User talk:Jimmy McDaniels

Welcome

Hello, Jimmy McDaniels, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ~ Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 should 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) 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

Hello, I assume you were the IP editor? Please post all article related discussion on the article talk page, not my user talk page. I'm watching the article, so there's no need to duplicate your posts. Yworo (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will do. sorry about that.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for clear block evasion. You are plainly the same editor as was editing from 76.246.156.86, which has an active block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 11:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block was lifted after I had registered for an account as requested. There wasn't any block evasion on my part at all. Look into it and you will see.

I have not evaded anything and not sure why I am being blocked. I signed up for an account as asked and started editing without doing anything nefarious.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I said that you should request unblocking of your IP before creating an account. You didn't do that. As long as your IP is still blocked, you as an individual are not allowed to edit, even if you were somehow able to create an account. That's called block evasion and lengthens your block. Yworo (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the misunderstanding. If you are blocked on any IP address and account, you need to either sit out the block or appeal it successfully before you edit again. I will unblock this account tomorrow, when the original block on your IP address would have expired. Fences&Windows 23:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. You are free to edit, but please don't resume any edit warring. Fences&Windows 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good idea

As I have found, the best thing to do is to allow your article to float free in the wind, attempting to write it yourself is a pointless worthless disruptive idea, just allow wikipedia policies and guidelines protect it and forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say say it. If you have some proof of something prove it. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it. I don't need to prove anything, your edit history is proof that whoever you are you have a disruptive conflict of interest in this article, we really need to stop your disruption and stop you editing it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the powers that be then. Right now, I am editing and adding material in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)and if you have an issue with it discuss it.[reply]

We are the powers that be, experienced editors and contributors. You are adding poor quality promotional and conflict of interest type content in a way that is totally disruptive to the article about a living person. You are straight off a block and back at it, yawn, do you think this is going to end in your desired outcome? Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the powers that be have an inherent bias and lack neutrality as demonstrated by the tag on the page. How is what I am adding any different than what you are adding except it's the opposite of negative? That's hardly promotional particularly when other articles here have similar content. Right now, you're threatening me and I am not doing anything but adding material to improve this article as the tags at the top of the page says. If you have specific objections take it to the talk page just like everyone else is supposed to do

I am not threatening you, it is your editing that is threatening your continued contributions here. I am telling you what you are doing and what I think the outcome will be. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread your comments here. I see nothing that you are telling me that is helpful or constructive. Instead, you are threatening to have me blocked or block me and making blanket statements about the editing I am doing. This is open source and everyone is entitled to come in and edit and I am simply adding material that improves the article. As I said, it is my opinion that you and the experienced editors who have worked on this story are inherently biased and the tags at the top of the story underscore that. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments suggesting you stop editing the article because you are over involved and have a conflict of interest are the helpful bits, I have seen such as this occur multiple times in wikipedia and all the previous cases ended the same way, in the long time restriction of the disruptive editor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am not doing anything damaging to this article so please stop. If I doing anything disruptive in the present tense I am sure you will let me know. And the tag says "may" have a conflict of interest. Not does. So please refrain from making definitive accusations for which you have no evidence. I've seen people edit articles by others on here with the same passion yet they apparently do not have a conflict of interest. Right now, I am working to improve this article. That's allJimmy McDaniels (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Like everyone else, including me, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it there"

When you make a comment like this, please start the conversation on the talk page. Please see our BRD cycle. When your edit has been reverted, especially when it has been reverted twice, it is your responsibility to initiate the discussion on the talk page. Insisting via edit comments that the other editor has to do it is considered rude. When you're the one adding the material; you are the one who starts the discussion. Yworo (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would stop picking on me. As I said, I am simply trying to improve this article. Now you're policing me about what qualifies as "rudeness"? Really? The reverting of the edit was unwarranted. The editor who reverted it said the cite was made by a "nobody." I corrected it and provided the link to wikipedia that the person who made the cite was actually a "somebody." Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link: BRD cycle. I'm not picking on you, you simply are failing to follow our policies, despite having them pointed out to you. Yworo (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and it looks like you're not following it. It's actually unbelievable. You don't have to like me but please stop accusing me of doing things I haven't done. I am improving this article or at least trying to. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted both on the article talk page and on your talk page. You are not discussing. You are edit warring. That's not an accusation, that's a fact. Yworo (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz

