User talk:LarryTheShark

April 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Fluoridation by country. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Larry, you were blocked by Bbb23 for edit-warring at Fluoridation by country, and you now appear to be back at Water fluoridation attempting to get your changes in to this featured article by revert instead of by consensus-building. This is another warning against edit warring, if you continue down this path all that will happen is you will be blocked again, for longer. Zad68 12:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing controversial subjects

Hi Larry, just wanted to leave a note about a more constructive way to approach these things. Best to discuss edits to such articles on the talk page before the article, then others can comment and improve on your wording. This is a much more effective approach if you find all your edits being reverted. Regards, Lesion 10:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not sure why i have been blocked. i have been blocked with "no expiry set". i did not violate three-revert rule today. i got 1 message today warning me not to revert again if i don't want to get blocked for longer. which i obliged. and since then I have been engaged in discussions in the talk page of Water fluoridation article, when suddenly i got a block notice

Decline reason:

Were I in your situation I would have avoided making any major edits to the article, much less that, even if sourced, seem to be determined to introduce a point of view. But you did that this morning (well, morning my time anyway) and then reverted the revert. While I admit you did go to the talk page for a while afterwards, your edits, in particular the last one before the block, strongly suggest that you had your mind made up and were bound and determined to make the article reflect that. So I don't blame the admin for looking at this and thinking, oh no, here we go again (Well, him anyway ... for you I very much doubt that there will be any more "again"). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (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.

• Daniel Case, Kww: overly harsh imo. Editor has made 2 reverts today and then was starting to use the talk page. At least one of their edits (the only one that has been discussed so far) will probably go into the article. Note that they did not revert the current article version. Lesion 16:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, take it up with him then. As I said, his talk page comments do not come across as someone willing to be collegial and collaborative (though to be fair once the revert warring stopped I wouldn't have blocked). Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

, I'm not being blocked for 'forcing my view in the article' i'm being blocked because of my well reasoned views on the talk page, especially when i'm challenging what the article is depicting as consensus when my high quality references show the opposite on certain subjects within the article. this block is preventing me even to make a case for the changes on the talk page. this cannot be depicted other than censorship. I'm especially alarmed by your Precrime policy. i got a warning today, and when i got the warning i complied.LarryTheShark (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)