Tausor
December 2007
edit
3 revert rule
editI have reported you for violating the 3 revert rule. If you have a problem with this page, you need to discuss with me or the other person editing. Not keep undoing edits without explaination.Countrypaula (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Additions of http://.adultfyi.com
editPlease do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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.--Hu12 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for edit warring, disruptive editing, and violating our policy on biographies of living persons. Because this appears to be a single-purpose account with no indication of changing behavior despite a previous block, this time the block is indefinite. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Tausor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Absolute garbage, if you bother to look back, I have been editing the page to include truthful and legitimate information, Countrypaula is the one continually undoing the things I add, which are verifiable! This user squeals about it and I am barred? I made an application to have my last edits acknowledged as truthful on some page, who knows where, then all of a sudden countrypaula is reasonable and makes a few minor edits on small details, this was fine. Fast forward a couple of weeks and it all starts again. If you go back to 14:03, 23 February 2008 Tausor (Talk contribs (5,570 bytes (changed sexual orientation and signaled his new bi and transsexual film career. All this information is valid and truthful. The next day countrypaula seems to accept and leaves it alone. Then two weeks later it all starts again. How about getting with the program? It is acknowledged as a fawning fan page, I'm only cleaning it up and making it accurate, with I might add, all truthful and verifiable information. countrypaula is clearly a fan, who is smitten, yet cannot take the fact their favourite 'straight' male pornstar is now doing bisexual and transexual work.
Decline reason:
You have not accepted that WP:3RR is a policy. You have no edits to Talk:Kurt Lockwood and you have continued in your disruption of the article. We have WP:BLP and WP:3RR for a reason and you have continually broken these rules. Until you can accept Wikipedia policies, the block holds. — Woody (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (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.
Tausor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, absolute garbage, if I have no edits on Kurt Lockwood, what are 13:37, 23 February 2008 and 14:03, 23 February 2008??? Two clear and acceptable EDITS I did, which were then changed 5, YES 5, I'll Spell it FIVE times, even you even bother to check the history and compare. So who broke the three revert rule first? Myself, or the person using 69.106.104.51 I was merely trying to protect what was FACTUAL and ACCURATE information, but if you're too lazy to check what I have edited, and in response I was trying to keep the page accurate with all these reverts of my initial edit, why even bother? In all honesty why should I care? And why should you care? Who'd want ACCURATE information on their website? Certainly not wikipedia. But, hey, do whatever you winners, and of course you are life winners, being an admin at wikipedia must be really something, so do whatever you see fit, ignore the truthful and accurate information that I have added to this biography and go with the overzealous fans who guard it like a hawk, have written it like a puff piece and instantly revert any edits made. A terrible terrible joke.
Decline reason:
First, you never once stopped reverting to discuss it on the talk page. Second, there are edit summaries like these. Third, much of what you kept asserting in ALL CAPS was TRUTHFUL INFORMATION didn't have a cited source. Per our policy on biographies of living persons information like that must be sourced and cited. Anyone can remove it; anyone is also allowed to revert as many times as necessary when someone like you keeps putting it back in. Take a look at the light-colored box on top of the talk page ... the one that looks like this. It's very clear that 3RR doesn't apply to a good faith effort to remove potentially defamatory unsourced information. Fourth, an article about a porn star doing bi scenes does not necessarily mean s/he's bisexual unless s/he says he is.
For all these reasons, you are clearly a disruptive and tendentious editor over and above any specific policy you violated. Where biographies of living persons are concerned we must be particularly careful. In my opinion this indefinite block is infinitely justified. -Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (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.