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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

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 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 |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 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 = {{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 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 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}