User talk:Steve88~enwiki

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Aldux 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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).

Steve88~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user Aldux disaproves of adding to the article Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and therefore blocked me. User Akhileus supported the edit and so do I as it clearly improves the article. The following policy WP:IGNORE states that if rules get in the way of improving an article then you ignore them. Aldux never gave the edit a chance. He never explained himself. I explained so on the talk page and user Akhileus approved. Aldux never argued his point, therefore the edit should stay and I should be unblocked. Thank you.

Decline reason:

The WP:3RR policy applies to everyone and you broke the rules despite being warned. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:06, 22 September 2006 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Steve88~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was an agreement on the talk page to include that into the article. Thereforr the rule does not apply to me in this case. Aldux did not argue his point when agreement had been made to include that into the article.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There was an agreement on the talk page to include that into the article. Thereforr the rule does not apply to me in this case. Aldux did not argue his point when agreement had been made to include that into the article. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There was an agreement on the talk page to include that into the article. Thereforr the rule does not apply to me in this case. Aldux did not argue his point when agreement had been made to include that into the article. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There was an agreement on the talk page to include that into the article. Thereforr the rule does not apply to me in this case. Aldux did not argue his point when agreement had been made to include that into the article. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I just posted over myspace groups urging people to edit on the article. Check this out.

[1]

[2]