User talk:IamVince
February 2013[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Sergio Michel, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - MrX 01:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your latest edit and its accompanying edit summary to the Michel article make no sense. You removed material with a summary that sounded like you thought you were restoring it. You also made it sound like you were reverting another editor's contribution, but you weren't (putting aside the ridiculous assertion of vandalism). I'm restoring what you removed. Please try to edit responsibly here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not agree with the truth at all. It seems the wording is intended to undermine the person's actual position int he organization. It's obvious it's a subtle form of slander. "Sergio Michel is the host/announcer of Celebrity Boxing." is the correct basic statement. He was not 'hired' for a 'cancelled show'. He is the regular/recurring and active host of Celebrity Boxing, starting with his first event in February 2012 starring Michelle Bombshell McGee and has done many up until the proposed date for the 'cancelled' event Drake v Chris Brown. Which was slated for September 22 2012. So, if the guy is part of multiple events in Celebrity Boxing + the media cares enough about his opinion to post it in tabloids, tv, etc. How was he just 'hired' for a 'cancel' event. Basic logic negates the statement. This is clearly vandalism. It's better just to not have it present if not correct, then post a false statement made by the vandals that have harassed this wiki the whole time. Does that make any sense?
Here is independent coverage of the Michelle Bombshell McGee event, his 1st appearance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLGBs6KNbjM shot by a local TV show, he is clearly seen in it. Plus, here's his personal Video Blog covering the same event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SusriRZruCg THEN, here's the same hostess from the same TV show interviewing him on the SAME day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yf8XCu0Q-0 and we already have the Drake vs Chris Brown one, so how is he a 'one time' hire of a 'cancelled' event? No, no, this is clearly a subtle form of vandalism seeking to discredit the person's wiki. What do you guys have against him?
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from Sergio Michel. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. or Mrs. Frog. Please review Talk for entire article. It seems there is a small group of trolls trolling this article hard.
- Removing deletion notices from articles is considered disruptive. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing. Instead, concentrate on arguing against deletion of the article at the AFD discussion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not remove any deletion notice, and if I did accidentally, it is not the intent. Furthermore, clearly this article is under lots of vandalism. I have provided more than adequate proofs and references for the article and has been supported by other editors. You don't think it's suspicious that these seemingly 'random' users keep trying to revert it to an edit that is seeking to demean the person it's about?
- Please stop reverting changes on the Sergio Michel article. Please allow the community to finish discussing whether the page should be deleted. DO NOT remove the deletion tags. 72.188.223.39 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
To add to the above, IAmVince does not appear to understand what constitutes Wikipedia vandalism. Please see the following pages for your information. WP:NOT VANDALISM and WP:VANDAL. Regards 64.134.26.32 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
All of you clearly have not read the Talk on this article. The Statement about him being 'hired' for a cancelled event is a lie and originally posted by a vandal. So, you all are basically undoing the facts and propagating a flat out lie, thus vandals yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamVince (talk • contribs)
- Vince, persisting with your claims that other users are vandals becuase they disagree with you is only going to see your block extended. This is the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia; applying the term to users who do not fit that description is tanatamount to a personal attack, and those are not tolerated here.
You really need to research the facts on this. The edit YOU are supporting was originated by Vandals. It was decided days ago as that is a FACT. Second, if I am right and many disagree with me, that does'nt make me wrong, that just means either you are not paying attention or helping the vandals. Which, anyone with half a brain knows is using multiple aliases to continue trolling this page. You threaten me with a block extension, for what? Posting the facts? Do you honestly believe that any falsehoods you propagate on Wikipedia in malicious intent actually change the facts of the person, place or thing you are talking about? My question is, why do you continue to revert to an erroneous version which was started by vandals? The group of you keep doing this have no integrity. Why are you on this persons junk so hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamVince (talk • contribs)
IamVince, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi IamVince! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Your recent editing history at Sergio Michel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, calling those with whom you disagree with vandals isn't acceptable. Please stop edit-warring, and please reconsider your interactions with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- And don't remove the AfD notice. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
IamVince (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I reverted to a correct version of the article with more than adequate proof. The line about Celebrity Boxing you all keep reverting to is a actually a flat out lie made initially by vandals. Again, I have to wonder why all of you are hell bent on diminishing the person in this article. That's the only reason i continue trying to fix it. I dislike people trying to discredit others, especially on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a true representation of people places and things, not a place for begrudged fans to attack someone.
Decline reason:
It wasn't vandalism. The other editors may have been wrong, but they were editing as they thought was right at the time, which means it wasn't vandalism. See Wikipedia's definition of vandalism; only edits that are deliberately malicious attempts to damage the encyclopedia are considered vandalism, and I don't see any reason to assume these edits were malicious. On Wikipedia, we give people the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the point is that, even if you were right, you were still edit-warring, which is a bad thing. If you're in a dispute with other editors, you need to find a way to resolve it without continually reverting to your preferred version; the first step is talking about it on the article's talk page, and the next steps are opening a case at one of the various dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia. Edit-warring doesn't solve anything. I'm sorry that you think people are out to get Sergio Michel, but I'm quite sure that that's not the case, and you need to be patient and talk with people to try to resolve the issues with the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
IamVince (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Unblock me, I did nothing wrong.
Decline reason:
No further reason given other than those discussed and declined above. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
Edit Warring[edit]
IAmVince, please refrain from undoing edits and edit warring. You were just blocked for doing the very same thing. Please discuss in Talk page in order to discuss what should stay in the article. The summary field of your edits is not the area for page discussions 166.147.120.157 (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)