Balloftwine

Welcome

	Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, Balloftwine, and welcome to Wikipedia!I'm ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links you may find helpful:   The five pillars   Contributing here   Help pages   How to edit a page   Writing great articles   Editing tutorial I hope you enjoy contibuting here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas

I am concerned as to why you feel that Dr Lucas being the first female president ever at Millsaps College, is an issue for you. This is an includable, and sourced, fact in terms of notability. If you insist on keeping this fact from the related articles, I will be left with no choice but to take the matter to a more official forum. Additionally, please read WP:3RR as we do not allow edit warring on Wikipedia. We do have rules and guidelines for how content is included, which content is included, and editor behavior. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this, please discuss your edits on Talk:Millsaps College#3O. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Further to this discussion on the Administrators' Notice Board, your continued removal of verifiable, notable content regarding Frances Lucas is becoming disruptive. If you continue to delete portions of page content from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Please also note Wikipedia's three revert rule as mentioned above, and note that the spirit as well as the letter of 3RR will be applied. If you have a problem with the page content, discuss it on the talk-page with other editors, though you may find it beneficial to take a look at our conduct policy first - comments like "Clearly other editors are radical feminists demanding that femaleness be privileged on wikipedia" are unacceptable. You may also find our suggestions for dispute resolution helpful. EyeSerene^talk 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Frances Lucas, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You should know that a blog is not acceptable for something like this. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hollis Robbins, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Please disregard. I pressed "q" by mistake instead of pressing "w" to close the window. Nice to meet you, BTW. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean I can do those edits again?

Third Opinion

Hi, Balloftwine.

I've taken your request down from the Third Opinion board. That forum is meant to address issues that are limited to two users, and this is an issue that involves many more than that.

You may want to try an RFC instead, assuming you've already tried to address the issue on Agricola's talk page. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, though, I'll offer an outsider's take on the AFD. While Agricola is very engaged in the discussion, I don't think your characterization of her comments is accurate. I can see how her style could be viewed as snarky or domineering, but neither of those is really against any Wikipedia policy I know of.

As to the sexism charge, that's a bit more serious, and I think you should be prepared to point to some specific examples or withdraw that claim, because I didn't see anything that sounded even remotely sexist. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok -- when and who decides when it's over? There seems to be slow acceptance that the subject is outside the normal academic parameters but still clearly notable -- she is well known as a radio personality discussing film and the Director of a program, though thin on academic scholarship. How and when do existing rigid categories bend to include those who are verifiably notable but outside normal categories?Balloftwine (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD will close when an administrator decides to shut it down. I saw that it was relisted, so I might expect it to be about a week after that date.

As for bending the rules, I see that happen all the time but wouldn't necessarily expect to see it in this case. A subject is notable if they fit the criteria laid out in the various notability guidelines, and that may or may not reflect whether the subject is "notable" according to popular meaning of the word. If I were putting money on it, I'd say that the article probably won't make it unless someone can find something written about DeLibero, as opposed to something written by her. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Emily

Did you read the outcome of the CFD on Category:American women novelists? Please Undo your change. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Robin Spielberg

Your removal of content before this went to AfD already looks bad enough. I would advise against continuing to remove valid sourced content. --Michig (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your last edits and will block you if you revert again. Please note the following. First, you are involved into a content dispute. Content disputes are not resolved by reverting, they are resolved by opening the discussion at the talk page of the article and by explaining your viewpoint, followed by a civilized discussion. Second, in one of the reverts you mentioned that you believe that your opponent is editing in a bad faith. Note that here on Wikipedia we assume good faith. You should really have very serious grounds to stop assuming good faith, and, again, these grounds should be explained not in the edit summaries of reverts, but on WP:ANI, or, if necessary, at WP:COIN. Thank you for understanding. This is your last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What Ymblanter said. Chill out, Balloftwine: if the article is deleted, it will be on its lack of merits, not because of your blanking. Accusing Michig of some kind of conflict of interest is ridiculous and its repeated assertion blockable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Balloftwine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Balloftwine (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Whoa! What happened! The critic guy was a long time ago when we took a night class. Who are the other two? 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Balloftwine (talk)

Seriously something is messed up here. Way messed up. Balloftwine (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)