Marksanta123
Welcome!
Hello, Marksanta123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please be sure, when making edits such as you are doing to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim article, that you include reliable sources for your claims. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, ok, I get it, you're a fan. That does not mean you can rewrite a Wikipedia entry as a fan page. If you feel strongly about this, let's put it to an editors' vote, all right? --TashTish (talk)
- Hello, I have reedited the Los Angeles Angels wiki page and cited my sources not as a fan but as a wiki editor making it possible for people to research the professional baseball team and get reliable information on the true history of the team, a non biased view on Angel fan experience, and other brief details that would be important for people doing research. I hope the rich information given is not edited once again to remove the informtaion cited which is hard to find for people.
- Listen, you didn't re-edit anything, you just added back all the personal stuff that was edited out in the name of objectivity. It wasn't just me; Pshla619 likewise edited out your insistence that the major league Los Angeles Angels existed in the 19th century. (A fact, by the way, I felt was worthy enough to stay in.)
- Anyway, I'm not going to make an issue out of it. But believe me, items like "For various reasons, Angels fans have a hatred of these teams [that have a rivalry with the Angels]" (which, by the way, is not cited, and probably can never be) have put a target on your edits to be speedily deleted by others who may care more about this than I do. –TashTish (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello TashTish, i have cited all my reedits, such as the Los Angeles Angels name dating back to the 19th century http://www.laalmanac.com/sports/sp06h.htm , i said nowhere that they are the exact same team, I only refered to it as the same team name, and in that giving the two teams a connection with name and location, please read the page, don't skim. I even cited a page that shows how the team name was bought in order to continue the franchise. As far as the only reedit you quoted, i did not put hatred, i merely put "The Los Angeles Angels fans have been known to "DISLIKE" these teams for various reasons." I said nothing about hatred, so i do not know why you are taking it so personal. By the way, the only reason that line was put in was because it is refering to the "Rivalries" section of the page, and in putting "DISLIKE" it is simply refering to a rivalry. So I can put a rivalries section up about the teams rivalries, but i cannot refer to the other teams as being disliked? You need to stop being so personal and look at the page as a way for people to get information, did you not read my response right above this? People looking through the Angel wiki page will see a team rivalry section that cannot be easily cited, but that does not make it false. The fact is that the term "DISLIKE other teams" was used in the Rivalries section, and the teams are stated from a widely accepted fact, but if you would like me to cite ESPN sports pages that referance the Angels in rivals with each one of those teams i can do so, it is just useless for readers to see those citations because when they read a rivals page on wiki they won't be questioning where the information is drawn because it is just a fun fact.
- If there is any other citations or issues that you need explaining please quote them, instead of rambling on, and state what is wrong with them "in the name of objectivity"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksanta123 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- As much as you'd like to think, an encyclopedia is not a place for "fun facts." —TashTish (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yet again you continue to bash my phrases personally and not quote a single line on the page that isn't cited, and "fun facts" are material that is factual altogether, so that would make it serviceable to someone who would find the information useful, whether it be a small detail or not. A little tip, try doing your reserach about a page before you make assumptions relying on what a majority thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksanta123 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- You could start by learning to spell. –TashTish (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You can start by learning how to comprehend what you read and do proper research, instead of disrespecting people you don't even know on the interenet who are trying to help. Please quote the "Very personal edits" that you are refering to, i still have no clue what you are talking about, all i see you and pshla619 editing out is rich information about the team.
