User talk:SpruceyWind

Unwarranted threats and false accusations are not welcome.

If you are unable to use reasoning, knowledge, and accurately used sources to argue against my edits, please remain silent. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, disputed content needs a source. You cite none. I suggest you find a source, and then discuss this on the relevant talk page(s), before you find yourself blocked for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it is also Wikipedia policy to ensure that the sources used actually back up the claims being made. My edits do not add any new claims/content, but merely more accurately reflect the sources that other editors have inserted. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your recent editing history at Hindu astrology 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. JaggedHamster (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 27 February 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Multiple sources that proclaim Western Astrology to be a pseudoscience, based on reviews of methods used in Western Astrology, have been used to proclaim other traditions of astrology as pseudosciences. Other astrological traditions such as Hindu astrology use entirely different methods of prediction from Western astrology, and a test of Western astrology is therefore not the same as a test of other kinds of astrology. For instance, Hindu astrology (sidereal zodiac) does not even use the same zodiac as Western astrology (tropical zodiac). Correcting incorrect usage of sources upholds Wikipedia's purpose. The users reverting my edits do not uphold it.SpruceyWind (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for the block: edit warring. Please read WP:GAB. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2023 (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'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).

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

---

Request reason:

it is very saddening to learn that Wikipedia will block users whose edits improve the accuracy of Wikipedia pages without recognising the bullying and silencing tactics employed by users who push their agenda without any regard for intellectual honesty. I would like to be unblocked so that I can resume talk page discussions with other users, NOT to continue "edit warring". SpruceyWind (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request gives me very little confidence that you will refrain from edit warring once the block expires or that you will respect the result of any discussion, so I see no reason to remove the block early. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2023 (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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SpruceyWind reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: ). Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)