User talk:Resaltador

Resaltador the highlighter

Re: Stalking

Recently you claimed that Arzel was stalking you. I believe I have raised this issue with the community before. Do you have evidence? Did he follow you to a group of pages? Do you know how to provide diffs? If you do, and the evidence is good, I can help you raise this issue with the wider community. I believe Arzel is already walking a fine line due to current arbitration restrictions, so any other breaches would be seen as problematic. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

S. Truett Cathy

"Editing now is done in violation on personal NPOV issues": I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on S. Truett Cathy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Contrary to what you claim, there is no agreement on the talk page about this wording. You've reverted three times and are clearly edit warring. Continue and you will be blocked. In the meantime, I will revert you, since a. the wording is not great and b. you appear to be editing against three other editors. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for obvious block evasion. 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.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hi; How am I block evading, let alone obvious? I am not sure what you mean by that as I am or was not blocked? Resaltador (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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=Hi; How am I block evading, let alone obvious? I am not sure what you mean by that as I am or was not blocked? [[User:Resaltador|Resaltador]] ([[User talk:Resaltador#top|talk]]) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |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=Hi; How am I block evading, let alone obvious? I am not sure what you mean by that as I am or was not blocked? [[User:Resaltador|Resaltador]] ([[User talk:Resaltador#top|talk]]) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |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=Hi; How am I block evading, let alone obvious? I am not sure what you mean by that as I am or was not blocked? [[User:Resaltador|Resaltador]] ([[User talk:Resaltador#top|talk]]) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

• Ponyo, is this the IP that Dennis Brown blocked for two weeks? I thought as much, but wasn't sure. Strike that--I see you put the link in here; I assume that the block was prompted by the battleground behavior on the same article in the same style of English. Resaltador, sheesh. You're going to have to do better than that. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's an unrelated IP who just happens to share the same poor grammar, battleground behaviour and have the same interest in S. Truett Cathy and...Toyotas.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• The template language can be ambiguous. You were blocked. In the interim can you please try to understand that consensus was not reached, and try to contribute in good faith when you return to editing. Just because someone (even me in another circumstance) says consensus has been reached on any one topic, that doesn't mean it has been. Especially if debate has been squelched. By the way I have no interest in Toyotas; I don't even have a drivers license. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• • What are you talking about Toyota? The only thing I edited about Toyota is from a Reddit thread asking about if Topgear is a valid review so I edited 1 article from that discussion. Really this is because someone did not like that I stood up that Topgear is a valid review of cars??? Well it is, if not many car companies would not send their cars there and Telsa would not threaten to sue over its review. Resaltador (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out whether you are being deliberatively obtuse or if you are genuinely confused so I'll clarify. Once. You are blocked from editing for the edits you made via your IP yesterday. You cannot edit from any IP or your account while blocked as it is disallowed by policy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)