October 2011
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not edit against consensus. If you believe you have information that needs to be added to the article, please discuss it on the article talk page. Continued insertion of information that community consensus has determined is not desired to be in the article is tendentious editing and can result in blocking. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Marksanta123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe the consensus of people editing on the Los Angeles Angels wikipedia page has been editing information on the page that is crucial to the understanding of the team and its history, and by these edits i have come to the conclusion that the people editing them may in fact have an opinionated view that goes unfavorable to the teams page they are all editing. For example, i merely have been reediting the facts about how to properly distinct the Los Angeles Angels franchise of the (MLB) to that of the previous franchises that have been of the same name in Los Angeles, and to do this I have properly labeled the leagues that the Angels name has been continued under; while doing this i have took the time to provide reliable links to this history for proof. After i had made these edits I had noticed an uproar by many users, and as i continued investigating these users turn out to also edit information on the Dodger baseball team page. An eyebrow is raised here, maybe due to the fact that the true history of the Angels name being in Los Angeles before the Dodgers? So my conclusion has been that many biased edits have been done by dodger fans(and it can be seen by at least 4 different edits of vandalism that mentions phrases like "dodgers rule, etc." Another edit i has been distinctly explaining is the fan appreciation section that continues to be disrupted. I simply keep re-editing very crucial information about the team, once again with proof, mind you, and it continues to be edited out with excuses of "a biased viewpoint." These edits about fan appreciation merely bring up the statistics of fan attendence and facts about the actual fan involvment with the team, and from this a simply conclusion is brought to light about how "the teams fan presence "CAN" be seen as having one of the more involved fan followings in baseball when it is compared to other teams." That statement has no biased opinion in it, just a mere factual comparision of baseball teams. If the dodger fans or whoever continue to edit this kind of crucial information out then it might hinder a person's investigative experience looking for information on wikipedia about the Angels. For example, if a person had no clue about baseball and needed to get inside of how the team is truly looked at or seen in the baseball world, they would be able to find it, but if people continue to edit out "FACTS" then there might be more research on other sites needed for a person. The main goal here is to provide as much factual information about the team as possible, and by providing an in-depth look at where the team stands in the baseball world as compared to other teams, this is given. My challenge for you people is to look past a biased view of my edits based on a consensus and to determine what information can be of good value on this site, and if a more opinionated ring is seen in the words of my edits, but at the same time provides valuable information, then maybe instead of deleting the whole section, an edit of proper wordage can be used. This has been my only problem. Marksanta123 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All of this is irrelevant; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Please read our guide to appealing blocks to have a better chance of getting unblocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:32, 29 October 2011 (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.
 | Blocked for sock puppetry
This account has been blocked from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marksanta123/Archive. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like it unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. |
Marksanta123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the block of abusing multiple accounts, this block is unnecessary since i have decided to use this one account marksanta123. The block is preventing me from making changes i feel are necessary, so i will not use my other accounts. Thank you.
Decline reason:
There are a number of issues with your conduct; your request barely begins to address just one of them. Are you going to attempt to add material to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim article? Do you understand the problems with that material, specifically its neutrality? Do you accept that consensus may be that the material is unsuitable, and - if so - do you understand that you will not be permitted to post it to the article? You've used multiple accounts to side-step scrutiny on this account, and that's a red flag. You need to assure editors that you're going to discuss the article at its talk page, and that you will edit within policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:21, 8 November 2011 (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.
Marksanta123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand about abusing multiple accounts, but i never intended for the other account to side-step scrutiny, that account was merely to change a point of view for the people who would consistently dismiss my edits and research before even reading them. As I stated above in the first appeal for my blockage, i truly believe that the people editing that baseball page are out to edit the page in any way that would make the team a secondary team of Los Angeles to the Dodgers, which is absolutely false according to my evidence. Every one of my edits has been about placing the team apart from another team with the same name, and as i tried doing so people would disregard the other team of the same name. Some other edits as i stated above were to provide people with information that was previously not included, about the team's fan appreciation. I will be happy to quote the current Dodgers wikipedia page "The Dodgers have a loyal fanbase, evidenced by the fact..