Welcome...

Hello, Blohme, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you wish to add the recent commentary by Catholic groups in regards to the Golden Compass, but you are doing it wrong. Your phraseology stinks, the citations you're using are unacceptable and the constant reverts are going to get yourself blocked for POV pushing.

First, this stuff belongs on the corporate page of the companies under the controversies section that all of these articles have. Second, you need to state it correctly as there is only a small group of people who are protesting the film, look at the Islamic controversy over product packaging in the Burger King article to phrase it appropriately. Finally you need to find a much better source to cite, as the sites you are using are blatantly POV. I know what you are thinking, but they are. Look for something like the New York Times, USA Today, the Times of London or CNN to cite, as a Catholic News Letter is not acceptable, look at WP:Reliable source for a guide.

This is my help letter to you, the next message I leave will be a Level 4m warning for violating WP:NPOV.

Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jeremy, you're a control freak. You were spamming the undo button just as much as I was, and I think your behavior smells much more like POV pushing than mine (i.e. trying to censor any reference to POV sources with which you disagree). Editorials get cited all the time on this site, so to me I don't think I understand how citing Editorials that may illustrate the viewpoint of certain "fringe" groups like the Catholic Church is so objectionable. Furthermore, the Internet is a big place... saying that I should only referencing the New York Times, USA Today, etc is a load of crap. How about I leave you a level 4 warning for acting like a jerk? IrishTraveller (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Coca-Cola, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reference in - hope that works :)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Burger King advertising. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please find better references, the one you used was incomplete as Burger King is only involved in a tie-in promotion with the Golden Compass in certain regions. Additionally, the resource quoted is heavily biased towards a theological POV and is thus inappropriate for usage.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry but that's a load of crap - the comment was that Burger King is drawing criticism for its advertising association with a controversial film. The reference, as much as you may want to disagree with the source - which actually I disagree with as well - illustrates that the far right is getting pissy about the film and pointing at the advertising partners as part of their agenda push. Another thing, this article was about their advertising - specifically the section on advertising to kids in the United States - you stated in your comments that Burger King wasn't selling Golden Compasses. I'm not sure where you get off talking like that or implying that that's what I said, but both the article and my comment was on their advertising.

Hey there, Blohme, I know your frustrated right now, but could you refactor your second paragraph? Its not very collegial. --Iamunknown 05:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) I've been editing Wiki for a long time as anonymous, mostly from work, but I've never been one to lie down while someone comes firing with both barrels blazing. If the point of Wiki is to exclude any reference to controversy or current events I don't see what the point is, other than to be a want-to-be Encyclopedia Britannica from 5 years ago. Part of the point, IMO, of Wiki is that it is living and breathing. Having information on current events in their context to people/places/things is what Wiki gives, that an old dusty Encyclopedia on the shelf doesn't give...

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Burger King advertising, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. That was an unacceptable comment on the BK Ads talk page. I never insulted you, and you should know better. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Better now? The fact is, at this point you're the one dragging this out. Personally I'd rather call the issue closed. So lets try this one more time: so long... farewell... auf Wiedersehen... good night IrishTraveller (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Burger King advertising, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I have asked you to please stop insulting me and you continue to be abusive. I am forced to make an ANI for your censure. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jeremy, when was the last time you contributed anything to this site other than spamming the Undo button and getting in arguments with people? Saying that you acted like a jerk to me is a fact, but I can understand why most would see it as a statement of opinion. Also by describing your actions I'm not sure how that constitutes an abusive personal attack. I believe you acted in a condescending and overbearing manner (i.e. jerkish), and to me that was the reason why all this hubub went down. If you want to call the whole issue closed then I suggest just removing the whole section on the discussion page, but stop trying to get the last word by spamming Undo. IrishTraveller (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your username has been brought to my attention and I am considering blocking it as offensive. If you had not made any contributions under this username, it most definitely would have been blocked. However, I would like to give you the opportunity to request a username change. Please let me know of your decision. Thanks. Useight (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the heck this whole talk thing works but if you don't like the user name I'd be happy to change it. How does Chakra sound? Is it taken?

Hi, Blohme! It appears Chakra wouldn't work - it already has some edits. (See Special:Contributions/Chakra.) Regarding your username - isn't Blohme a common surname? (I Googled it and some came up. :) If so, I would suggest that you do not need to change usernames - but that is just me. Thanks for editing! --Iamunknown 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm - trying to brainstorm a new name... how about IrishTraveller?

Looking at that username - Special:Contributions/IrishTraveler) - I think its okay! Go to Wikipedia:Changing username, then after you've read some stuff and are ready, follow , replace "CURRENT" with "Blohme", "NEW" with "IrishTraveller" and "Reason for requested renaming." with your reason! Feel free to ask her if you have any questions.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias - request has been posted :)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Burger King advertising. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think they're being ridiculous about the whole affair. Documenting current events is part of the point of Wiki, and I'm not sure how documenting the existence of brewing controversy constitutes a soap box. Furthermore, the sources cited - which I disagree with BTW - do, in my opinion, constitute reliable sources in the context they were used in (namely to document far right wingers pointing fingers at companies related to a controversial film, potentially in a run-up to future protests and/or boycotts). It seems like certain people here want to censor any mention of controversy. I don't get it... and I was actually wondering what the process was when there's a, for lack of a better word, pissing contest like this going on. Blohme (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... sorry to see that you're in a conflict over the Burger King article. I know this sucks, but I'm going to suggest something - if the content is removed again, do not re-add it. I actually tend to agree with you regarding the appropriateness of the content, but others apparently do not, and your account may be blocked due to the enforcement of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (I recommend you read that page). Basically, it is (generally) a hard-and-fast rule to prevent Wikipedia:Edit wars from brewing.

If you want some tips to avoid stress, I suggest reading WP:COOL - a great read.  :) I hope you like this advice - if not, feel free to disregard it. I feel that I should note that I am afraid that your account may be blocked (temporarily), and do not want that to happen. So I hope that this helps! Wikipedia can be rough at first. Just take it slowly.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what happens happens... I hope I can actually elicit a constructive conversation on the issue in the discussion page. Thanks for the links :) Blohme (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are aware, someone started a thread at the administrators' noticeboard regarding you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Golden Compass controversies. Note that you or anyone - not just administrators - can post there. --Iamunknown 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for the info! IrishTraveller (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts with your actual username and not a username that doesn't exist. It's misleading the way you are currently signing.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Isotope, as of IrishTraveller's last contribution, his username was "Blohme". It was renamed less than an hour after his last contribution --Iamunknown 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken... sorry, I missed that.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the confusion, after I registered someone asked me to change it - it just took a while for the request to go through. IrishTraveller (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Coca-Cola. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Talk:Burger King advertising constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I hope you have a wonderful holiday season, and a great rest of 2008! Cheers, Iamunknown 09:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]