You have to source the fact that Kurtz was referred to in Off the Record. Otherwise you cannot include it. It's irrelevant whether Kurtz was referred to in News Junkie. Yworo (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you've broken the three-revert rule. You've put the uncited data about Kurtz back in twice, and you've put back the info about Jill Stewart twice. That's four reverts in 24 hours. Revert anything again or put back anything you've put in before that another editor has taken out, and I'll have to report you for edit warring. Please read our policy on edit warring thoroughly. Partial reverts count as reverts, and the four reverts do not have to involve the same material, only the same article. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz says so in the article.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article three times. He doesn't say anything of the sort. Yworo (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP threatening me and stop taking out legitimate and appropriate material that is placed in accordance with wikipedia policies and rules. I reverted it based on statements that Jill Stewart was a "nobody." I then included the wikipedia entry link to show she was a somebody. I fixed the broken link that you removed. I am going to do you one better. I am going to report you for harassment. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. But read WP:BOOMARANG first. I've not done anything wrong. You keep putting in unsourced material, repeatedly. The three-revert rule doesn't take into account the reasons for your reverts at all. It's a simple numeric limit. Yworo (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have engaged in edit warring. And you have reverted my entries more than three times. And you have threatened and harassed me. So yes, I will be reporting you because you seem to be very angry and dislike the fact that someone is trying to improve this articleJimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You keep putting in unsourced material..." That is a flat out lie! I have linked to everything I put in. I did not link to the Kurtz assertion because it is already in the story. Stop making things up. And stop harassing meJimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted you more than 3 times in 24 hours. The Jill Stewart material was reverted by other editors. You've reverted four or maybe five times in the last 24 hours. And you are completely ignoring the fact that Kurtz doesn't say anything about being mentioned in Off the Record. In fact, he doesn't even say he read it, only that he read a press release and possibly other promotional materials. Please quote the portion of the article you are referring to. Nowhere does Kurtz make any mention of being referred to by Leopold. Yworo (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage with you anymore because of your constant harassing. I would like a neutral party to deal with this. The edit history shows you have reverted my additions more than three times in 24 hours. Stop harassing me, please. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't supply a quote showing that the article says something you claim it says. What a joke. Clearly you know full well it's not supported by your citation and you are just trying to game the system. Consider yourself reported for breaking 3RR. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You have just hit four times where you reverted my work. Most recently a minute ago and this below. If you have an issue with Kurtz you can include "citation needed" but you decided to remove it. The "look inside" feature on amazon.com shows Kurtz was criticized and I have been working to find other material to support that as well. Now it is you who are engaging in edit warring. And you have refused to stop. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 07:13, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,079 bytes) (→California Energy Crisis: neither link in this "reference" works, remove) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 07:05, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,581 bytes) (→Career: quote the report rather than inaccurately summarize it) (undo) [automatically accepted]
(cur | prev) 06:49, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,383 bytes) (→Career: this bit is unsourced) (undo) [automatically accepted]

Number 2 is not a revert. It's an addition.

Also, an unbroken series of edits counts as one edit. Read the policy. Yworo (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the quotation from the Kurtz article that supports your addition. Where? Yworo (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that makes three instead of four in the course of 24 hours. Yet when I fixed the link you accused me of putting material back in that was removed. I simply fixed the link. And that counts as OK too.

