User talk:Everton Dasent

Welcome

Hello Everton Dasent and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Peter Holmes à Court. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Also please read WP:BLP. ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material you removed was verifiable and referenced. It was not original research or personal analysis. You are in violation by deleting referenced material. All I did was to replace the referenced material which had be put in place by several editors. Please do not remove referenced material from Wikipedia. Edasent (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was litter the article with non-neutral words and phrases, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - I have reverted your edits again. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is quite apparent that you are trying to change this article into something blatantly non-neutral by the use of tabloid language and over-weighting of negative material. It is not acceptable to use a Wikipedia biography to push your point-of-view of the subject. Please discuss the material you wish to introduce on the talk page of the article, so that the valid parts of it may be utilised in a neutral article. If you continue to edit the article in the manner in which you have been doing, I will prevent you from doing so, either by banning you from this topic (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement) or blocking your account outright. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how direct quotes from a properly referenced, researched book, not subject to litigation and still in print is not valid? The Firepower section which you removed is 90% quote from just such a source. Threatening to ban me for providing referenced material just makes you look like a clown. Edasent (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now referred to BLPN, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Holmes à Court redux. – ukexpat (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I warned you earlier not to edit-war to retain clearly unsuitable language and editorial commentary in Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you have ignored this warning, I am blocking you from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit-warring and disregard for the biographies of living persons policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am the victim of bullying and wheel warring by an editor with more rights than I. The page in question was fully referenced with quotes from verifiable sources and very little editorial. Several sections have been removed altogether because a couple of editors don't like the facts

Decline reason:

You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Your additions were almost certainly inappropriate, and your edit warring to maintain them was 100% inappropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

An example - The following text remains on the page in the latest edit: 'Back Row produced over 20 live shows in 30 countries and 300 cities world wide.' (This statement has no reference but remains on the page, it could easily be regarded as undue:wp)

'In 1994 Holmes à Court put together an off-Broadway rock musical, Fallen Angel. The show lasted 3 weeks and lost most of Holmes à Court's available capital as well as the capital put in by investors.' This statement was referenced with {Edgar, Patricia (1999). Janet Holmes à Court. Australia. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-7322-5715-8. p.349 The official biography) but that has been removed and replaced with a "quote needed to verify". How is that in any way responsible editing?

Decline reason:

When your block expires, you are welcome to discuss your concerns on the appropriate article talk-pages and/or notice-boards, or request admin intervention if there is a serious policy/guideline violation that needs high-level attention. Edit-warring is not allowed (and is itself a blockable disruptive-behavior). DMacks (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 again

Your first act on expiry of your block was to resume the same problematic editing on the same article. The block is for one week this time. Guy (Help!) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was banned for warring previously. After the block expired, I edited the same page and took care to make sure that all of the information added was referenced, written in neutral language and verified. The previous editor had removed valid links and left unreferenced 'feel good' material that could not be verified. There was nothing that was added that contravened the quoted policy.

Decline reason:

Your edits prior to the block are undeniably disruptive, mostly consisting of removing {{fact}} tags placed by the other editor. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The page in question has attracted vandals over the last two years. Mostly the attempts are to remove valid, referenced (in many cases from multiple sources) material that can and has been verified. I am willing to concede that some of the language used (my previous account Everton Dasent cannot be accessed due to forgotten password) in my edits might have crossed over from neutral to negative at times and for that reason I am willing to accept this ban. However I would ask that the contributions (or otherwise) of the following editors be reviewed against the context of changes made on the page in question. I would ask that the i.p. addresses of these editors also be compared, along with join date and activity. The users I ask to be reviewed are: Berkinstock Dallas3737 BrearRabbit Slanter Remover Simon Manifold Nimbus880 James1168 I think that a pattern will quickly be established and I look forward to being able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and/or neutral fashion once my ban is removed or expires. Thankyou.

Decline reason:

This is not a request for unblock. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 11:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I'll make it a request to unblock - though I stand by my acceptance as was first offered. "The page in question has attracted vandals over the last two years. Mostly the attempts are to remove valid, referenced (in many cases from multiple sources) material that can and has been verified. I am willing to concede that some of the language used (my previous account User:Everton Dasent cannot be accessed due to forgotten password) in my edits might have crossed over from neutral to negative at times and for that reason I am willing to accept this ban. However I would ask that the contributions (or otherwise) of the following editors be reviewed against the context of changes made on the page in question. I would ask that the i.p. addresses of these editors also be compared, along with join date and activity. The users I ask to be reviewed are: User:Berkinstock User:Dallas3737 User:BrearRabbit User:Slanter Remover User:Simon Manifold User:Nimbus880 User:James1168 I believe these usernames are Sock puppets and/or Meat puppets. I think that a pattern will quickly be established and I look forward to being able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and/or neutral fashion once my ban is removed or expires. Thankyou."

Decline reason:

Blaming others for the disruption you have caused is not going to get you anywhere. That being said, feel free to request a sockpuppet investigation after your block expires. Anymore abuse of this talk page will lead to your talk page access to be revoked for the remainder of the block. Regards, –MuZemike 12:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Peter Holmes à Court

Please discuss on the article's talk page - that's what it's for. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Everton Dasent. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.