's talk page to explain a valid reason for doing so. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You need to communicate with other editors if you are going to blank or summarily revert content like that. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kumiki Gibson
I would encourage you to discuss proposed changes to the article on its talk page. Summarily blanking content without explanation is not an acceptable editing technique. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ''Sorry, that's just not the way wikipedia works. You can't just go forward and continue the edit-war without discussion. Please state your intentions on the article's talk page so a proper discussion can take place. You didn't even answer any of the questions I asked over at template_talk:editprotected, where you left your last comment (which is, by the way, not the right page for this, use the article's talk page instead). '' --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kumiki Gibson has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Red Thunder  12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Last warning
This is probably the last warning you'll get for your edits in the Kumiki Gibson article. If you continue to change the article without explication whatsoever and without the slightest will for a discussion, you will be blocked. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

>unblock: as you have been previously advised, the statements made about the lawsuits are knowingly false, yet you are continuing to publish that libelous statement, wihout any regard for the truth. the trusth can be found through publicly-available court records about this fomer commissioner, which will reveal that she was named in only three suits for discrimination (far fewer than most agency heads), and one has already been dismissed with a finding of no merit. the other two are pending, for decision shortly. please remove libleous statements altogether (as i have been trying to do on a period basis) or unblock so i can do so, so to prevent further publication of these libelous statements, which is only subjecting you all to legal action. thank you. Truthful data (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)<!


 * You did never explain your reasons for the removal, even uppon request. "Google for the reasons yourself" is not an acceptable way of adding or removing contents from a wikipedia article. So if you have a proof of what you write (esp of the outcome of the court cases), I'll update the article accordingly. Please post a weblink to a site that is a relliable source for your statement. Also, the article does not say whether she was/is guilty or not, it only says that it is told that she was sued, which by itself is not libelous. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed your request.
 * Please be a bit more precise about what you're talking about actually. The sources we have in the article currently state that she was accused. The article doesn't state the number of lawsuits, where do you read that? If the lawsuits were dismissed, then we can update the article accordingly. Some questions though:


 * What information in the article is actually wrong? (Not only outdated)
 * In short: What was the outcome of the lawsuits? (that she wasn't actually misstreating somebody? That she left on her own will?
 * I will update the article if you really explain what needs to be done. Just throwing out information without discussion was the problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from blocking admin: I have no prejudice to unblocking if the user will participate in the BRD process. In fact I will unblock myself if the user agrees to discuss controversial changes rather than simply edit warring without discussion. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. link to governor paterson's press release regarding the resignation is http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0408082.html