I have reported you already based on the fact that you've been harassing me and threatening me and engaging in edit warring and not following your own advice. You're too emotionally involved in this article and should not be editing it. I'm happy to be removed from editing it as long as you are as well. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your behavior here underscores your emotional involvement. You appear to be becoming unhinged. As I said, I looked at "look inside" on Amazon.com and saw the Kurtz criticism (which anyone can do) and now am working to find a good source that discusses that. And Off the Record is listed on Amazon too. So don't you dare accuse me of trying to game the system. You really should take a deep breath. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that. Show me the diff. You said Kurtz admitted it in his own article. He didn't. And the book News Junkie was published after the Kurtz article, so it's irrelevant as an implied reason for Kurtz's criticism. If anything, it's retaliation by Leopold. So go tell it to the judge. Your number of reverts in the past 24 hours is actually 6. Yworo (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have told it to the judge. And again, Kurtz's article came out before Leopold's book was published so how can it be retaliation? That doesn't add up genius. And my reverts were all warranted, with the debatable exception for one.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have threatened and harassed me more than a dozen times and I've found the wikipedia policy on that. You're way out of line in doing so. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now why did you self revert if you're so self righteous in your belief?

(cur | prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo) [automatically accepted]Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the kindness of my heart. You are welcome to self-revert your last 3 reversions, you know. I find it strange that you ran to the very admin who unblocked you with a warning not to edit war.

In any case, pointing out policy violations does not count as either a threat or harassment. I took the time to personalize the content of the warnings rather than use a template, such as the following:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Leopold. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I "ran" to that editor because I want that editor to see that I was not engaging in an edit war. I'd like his or her take on it and considering that you have been engaged in edit wars in the past I feel that this editor may best judge the issue from a non biased point of view. If that editor, who appears to be highly trustworthy, feels that I have violated rules than so be it. However, my reverts and additions, which can be seen on the page history, does not constitute an edit war. I added material to this article. You removed material instead of providing a "citation needed." I added the California energy crisis material, which one person removed using the reason "not notable." I then included a link to that person, Jill Stewart, who is in fact noteworthy. I added the material from the congressional record. You removed it because of a broken link. I readded it with a corrected link. I added material to the "citiation needed" for City News Service. I added context to the career section, which you failed to do. I find it amazing that each of your edits to this article has been to make the subject look worse. As I said, it appears you are emotional. That's an opinion, not a fact, unlike the charges you leveled against me. And I'd like Fences&Windows to evaluate. I have been closely following the rules and policies. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And pointing out policy violations is just a small piece of what you did. You accused me of policy violations and then you rendered judgment as well. You can't be the judge and jury. Moreover, you threatened me repeatedly with blocking and you harassed me by accusing me of being the person in the article I am editing. That's harassment and intimidation and is a major violation of wikipedia's policies. And you continue to do that to me. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually reading the complete policy pages. Warning and reporting policy violations is not considered harassment. And I am incapable of rendering judgment, all I can and did do is report. You were judged to be edit warring, though not to have broken 3RR, which I disagree with as you clearly did, and the article was protected. Yworo (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit summary, you said, "Readers deserve to know that." No they don't. It's entirely irrelevant, like more than half of this resume.

Stop. PleaseJimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC). I just plowed through about 50 other articles on journalists on here and I see the same exact material. Those would be considered resume too then and yet no one--no one--is over there making editorial changes with the same frequency, passion or negativity as the people editing this article. The folks working on this, every last one of them, are biased and either know the subject of the article or have a personal beef. I have gone deep into Google and found material to balance this out and I have made these editorial changes using the wikipedia as a guide. It's your opinion that it's resume and unless wikipedia changes it's policies across the board you are being selective.[reply]