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Dodgers#Fan_support ...So how come whenever I continue to try and provide statistical information that compares the other 29 MLB teams to the Angels to give readers a look into the teams current fan following, it is thrown out? If you or any other User took the time to look at the edits i made on October 27th of this year, you will see 4 main edits that were unnecessarily taken out, and have been previously taken out numerous times by users under names like LAFAN, DODGERMANIA, and so forth. The four edits included putting the establishment of the team in MLB to provide a acknowledgment of the team of previous name, the pastnames of the team which include the other franchise with the same name and different league to compare the differences, an acknowledgement of the previous league to which the team name was played and how similar it was to the MLB, and a whole paragraph about the franchises fan following has been thrown out. This whole paragraph i wrote was taken out by "the consensus," "The Angels are known to have a loyal fan-base due to the fact that they have drawn 3 million plus fans to the stadium for nine years straight, and at least 2 million for 28 seasons, and a game average in 2010 and 2011 of 40,000 fans at each game during, and after one of the teams worst losing seasons. Angels fans can be seen by these stats as being very loyal throughout the years even with the direct competition of the Los Angeles Dodgers, a team which usually draws more attention because of the historic nature of the franchise, as well their location closer to L.A., a highly populated area" .Please explain why this paragraph continues to be edited out by users with names like DODGERMANIA, or any other biased users that have previous history in contribution to other MLB team pages on wiki in their own favor. I truly believe that my block has been placed unjustly on my account for the lack of true unbiased edits that continue to happen on this site, i would love to talk to the people making these unnecessary edits, yet after seeing what continues to be taken out i only come to the conclusion that they are trying to take away any type of good credit towards this team's page. These edits are not biased and provide statistics and evidence for each one. The last point i will bring up is my previous history on this page; most of the sections of the Angels wiki page have been drastically added to by my accounts personally over the span of about a year, and it was only until recent history that "the consensus" responded negatively saying it was biased, i encountered the same problem with the intro to the page for a brief week with another fan of a different team, but as that dispute settled, nobody has complained since. This consensus continues to attack only my edits personally that they can see in recent history, and i challenge the wiki people to research these edits and see if they are properly being handled(by that i mean that the people are not editing out useful information but merely making it as neutral as possible) or if the edits people revert by me alone are being done, and destroying useful information on the page and deleting all the info together even if somewhere inside of it it provides useful content. Please unblock me so that i can make the necessary reverts that are destroying the page for when people need to make proper research on the team's history.
Decline reason:
Please shorten your unblock request - in skimming through this, however, and per the comments below, this does not appear to address all problems that led to this block, and/or seems to indicate that those problems are likely to continue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 10 November 2011 (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.
- Oh, it still appears necessary. Not using reliable sources, falsifying consensus (a HUGE no-no), incivility, original research ... add the now current WP:SOCK issues, and you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do before being considered for unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Marksanta123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand about abusing multiple accounts, but i never intended for the other account to side-step scrutiny, that account was merely to change a point of view for the people who would consistently dismiss my edits and research before even reading them. With this said, i believe i was not wrong, but i will take the blocking seriously and not use any other accounts again for this reason. As I stated above in the first appeal for my blockage, i truly believe that the people editing that page are editing out important information irrationally in some attempt to downplay the team's page in their own ways. This can be seen when looking at my edits that have been fully deleted instead of being properly edited to change the wordage in the manner that was said needed. So this is why i believe that the consensus may be at fault here due to the fact that the consensus(3 or 4 people) have continued to single my edits out in a personal way, and also disregard the benefits of my edits. Although i truly believe this and wish that some more investigation should be properly done to see the type of battle and irrational deletion of my edits, i have decided to take the issue here seriously and use the talk page to discuss some of the issues if my block should come off. Furthermore, an example on why i believe the consensus may be at fault is this deletion of important information that i wrote on the page that was continuously deleted in entirety, the whole paragraph i wrote was taken out by "the consensus," "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base when compared to the other 30 MLB teams, due to the fact that they have drawn 3 million plus fans to the stadium for nine years straight, and at least 2 million for 28 seasons, and a game average in the past ten years of roughly 41,869 fans at each game during some of the franchises worst disappointing years of 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2010. These statistics give Angel stadium the fourth best ranking in fan attendance in all of the MLB for a combination of 2009, 2010, and 2011; keeping in mind that the Angels are just below three teams that have made the playoffs at least 2 of 3 years. Angel’s fans can be seen by these stats as being very loyal throughout the years because they continue to support the team whether they win or lose." After seeing what continues to be taken out i only come to the conclusion that the consensus of the same 3 or 4 users are trying to make the page their own, instead of providing the best and most useful information for people to perform their research. With this thought in mind i have come to an acceptance of my block, and will decide to handle things in a more professional manner in the future when involved in a conflict with the consensus if it does continue, and i will decide to use the talk page to try and see what is at fault in my edits so that we can come to a mutual agreement. Whoever is reviewing this, please try to understand that I honestly did not wish to cause any harm, but do realize my mistakes, and that the continuous appeals for my block should be a testament to how i am trying to come out of this in an honest way, instead of say changing my IP address, thank you.
