User talk:CAtruthwatcher

Dallas

Well, I'm glad we got that straight! Whew! Student7 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your warning on my talk page

Count how many times I have reverted at St. John's University (New York). Two. Now read WP:3RR. Furthermore, don't template the regulars. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at St. John's University (New York). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

When you do come back to edit, please read up on the policies and terms that you have misused today. You called an IP editor a "sockpuppet" multiple times without any evidence of sockpuppetry. Refer to WP:SOCK for more details on what is sockpuppetry and what is not. When you originally discussed the bold text at St. John's University (New York), you referenced Wikipedia's Bold Policy. However, WP:BOLD is about Wikipedia's encouragement of editors to edit articles if they see something wrong or if they want to add something constructive. Please see WP:3RR for Wikipedia's policy on the three-revert rule. When you templated me with a 3rr warning, you misused it because I had only reverted you twice. Had I reverted a third time (and if I was not a new user), you would be able to use the template. I hope this helps, and I hope things will not end up like this in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good for you - you're a big man to get me blocked because I disagree with you! I'll be back and I'll continue to revert your POV edits! Take a step back and try to be fair for a second. You're bolding 50 year-old information to try and give a commentary about the school's reputation and then you're removing notable quotes that came from a sitting president. I don't often hear Obama going to schools and calling them the "new Harvard." The information did not come from St. John's Web site, by the way, as it is not there. The citation used links to a collection of Reagan speeches. I'm trying to make things fair and I get blocked. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Eagles did nothing to get you blocked; I saw the edit war myself and blocked you. In fact, if you ask me, Eagles was far too gracious in not reporting you to begin with.

2) You will not be back to edit war, you will use the discussion page exclusively until you come to consensus, as it's been made clear to you multiple times you must do. Or, maybe I should say, you will not be back to edit war unless you want to be indefinitely blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the only one in this "edit war" who has used the discussion page. Take a look at the edits summaries and the discussion page: I attempted to discuss many issues. Additionally, I know Wikipedia administrators do not often look at specifics: I was only attempting to be fair; others were not. Wikipedia ought not to be solely for "the regulars" as you call yourselves. That's control by the few. When someone comes along who is trying to be fair and honest, and disagree with "the regulars," they are blocked and scared away. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Wrong - you were not the only editor using the discussion page - ElKevbo and Eagles were using it about as much as you, and even the IP editor stepped in once.

2) Using the discussion page while edit warring is not OK. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a great essay for the proper procedure for edit warring.

3) Other editors were probably also trying to be fair. Check out m:MPOV.

4) This has nothing to do with the regulars. If you see any propensity at all on my part to block non-regulars over regulars, it's only because consistent edit warriors aren't here long enough to become regulars - they get blocked beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Had I been uninvolved, I, too, would have blocked you for edit warring. If you continue to edit war on the talk page like you have promised to do, I will have no choice but to block you. I am trying to help you by providing you with relevant policies you have misused, and you are making no effort to learn from them. Also, I was not the one who bolded the statement, nor did I add back the bolded statement. If you still think the block is not just, you can always request unblock by following the instructions on the block template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

another sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Achievestudent&action=edit&redlink=1 24.239.153.58 (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked; this account is going to be indefinitely blocked shortly pending developer investigation of a software glitch which I've brought up at WP:VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

24.239.153.58is a sockpuppet of DC, Magog. If you are truly balanced, stop his vandalism.

I have taken a look at DC's list of my possible sockpuppets. I have never seen such stupidity; if he is right, I must edit more than anyone on Wikipedia.

Alas, my block remains. But why don't you actually look at the content of what I changed, Magog? Look at the content! You will see who the real vandal is in this situation. Earlier, ElKrevbo was someone who I thought was simply a sockpuppet of DC. I've come to realize that, although we don't always agree, he's striving, at least, to be fair. I think that he originally was in your position, Magog: he didn't look at the content I was editing. Look at the content. For goodness sake, if you're this big Wikipedia guy who believes in its mission, look at the darn content without discriminating because you see my user name next to the edits. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)