User talk:MikeFromCanmore

Your recent edits[edit]

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lesbian sexual practices. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Your current editing and harassment of an editor is quickly showing you are here to push a particular point of view. If you are not able to contribute in a civil and neutral fashion, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continuing to edit war, removing sourcing to push a POV and other issues after being warned multiple times.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to an indefinite period of time since you decided socking was a good idea. See block log for details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:26, 10 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Was attempting to remove a claim that was set in the intro when it shouldn't be; The study's findings were already placed in an article section, and was also trying to remove bias of LGBT couples over hetero ones, provided recent study (2009), proxy ip 220.225.2.xxx and I engaged in edit war and I was blocked. Created another account to remove the bias, blocked for sock puppeting (even though I didn't pretend to be someone else), and ever since then I've been trying to fix the articles but they would not have it, partly because it goes against 220.225.2.xxx's personal agenda. Would like another chance at wikipedia, to edit constructively without having it reverted out of spite or other editor's personal agenda. I started utilizing the talk pages to explain why there is bias. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've addressed block evasion here, but you need to address edit warring, which is the original problem. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:29, 12 December 2012 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) You claimed to be a different user on at least one occasion.[1] Deceit in an unblock request won't get you very far. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here too. That one's a lie of commission, too. Incidentally, I didn't notice this. Sigh. Such a great reference. The Gregory Brothers would be ashamed of you, Mike. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I was referring to times when I made it obvious who it was and was banned for the sockpuppet aspect just as much. Sorry for not making that clear.

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay. About the edit warring.. I firmly believed my edits were for the benefit of the article (removing bias, taking out redundancies, taking out under-sourced claims), and when others revert without a good reason, even when I provide sources, it's pretty difficult to let it go. As stated, I had started taking proposed changes to talk page and asking the wikiproject groups for their opinion. I think this is the right way to go in a dispute to gain a consensus, and since it is what I had done, it shows that my original ways have changed and I will no longer edit war. You can trust that's what I'll continue to do in a dispute, post in talk and ask for outside opinion. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Deceit.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 13 December 2012 (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.

Several of us have already blocked a half dozen of your socks in the last 24 hours. I don't see this happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it still socks if you don't claim to be someone else? And hey, it was all out of good intentions. Not once did I do something to be disruptive MikeFromCanmore (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you may sincerely think that you did nothing disruptive, it's not the case: you edit-warred and socked. And now you're pretty close to the point of no return. This unblock request is not convincing. To put it bluntly, it lies: your socks are still following your original ways of disruption. We must be sure that unblocking you would be for the good of Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I said I didn't do anything to be disruptive, meaning it wasn't my intention. However, the disruption was a result. And yes, I undid reverts on that account by the ip 220.225.2.xxx, because I didn't feel it was up to her to delete my notes on talk pages, I felt it was an admin's job and she was playing a role that was not hers. That user has a vendetta on me because after our edit war, I proved her wrong with evidence which she denies, and ever since then has been repeatedly harassing me. If someone could get her to stop harassing me because I provided results and she didn't, I would appreciate it. A prior admin had told me to take it to talk, so I felt it was okay for me to do so, hence undoing the revert. Unblocking me is good for wikipedia because I try to improve articles that show bias, etc.. If I'm unblocked it will be shown very clearly. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I should have known who this was. Alison has tagged the user page. Mike, you aren't getting unblocked. You have dozens and dozens of socks around here, and assuming User:Flyer22 is your "sister", you just screwed her so bad that I can't fix it even if I wanted to. There is no unblock that can or will happen. As such, I'm revoking talk page access to stop this trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of your BASC appeal[edit]

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) has considered your appeal, and declines to unblock you at this time. You may submit another appeal in six months (that is, after 23 June 2013). Your next appeal may be either to the BASC (again) or to the community (using the Wikipedia:Standard offer). Your appeal would be declined if you edit Wikipedia at any stage in the next six months. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK [•] 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]