Decline reason:
Given your conduct, I am concerned that you state that "consensus may be at fault" in regards to the opposition to your changes and downplay the significance of editing under multiple accounts - it's totally unacceptable to do so in the way you describe above. As such, I'm not at convinced that you'd edit productively if you were unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2011 (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.
Marksanta123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I understand about abusing multiple accounts, but never intended for the other account to side-step scrutiny, the other account i had made was due to some harassment i feel my current account was undergoing by some users on here(this is the point i am trying to make in my appeals). With this said, i believe i was not wrong in my intentions, but i have taken the block seriously as seen through my appeals and I would NOT USE ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS AGAIN for this reason. As stated in previous appeals, i truly believe that the people editing the Angel's page are editing out important information irrationally in some attempt to downplay the team's page in their own ways. When i say they edit it irrationally, i mean that every single input of info i continued to make was edited out in entirety even if it did have some useful information in it, i feel that this is the root for the harassment i felt, it seemed to me that the same users would take out my whole edits and write something like, "biased feel, bad wordage," without helping to change it for the better. So this is why i believe that the consensus of the 3 or 4 same users may be seen at fault in this single instance of my block due to the fact that they have continued to single my edits out, and also disregard the benefits of my edits. Although i truly believe this and wish that some more investigation should be properly done to see the type of battle and irrational deletion of my edits, i have decided to take the issue here seriously and use the talk page to discuss some of the issues if my block should come off. For example, this whole paragraph i wrote was taken out by the consensus, "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base when compared to the other 30 MLB teams, due to the fact that they have drawn 3 million plus fans to the stadium for nine years straight, and at least 2 million for 28 seasons, and a game average in the past ten years of roughly 41,869 fans at each game during some of the franchises worst disappointing years of 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2010. These statistics give Angel stadium the fourth best ranking in fan attendance in all of the MLB for a combination of 2009, 2010, and 2011." After seeing what continues to be taken out i only came to the conclusion that the consensus of the same 3 or 4 users were trying to make the page their own instead of providing the best and most useful information for people to perform research. Even with this thought in mind i have come to an acceptance of my block, and will decide to handle things more professional in the future if I am involved in a conflict with different users, and i will decide to use the talk page to try and see what is at fault in my edits so that we can come to a mutual agreement. This appeal should not rationalize my usage of the 2 accounts on wiki, instead it should try and explain how i did not use the account for the reason i am being blocked, and it should also show how i understand the seriousness of my block and explain that i would not use another account in the future. The reason this appeal is so similar to the previous one is because i felt the previous reviewer was confused by my explanation due to the way i was wording things, so i decided to clear it up because i did feel that i explained how i do understand what i did wrong, the previous reviewer Nick-D said that I, "downplayed my significance of editing under multiple accounts." This is completely false, i continuously explain how i recognize the error i made, and i feel that this appeal does not need me to admit to anything i did not do. They also stated, "I'm not at convinced that you'd edit productively," after i clearly stated that i would make try and make the best edits i could, and if there would be any problems, i would result to the talk page, so this is a productive edit i must say. So i would like to add again that please try and understand that I honestly did not wish to cause any problem, yet I do realize what i did in making a 2nd account and not using the talk page, so if my block does come off i will not commit these actions again. The continuous appeals for my block should be a testament of how I am trying to come out of this block in an honest way.
Decline reason:
"After seeing what continues to be taken out i only came to the conclusion that the consensus of the same 3 or 4 users were trying to make the page their own instead of providing the best and most useful information for people to perform research." Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about verifiable information from reliable sources. Consensus can change, but consensus is changed at the talk page, not through continual battling to include content, then accusing those supporting the consensus version of the page of page ownership. And your latest unblock request still has WP:NOTTHEM problems as well - your continuing insistience that other users have made "irrational edits" is the main reason for declining here. Their rationality or otherwise is totally irrelevant to your blocking or being unblocked. (Also, with regard to the below - "can be" instead of "is" just substitutes personal deductions for weasel words illustrating the same end...) The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 18 November 2011 (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.
