User talk:76.118.130.14

Hello 76.118.130.14 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have not already created an account here, note that you do not have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial • How to edit a page • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Manual of Style • Be bold in editing • How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources • Neutral Point of View • Point of View • Verifiability • Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page • Where to ask a question • Help Desk • Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette • Civility • Sign your posts • Wikipedians • Conflict resolution • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is customary to reply on your talk page, as I have it on my watch list, so I have moved it back here.

I really didn't appriciate the commentary that follows:

"I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)"

You ALLOWED to edit the Wikipedia. Telling me I will be blocked simply for editing because you don't care for the content is not appropriate. Admins are not supposed to make threats of this nature. If I break the rules, then block me, until then, stop the threats. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not making a threat and I was not speaking as an admin. I was simply telling you how the place works. I think you added that sentence more than once and it was removed. This will continue, because the conclusion is not supported by a source. It is not that I do not like it. It is that it is against policy. Any editor who continues to edit war faces the fact that they will be blocked. It has been clear for several years that changes to that section only happen after extensive discussion on the articles talk page. I actually hope that you learn to work in a cooperative way and help us expend articles on Scouting topics.--Bduke (Discussion) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Moosehadley (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Far too many reverts in less than two hours. I will block you. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

User:Bduke is involved in the editing process concerning that page...blocking here by him is against wiki rules and standards.

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= User:Bduke is involved in the editing process concerning that page...blocking here by him is against wiki rules and standards. |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= User:Bduke is involved in the editing process concerning that page...blocking here by him is against wiki rules and standards. |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= User:Bduke is involved in the editing process concerning that page...blocking here by him is against wiki rules and standards. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

• You were blatantly edit-warring against a number of other editors to add your own unsourced personal opinion to Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, going way over the WP:3RR limit in the process. Reverting blatantly disruptive actions and then blocking to prevent further disruption is permitted by WP:INVOLVED, which says "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, you fail to assume good faith, but i see how this is going to go. Best of luck.

Vandalism is not editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.130.14 (talk • contribs)

I am going to be off-wiki for several hours, so I will only comment briefly. I was not involved in a content dispute with this user. He mistakenly says in an edit comment and on my user page that I reverted him earlier. I did not. I merely warned him that his edit would have to be discussed on the talk page and it would be reverted. It was reverted by several editors not just one, My revert before blocking him was simply to stop an editor who had made 5 identical reverts in less than 2 hours or so. I have blocked him for 24 hours merely to stop this edit war and hope he will bring the issue to the talk page, when the block expires. I leave it other admins to see what they think. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he is VERY involved and has made a number of edits to this section of the article...he also made specific threats to block me for editing. User Bduke has abused his admin priveldiges. I asked for talk page, Bduke gave no warning before blocking, this is a clear violation.

"you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted." - Bduke