User talk:Bigstroonz

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigstroonz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Astrolatry, you may be blocked from editing. It is evident that you are the holder of the previous 2 IPs associated with editing this article and are engaging in Edit Warring as well as violation of 3RR. Please cease your actions. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Astrolatry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Section blanking because you personally don't agree with something, especially when other editors continue to refute your claims, is disruptive. Also, the edits you are removing are constructive and help to introduce a more neutral article that does not go towards one particular point of view. Wikipedia does not censor and allows this material in the sense of it being informative. Because the information presented follows that standard of being informative without being disruptive, it is not vandalism - as you claim - and thus allowed. Your actions, on the other hand, are not. Immediately cease your disruptive actions or I will have to report you to the ARV. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing, specifically edit warring, POV-pushing and failure to assume good faith. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 6 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I am now adding Bible quotes to justify the Astrolatry section, if you want to have a section that says "Prohibition in Abrahamic religions" then it needs to have a question mark, titled, "Prohibition in Abrahamic religions?" because there are NUMEROUS of bible quotes that I can add that support Astrolatry in the Bible just as there are ones that frown upon it - the Bible is contradiction in itself - and if Wikipedia has a goal to remain neutral then they need to allow us users to help keep it neutral - this evilgohan2 guy is now reverting my edits for no apparent reason - I'm adding verifiable information to support the Astrolatry section now and he continues to revert my changes for no apparent reason.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not deal with the reason you are blocked. You were blocked for disruptive editing, Violation of the 3rr rule and abusing multiple accounts and IP's to make these edits. An unblock request should deal with these issues only, explaining that you understand the reason behind the block, while also convincing the blocking administrator that you will not repeat the same pattern once unblocked. Other editors conduct and actual edits are in this case not interesting. As said before: An unblock request is about you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:10, 6 July 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Astrolatry, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. In particular, exegesis, taking verses and interpreting them for the reader, is frowned upon. Accepted practice is to report the interpretations of notable individuals or groups. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]