User talk:Frenchman101

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! the panda ₯’ 19:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Nash Grier 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. 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. bonadea [[S[pecial:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] talk 18:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nash_Grier. 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.  Chillum 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The reverts in question are:

Before warning: [1][2][3]

After warning: [4].

There are also more reverts prior to those that were not considered in this block. Chillum 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Given that you were blocked for edit warring over the birth date, is it really such a good idea to remove the birth date again for your first edit after the block expired? —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Already reported for violation immediately after block expiration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, while this edit is in order—I checked the sources and they do report that the video was uploaded in April 2013—it's a revert of a good-faith edit and would count toward the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So, I am not going to be banned again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman101 (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Nash Grier. 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.  Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 26 July 2014 (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).

Frenchman101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I repeal being blocked because I CEASED my edit war today. I have amite I reverted the edit ONCE in the last hour, but It was ONLY ONCE and I will did not do it again. The rule says, the three revert rule, that if you revert and edit more than three times you get blocked for 24 hours. I only REVERTED It ONCE. I did not revert THREE times. I feel this blocking is unjust and I ask you, Shirik (Shirik), to unblock me because the second revert I made was a legitimate revert about a correct date which someone else had incorrectly changed. I promise, as a Wikipedian, to never misuse or abuse the rules of Wikipedia again. I just do NOT want to be blocked. Thank you, Frenchman101 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Hello. I have looked over this block and it is correct. I have spoken with the blocking admin and he agrees 48 hours is suitable and a full week is not needed. 48 hours after the block it will expire and you can edit again. Please avoid edit warring as block length will increase. Chillum 15:19, 27 July 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.

• Check the history of Nash Grier again. You made two reverts today. Do you see that and agree that you did? —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But WHY would TWO reverts get me blocked for a WEEK?? The first one was silly of me, actually, and the SECOND one, YOU, yes, YOU even agreed with me! Remember, I reverted the date back to normal? Can you help back me up on this? I feel me being block is unjust and unfair. The wikipedia rules says you get blocked after THREE reverts NOT TWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman101 (talk • contribs)

Please be careful listing users' names at the end of your messages. It creates the appearance that you're forging another user's signature. Best practice is to add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to generate an automatic signature at the end of your message.

As for the block, what probably did you in was going right back to the same reverts right after a block for edit-warring expired. While 3RR is a bright-line rule that pretty much leads to an automatic block, you can get blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you want to mention a user in a message, you can use the {{u}} template to add a link to their user page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk) I am new at Wikipedia, and I didn't even see the messages of warning until I got blocked. And I really don't understand how to mention you in a message. Can't I just mention you how I did previously? Frenchman101 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with C.Fred ... returning to an article that you just got blocked for edit-warring, and repeating the same or similar edits is considered a continuation of the original edit war, and thus can lead to a block after just one edit the panda ₯’ 20:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frenchman101: The problem with you mentioned me earlier is you never showed my name, just a link to my user talk page. Plus, since it was the last thing in your message and you didn't sign your message, it created the appearance that I had sent the message. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

I am talking with your blocking admin about this block and considering your unblock request. Please be patient, I will get back to you. Chillum 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You block has been adjusted from 1 week to 48 hours. This is done in the hopes that the block is preventative and not punative. You are expected to read and understand our edit warring policy prior to editing. Further edit warring will result in longer blocks. Chillum 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[[User talk:Chillum|, Thank you for talking with the Admin. about me being blocked. I will take this as a warning next time.

When I first broke the rules of reverting edits, I didn't know that was a rule. I haven't read the rules so I am at blame and I cannot give an excuse.

Thank again for reducing my blockage to 48 hours.

Sincerely,

Frenchman101 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier page

Hello, C.Fred (talk).

I am a bit discouraged because of the new date you added on Nash Grier Wikipedia page.

Remember when I gave a SOURCE and YOU or someone else kept taking it out saying, "not a reliable source", well, I would like to see your reliable source please for Nash Grier's birthdate.

Please leave it on MY TALK PAGE. If it's not reliable, I WILL delete. I will not allow someone to keep deleting my sources, but then allow their own just because of their "rank" in Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Frenchman101 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight over what users edit (see WP:NOTRELIABLE); there's no way to know ultimately where the users got their information, so the date isn't verifiable.

While Grier's YouTube video (full citation in the article in a ref tag) is a self-published source, it is acceptable, since it relates to a statement about Grier himself. If there were a Nicki Minaj-type situation where there were conflicting birthdates reported in separate sources, then we'd lean toward what the independent sources reported rather than what the subject self-reported. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk)

I apologie. After messaging you, I looked at the video of Nash and soon relized that is reliable source.

My bad.... And I also found a web article with his birth date too. If only I had found that web article a month ago. Frenchman101 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)