User talk:Neverborn

Apologies if you feel I am being uncivil, but the same people who disrupt the ProtestWarrior forums are vandalizing its section on Wikipedia - using things as a source that have been debunked and proven unreliable. --Neverborn 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel, but that's not an excuse. There is nothing appropriate to Wikipedia that you can say, which you cannot say without making personal attacks or beign uncivil. Keeping a cool head and commenting on the material, not the submitter, is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia's civility rules. ForbiddenWord 12:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Neverborn. I recently noticed you reverted the addition of that link that has been in the article off-and-on recently. I have a couple of minor issues. I agree that the linked article's tone is inappropriate, and as such that link should not be used, but don't presume to say that there's been a consensus on the matter, because there hasn't. Secondly, the incident does deserve to be detailed in the article, but not by linking to that specific site, which is polemic and inflammatory. Please let me know if you can find a more neutral account of the incident. Thank you, --ForbiddenWord 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey neverborn, just wanted to remind you that the Atlas Shrugged article is still terrible and should be up for deletion. However, I have seen all the people that edit are from outside galt's Gulch and it is very hard to operate in such a place. Remember, Howard Roark was forced to destroy his creation of the Cordlandt Homes because all of the others botched it. I, soon will refuse to edit in Wikipedia because of its nature. The only solution for the Atlas Shrugged article is FULL DELETION. --Friar xion 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but be puzzled over your recent warning of this user. As a concerned Wikipedian, I would like to remind you that content disputes are never vandalism, and it is incorrect to issue a warning to another user because of one. Please avoid edit warring and avoid confrontative actions on Wikipedia. Reach consensus by the use of talk pages. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Just to let you know, it was not me that reverted and protected the page. Let the administrator who protected the page because of the edit war know what changes should be made on Protest Warrior's talk page, and hopefully the administrator will recognize if there is a clear consensus that many of the NBGPWS' edits were vandalism (as was clearly the case, with the Nazi comment.) Thanks again. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a second consideration, you appear to be right. NBGPWS seems to be a partisan account whose actions have been mostly to vandalize his opponents. Feel free to re-add the BV warning if you like. However, and this is the important part, it's important to make clear what it is you're warning him for, as he had a handful of legitimate edits that were reverted because they didn't sit well with some other editors working from a similar POV on the other side, if I recall my inspection of his contributions correctly. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be

You have been blocked for 3RR violation on Protest Warrior for a period of 8 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking you both for 8 hours. Although you were not previously warned, you were aware of the policy. Feel free to come back when the block expires. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:30, 21 August 2006 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Please read

WP:3RR

particularly the intent of the policy, trying to excuse edit warring because you thought 24 hours had elapsed and are new, is a complete non-starter

---

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.

Despite that [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]'s edits are against 3 Wikipedia Policies, I stopped after the 3rd revert, where he clearly did not. I'm unsure why I was warned but NBGPWS, who has now reverted 4 times and had a violation report filed, was not. --Neverborn 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the following diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I did not warn NBGPWS because he has already been warned. He was also blocked for 8 hours. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I didn't even think to go back to last night, as I thought 24 hours would have passed. I only learned of the

Don't take it personally. I'm enforcing a policy here, which is pretty clear about more than 3 reverts. I'm actually entitled to a 24 hour block, but it seemed a little too harsh. A lot of admins have been blocked (either by themself or others) for 3RR, I wouldn't worry. Have a good night. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk page or PW talk page for ANI request for "Exhausting the communities patience"--Tbeatty 06:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page but also wanted to send you an email but you haven't set up your "E-mail this user" function through wikipedia yet. Shame on you! LOL  :-) Lawyer2b 07:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]