My user space

You may not edit an incomplete RfC while it is in my user space. When it is completed and filed, you may edit it only in the response section. Yworo (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I await with bated breathJimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, Jason. Yworo (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, Howard Kurtz. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, paranoid much? Yworo (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. But considering you continuously call me Jason Leopold I figured I'd call you Howard Kurtz since you seem to be his number one fan. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him or Jason until some nutcase IP started claiming to be Leopold's lawyer on WP:BLPN. Yworo (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what kind of sicko are you? Calling me a nutcase? You're unhinged! Threats, harassment and name calling. Wow. Wikipedia must be proud. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Thanks for self-identifying with all your previous IP addresses, it helps build my case. This also is a tacit acknowledgment that you claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. Yworo (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really are quite a ball of emotion about this. I hope you get better soon. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a disruptive pest for years, both in print and on Wikipedia. Your Wikipedia career is at an end, just like your journalism career. Yworo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again making threats and unsubstantiated accusations without a shred of evidence. You really ought to see somebody about that. Why are you so emotional? You just can't stop can you? I am who I say I am and I continue to ask you to stop threatening me but you keep going. I too expect that your wikipedia career will be over soon for the threats, accusations, bullying and harassment that you have put me through all dayJimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not emotional, I'm simply following the proper process for documenting atrocious behavior to either force you to follow conflict of interest rules or ban you permanently from Wikipedia. Seems you've had nothing better to do than vandalize Wikipedia well before 2008. Yworo (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you're emotional and once again you're making accusations that is not supported by evidence. It seems that you have nothing better to do. Over the past few days, as I have been editing this page, I have followed every rule. I have now repeated this a dozen times. There is absolutely nothing in what I have added that shows otherwise and once my editing history is looked at, which three editors I communicated with already have, that will be apparent. Meanwhile, you continue to leave threatening statements, harass me, bully me, and accuse me of being someone else. I fully expect your disruptive behavior to be reviewed. You have now become so emotionally involved in this article that there is no way you can continue editing it because of your comments. And I have take that to the judge. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, you've been blocked five times for not breaking rules. Wow! Yworo (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to stay on topic can you? Can't respond to the charges I made against you huh? And you're still into the personal attacks. I ask again, why are you so emotional? Don't you have anything better to do than to engage with me? Like working on your thesis about Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)me? Once again, the changes I have made, which is the subject of this dispute you started today, and which I shared with other editors here at wikipedia, shows I followed the rules and policies and you got angry as a result and made false accusations and assertions, harassed, threatened and bullied and started an edit war. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to or about yourself again? Yworo (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments speaks for itself. And even now, you just can't seem to let go. Go jogging or something Yworo or better yet get a thicker skin and stop hurling threats at me. Quite the defense mechanism you got there pal.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay out of my user space

You may not edit my draft or the draft talk page until it is formally filed. Yworo (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise where that it is stated that I must refrain from doing so. I do not see that. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my user space. You may not edit my user space if I request you not to. For the RfC process, see WP:RFC/U. While it is in my space, it is not finished or filed. Once it is filed and posted, you may respond to it. Meanwhile, you may create a response in your own user space if you wish. Continuing to edit in my user space is harassment. Yworo (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Funny about your claims regarding harassment. Your inability to practice what you preach is striking Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and haven't harassed you. I am working to protect Wikipedia from a long-term disruptive editor, you. Yworo (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have harassed me. You have threatened me. You have bullied me. And other editors believe so to. If that is your way of protecting wikipedia you're not going to get very far. And your comments are evidence of harassment. You seem to have to defend yourself quite a bit from the charges. Not a good sign.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are evidence of my trying to educate you on Wikipedia policy, nothing more. And no other editor supports you any longer, you've burned all your bridges. Yworo (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your comments are harassment. And editors do support me, especially two who have seen your behavior today. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Jimmy McDaniels)

Hello, Jimmy McDaniels. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, where you may want to participate. Yworo (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the RFC went against you. You have no support. Are you going to voluntarily agree not to edit the article, but rather only make suggestions on the article talk page? Yworo (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page and out of my user space buddy. I haven't heard about anything. I've spent the past several days getting others here at wikipedia to make the changes and additions to this article and the articles of other journalists/media people on wikipedia, which I intend to contribute to as well. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then you give me no choice but to request a community ban. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion concerning you (Jimmy McDaniels)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban notification

After a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, the following topic ban was enacted -

User:Jimmy McDaniels is topic-banned from any articles related to Jason Leopold and Truthout, broadly construed. Non-disruptive talkpage discussion is permitted. This restriction includes all edits made while logged into a Wikipedia account or not

This topic ban is indefinite, and may be enforced via blocks at the discretion of attending administrators.

This can be appealed to the community or the ban appeals subcommittee, but I would recommend waiting at least six months before doing so.

If you have any questions, please let me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]