User talk:Borntodeal

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Kathy Ireland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalize the page. Kindly take the matter to dispute resolution or the Talk page. Borntodeal (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Borntodeal reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editing dispute has become harassment as defined by Wikipedia since you are engaging in the use of multiple accounts and it's become oppressive and mean-spirited. I'm asking you to step away from deleting and engage in a meaningful discussion or formal resolution mediation.

Borntodeal (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think User:NeilN is using multiple accounts? Your behavior is getting attention at multiple noticeboards at this point, which is attracting others like me. FYI I am not NeilN. — Brianhe (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe I am not here to be noticed but if you do, it's okay. What is not okay is anyone simply removing hours of research and work in a click. Not okay. And it's violating the harassment policy. I am being Wikihounded and Threatened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment Borntodeal (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't reply to my question which is: why did you tell an admin "you are engaging in the use of multiple accounts". — Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nature and timing of the deletions are consistent with a cooperation of accounts in my humble opinion. Sudden, similar deletions of entire sections of content. Borntodeal (talk)

So basically you're attesting that User:Winner 42 (Wikipedia:Million Award), User:MarnetteD (10 yr ed), User:Onel5969, and User:Paul Erik (admin) are all socks of admin NeilN? You should open an SPI if you have solid evidence of this. Or if you don't, maybe you shouldn't say it. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Kathy Ireland. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have added content to Wikipedia in good faith with verifiable sources. I have been singled out and I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy. I believe that I have been singled out in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work. I was harassed by use of threats of blocking for attempting to preserve my contributions to Wikipedia and that these actions are a disruption of my work on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right. And please concentrate on your own actions. Max Semenik (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

But please do tell us about your work. How are you being inhibited?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock again. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for and I will not do it again. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time and have and will make productive contributions. While I strongly believe the content that was summarily deleted by others was valid, relevant and properly-cited, I will review additional cites and work to improve the content and discuss it or seek dispute resolution. I also believe that these other uses have more knowledge of things like notice boards and frankly, I don't track all of the things they are saying but I will investigate the notice boards more thoroughly. My goal is to contribute, not get into edit wars with other users.

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 requesting an unblock again. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for and I will not do it again. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time and have and will make productive contributions. While I strongly believe the content that was summarily deleted by others was valid, relevant and properly-cited, I will review additional cites and work to improve the content and discuss it or seek dispute resolution. I also believe that these other uses have more knowledge of things like notice boards and frankly, I don't track all of the things they are saying but I will investigate the notice boards more thoroughly. My goal is to contribute, not get into edit wars with other users. |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 requesting an unblock again. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for and I will not do it again. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time and have and will make productive contributions. While I strongly believe the content that was summarily deleted by others was valid, relevant and properly-cited, I will review additional cites and work to improve the content and discuss it or seek dispute resolution. I also believe that these other uses have more knowledge of things like notice boards and frankly, I don't track all of the things they are saying but I will investigate the notice boards more thoroughly. My goal is to contribute, not get into edit wars with other users. |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 requesting an unblock again. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am being blocked for and I will not do it again. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time and have and will make productive contributions. While I strongly believe the content that was summarily deleted by others was valid, relevant and properly-cited, I will review additional cites and work to improve the content and discuss it or seek dispute resolution. I also believe that these other uses have more knowledge of things like notice boards and frankly, I don't track all of the things they are saying but I will investigate the notice boards more thoroughly. My goal is to contribute, not get into edit wars with other users. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}