William O. Rhites
A user has previously been blocked for making the same edits you have just made to 2003 invasion of Iraq. They have been deemed to be abusive edits, which qualify as vandalism according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss your changes at Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq. Otherwise, please desist from making the disruptive changes. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. The user was warned for violating WP:3RR but was not blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the quotes are accurate. I'm disputing the link from the quotes to the subject articles. No reliable source has been provided where a scholar, military strategist, or the like has linked the two events directly. The last time a source was requested, the response was a timeline from a) an organization with an agenda, where the neutrality is dubious that b) did not provide any direct link. Accordingly, unless we can quote where somebody says the two events are linked, it's original research, and Wikipedia is not a repository of original thought. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
editI have blocked your account for 48 hours for edit warring on 1941 Iraqi coup d'état and 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is clear that your account is a sockpuppet created by the same person as made the previous anon edits. You are free to contribute to the prject constructively once your block expires but please note that users may make no more than 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours and may not use multiple IPs and account to conceal that they are doing this. I also advise you to take C.Fred's advice about original research. WjBscribe 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ilegal Blocking
edit
William O. Rhites (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The user was blocked because of alleged "links" to other IP that have violated 3RR rule yet user:WjBscribe has come to this erroneous conclusion through original research something he warns the user not to engage in. Since there is no definite proof that the user is a sockpuppet other than speculation the only charge against the user is violation of 3RR which since this a new user may have not been aware of and was never warned of so the maximum time can be 24 hours so the block should be reduced and an apology surrendered to the user. Also the reason includes "editwarring" it takes two to war so if there was and alleged Edit War user:C.Fred should have also been reprimanded
Decline reason:
After your transparent and disruptive sockpuppetry, this is a querulous unblock request. For your continued disruption of Wikipedia with it, I'm increasing the original block, which was too mild, to one week duration. — Sandstein 04:54, 28 May 2007 (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.
June 2007
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harry Potter, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AppleMacReporter 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to September 11, 2001 attacks, you will be blocked from editing. Sidasta 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, you will be blocked from editing. Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)