Anonymous IP editors

Hi Sempi. On the subject of anonymous IPs editing, it is a very complicated subject! IP addresses can be banned, but usually aren't as different people can share an IP. So if you ban one person, you might actually be banning several, including innocent parties. To be honest I'm not an expert on the subject, have a read at Wikipedia:Blocking policy if you're looking a fuller explanation.

I tried clicking on the links you added and my work server denied access. So I'm assuming people with parental controls couldn't access them either. Regarding the other person who removed my link to youtube, this seems to be a new policy and one I don't fully understand. But what I think the reasoning is that videos uploaded to youtube may be copyrighted and youtube provides no information as to whether they are copyrighted or not. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, both in our own articles and external links provided in articles. So linking to any of the fight videos is going to be difficult I think. Maybe inserting some text in the article stating that "the videos are available widely on the internet, on sites such as youtube and sublimedirectory" is best. I hope you're not put off editing. There are a lot of things about Wikipedia that annoy me too, mostly around copyrights too actually. More specifically around uploading images, which is a total minefield!

By the way, I added your signature in. If you end your talk page comments with four "tides" ( the ~ symbol it adds your username. It helps people to know who's saying what! Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you stay. I'll post this on your talk page as well. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your most recent revert was here. I know you already know about this incident — and that you believed you were reverting vandalism and were therefore exempt from 3RR (a claim which would probably not be accepted if push came to shove) — but I'm putting an official warning here on your talk page so that no one can validly argue that you were not properly notified of the issue. Please continue any needed discussion of this content dispute on the article's talk page, seek to work collaboratively (not confrontationally) with other editors, and give others the benefit of the doubt by assuming good faith. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This remark directed at Weazie appears to have been an uncalled-for personal attack. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I strongly recommend you withdraw it and apologize ASAP — or, if you firmly believe what you said was factually correct, then report your concerns without delay at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (see WP:PNB for a list of possibilities). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned about someone calling someone a vandal rather than the vandalism itself? I will not retract it, because it's not a personal attack. He is literally deleting whole sections of the article from multiple contributors and sources, without discussion or consensus. So, he is a vandal, because he's vandalizing. I've asked him several times to stop now. Why don't you actually try to do something about it rather than wasting your time complaining about my efforts to stop him? You know exactly what is going on because you are watching the article and commenting about my comments. So instead of accusing me of a personal attack for calling him a vandal while he's vandalizing, maybe you could help out! Or maybe you support his vandalism? That's what it appears like when you frivolously spend the time to complain about someone pointing out a vandal, rather than doing anything about the actual vandalism. True colors shining through? Sempi (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're upset at what you see as censorship at Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, but please don't resort to personal attacks and accusations of vandalism. That's not going to help your case. If you feel you're not getting an honest consensus, please file an request for comment so other editors can also offer opinions. If you think something is going on that violates policy here, you'll need to back that up with DIFFs showing the edits in question. In any case, your report at the edit-warring board won't be acted upon, so it's best to just let that go. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Weazie is deleting whole sections of referenced sources from multiple contributors in the article without consensus. Sempi (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you feel is happening, then either please continue the discussion on the talk page and try and gain consensus, or find the diffs and file a report at one of the noticeboards. That's the best way to handle things. Dayewalker (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you try WP:THIRD, or Content-Based-WP:RFC. -- Cirt (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your actions it appears that you're saying it's OK to delete things, ignore most of the discussion and take things out of context, as long as you post some sort of jibber jabber within the discussion? That can't be right. Sempi (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now. This must be what the two previous two commenters were doing by posting here on my page - setting me up to be overlooked by someone passing by. It looks like there is more corruption going on at Wikipedia than I ever realized. All kinds of games being played here. It feels like a waste of time to participate and I'm sure that is the intent of some - mess around with users until they finally give up. What a shame. Sempi (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]