User talk:LegalTrivia

Welcome!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, LegalTrivia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

February 2016

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Assassination of John F. Kennedy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 23:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Dr. K. 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: unblock.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here The block is unjustified and, frankly, ridiculous. I added material relating to the findings and conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. That is a major public document and was my source. A malicious user with the username Dr. K kept deleting the findings and conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, patent misconduct; I was wrongly blocked, but the malicious user who kept deleting the indisputable facts was not; If I was allegedly engaged in "edit-warring," so was Dr. K--the difference is that I was in the right and he/she was not.

Dr. K also asserted that I provided "fake citations;" that is utterly and demonstrably false, as the evidence of my edits shows. I should be unblocked and "Dr.K", the malicious, lying user, should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia.

The editor/administrator of Wikipedia who placed the block on me acted on false information from Dr. K.

This is a copy of the email I have sent to Wikipedia: Joseph Sheehan <imprison.bush@yahoo.com>

To info-en-v@wikimedia.org Today at 4:10 PM

The malicious user Dr. K wrongfully deleted quotations from the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations from the Wikipedia page on John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

I had added these public record quotations under my user name, LegalTrivia.

User Dr. K's repeated deletion of these major public record quotations was patent vandalism at its worst.

The malicious user Dr. K also falsely reported to Wikipedia that I had added "faked citations." That assertion is totally false, as my edits to the page relied on the Report of the House Committee on Assassinations as my source and contained no other citations.

Relying on the perjured report of the malicious user Dr. K, an editor/administrator of Wikipedia temporarily blocked me from editing Wikipedia articles, despite the many outstanding and unquestioned contributions I have made in the past.

The block on me should be lifted.

The malicious user Dr. K should be blocked.

My valuable additions to the article should be restored.

Thank you.

Decline reason:

See WP:GAB for how to make a convincing unblock request. Blaming others is not usually successful. As you have broken the edit warring policy we need to be assured you will follow it in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2016 (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.

You were blocked for edit-warring to include lengthy verbatim unattributed extracts from the HSCA report. You may not copy-paste extracts from anything into Wikipedia without appropriate attribution, and you may certainly not edit-war to do it. Long quotes, attributed or not, are strongly discouraged. Please stop attacking other editors for appropriately expressing their concerns over your editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply