User talk:VoteSchiff

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Peter Schiff. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I can fully understand why both were blocked. I appreciate you helping in this situation. You'll notice that all I did was undo the deletions of the text that I had actually contributed, since it was valid for the article. I will try to be more careful, to try a dispute resolution, in the future. I am a Wikipedia novice, so I was not aware of dispute resolutions. After the three reverts, I sought out a way to get help and found the 3 revert rule, which I also didn't know about ahead of time. Ajcreative is trying to keep that sentence off, for business reasons and I think that is not respectable. So, thanks again for intervening!

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=I can fully understand why both were blocked. I appreciate you helping in this situation. You'll notice that all I did was undo the deletions of the text that I had actually contributed, since it was valid for the article. I will try to be more careful, to try a dispute resolution, in the future. I am a Wikipedia novice, so I was not aware of dispute resolutions. After the three reverts, I sought out a way to get help and found the 3 revert rule, which I also didn't know about ahead of time. Ajcreative is trying to keep that sentence off, for business reasons and I think that is not respectable. So, thanks again for intervening! |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=I can fully understand why both were blocked. I appreciate you helping in this situation. You'll notice that all I did was undo the deletions of the text that I had actually contributed, since it was valid for the article. I will try to be more careful, to try a dispute resolution, in the future. I am a Wikipedia novice, so I was not aware of dispute resolutions. After the three reverts, I sought out a way to get help and found the 3 revert rule, which I also didn't know about ahead of time. Ajcreative is trying to keep that sentence off, for business reasons and I think that is not respectable. So, thanks again for intervening! |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=I can fully understand why both were blocked. I appreciate you helping in this situation. You'll notice that all I did was undo the deletions of the text that I had actually contributed, since it was valid for the article. I will try to be more careful, to try a dispute resolution, in the future. I am a Wikipedia novice, so I was not aware of dispute resolutions. After the three reverts, I sought out a way to get help and found the 3 revert rule, which I also didn't know about ahead of time. Ajcreative is trying to keep that sentence off, for business reasons and I think that is not respectable. So, thanks again for intervening! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

VoteSchiff (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you promise not to do any reverts on that article again (i.e. to stop edit warring) until there's a clear consensus I'd feel comfortable unblocking. — Aitias // discussion 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VoteSchiff Reply: Do you consider my original contribution valid? All I want is that the contribution stand, as is. But, yes, of course I will promise not participate in edit warring (ultimately undoing someone else's edit war against me). -- VoteSchiff (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether your original contribution is considered to be valid. The point is that you have to seek consensus for your changes if they are disputed. Do you understand that you must not use reverts to win a content dispute? — Aitias // discussion 04:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VoteSchiff Reply: I agree with your statement and yes, I understand that I must not use reverts in cases of content disputes. This would also apply to Ajacreative, since they were actually reverting the content, to get rid of my contribution. They should have sought consensus instead. I hope that they will understand this as well and not take the first opportunity at another revert.