- As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Re: "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base when compared to the other 30 MLB teams, due to the fact that they have drawn 3 million plus fans to the stadium for nine years straight, and at least 2 million for 28 seasons, and a game average in the past ten years of roughly 41,869 fans at each game during some of the franchises worst disappointing years of 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2010. These statistics give Angel stadium the fourth best ranking in fan attendance in all of the MLB for a combination of 2009, 2010, and 2011.", which you think was unfairly removed. It's full of your own personal reasoning and constitutes your own personal deduction - as such it breaches WP:POV, WP:OR, and probably specifically WP:SYNTH, and it was correct to remove it. Had you simply stuck to presenting just the facts, and no personal deductions from them (eg "The Angels fan support can be seen as a loyal fan-base"), and provided a source that supports them, that would have been fine. I'm not going to formally review this unblock request, but it looks to me that there's a lot you need to learn about what constitutes valid additions to articles before you do any more editing - those policies I linked to would be a good start. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|Hello user Boing! said Zebedee, i believe that it is not a personal reasoning or deduction, i stated "CAN BE SEEN" not, "HAS THE BEST FAN SUPPORT EVER". Boing! said Zebedee If i put something along the lines of "The Angels HAVE the best fan support" and provided no stats or comparison to other teams then it would in fact be a personal deduction, but please notice the "CAN BE" and "IS" difference in logical reasoning. I may also quote the Los Angeles Dodgers wiki page, "The Dodgers have a loyal fanbase, evidenced by the fact that the Dodgers were the first MLB team to attract more than 3 million fans in a season (in 1978), and accomplished that feat six more times before any other franchise did it once." This quote in fact makes more of an assumption than mine does. This is quoted from the New York Yankees wiki page, "With the recurring success of the franchise since the 1920s, the Yankees have been and continue to be one of the most popular sports teams in the world." This is a quote from the Oakland Raiders wiki page, "The nickname Raider Nation refers to the die hard fans of the team spread throughout the United States and the world." So as you can see Boing! said Zebedee my edits have been under much scrutiny that is accepted on many other pages, the only difference is that my fan support section is provided with logical reasoning through a comparison of other fan attendance and win/loss records to show what a true fan support might look like.
- Please read WP:NOTTHEM - your comments about others' "irrational edits" don't add to the case to be unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Bushranger The "irrational edits" are the only reason for my block, so why wouldn't they matter? I'm trying to fight an unjust case here.
- The actions of others are irrelevant to your being unblocked. Saying "it's them, not me" indicates a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of why you were blocked, and in no way suggests that the behavior that led to your blocking won't be repeated. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Bushranger I continue to appeal for using dual accounts, and I continue to admit it would not be done again, yet i get denied responses that suggest it had so much more to do with the way i was editing in opposition to the consensus of 3 or 4 people. So my responses have changed to include everything to admit my wrongs, but your suggesting i cannot fight my case in the smallest instance, even if it was unjust? I admitted my wrongs, but i cannot suggest a little more investigating? If the admin continue to act indolent about reading, and acting upon my honest requests of looking at the material edited out, then maybe I will act just as lazy and change my IP address, it would take me 3 minutes instead of 3 months of back and forth antics that don't bring into play the many intangibles. I have been fighting and trying to explain how the same actions would not be done, over and over, but instead of looking at the rational argument, you people take a single one of my sentences completely out of context. So please let me know if I should change my IP address or if someone will stop playing childish games to give me a fair review.
- The actions of others are irrelevant to your being unblocked. Saying "it's them, not me" indicates a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of why you were blocked, and in no way suggests that the behavior that led to your blocking won't be repeated. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Bushranger The "irrational edits" are the only reason for my block, so why wouldn't they matter? I'm trying to fight an unjust case here.
- Talk page access revoked, as Marksanta123 is just continuing the same content dispute, and is now apparently threatening to sock using different IPs if he doesn't get his way. And, Marksanta123, that article will be pretty heavily watched by now, and if you use a different IP to re-insert POV changes they will be removed and you will be blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)