User talk:173.35.54.125

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Genesis flood narrative 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Genesis flood narrative

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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.

Edit warring and POV-pushing at Genesis flood narrative and Flood myth. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 13 September 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).

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

Request reason:

@EdJohnston: My initial edit was an attempt at re-wording a statement I found to be inaccurate and to improve the overall quality of the article by re-phrasing it in a way which offered a more neutral point of view. Doug Weller restored the previous version of the page and gave an explanation which I found confusing. I restored my edit without reverting while attempting to seek further clarification in the edit summary, to which C.Fred was kind enough to offer in his edit summary when he reverted me. After that clarification, I conceded my edit and was satisfied that my attempted re-phrasing was grammatically awkward and ceased making the same edit further. Instead, I decided to take a different approach to achieve the neutral point of view I sought by making a completely different edit which involved re-structuring the objectionable sentence correctly and further adding sourced information as it related to the article subject. Instead of constructing my new edit from the main article page, I performed the edit on the version of the page by "undoing" C.Fred's edit, but in reality I didn't revert C.Fred, the reason I edited the page that way instead of normally from the main article page was because I made two edits in one which was 1) the disputed edit which I had conceded and was not attempting to restore and 2) correcting the appearance of a reference which was not disputed and I was too lazy to manually redo that in my new edit from the main article page. Ian.thomson (the only editor I truly reverted, and my second and final revert overall excluding the unintentional one I made), reverted my new edit which was significantly and substantially different and continuously makes an unfounded and baseless POV accusation that I find completely disgraceful as my intention to present a balanced point of view has been explained above and I have already informed him to assume good-faith which he refuses to do. After all of this occurred, I took a break and left the article alone and decided to edit completely different articles. Afterwards I returned to the talkpage of the article in question and began to type to engage in a discussion about and clarify the matter when I discovered this pre-mature and unnecessary block. I would appreciate having the block reversed so that I can continue editing unrelated articles and go back to what I was doing which was engaging in a discussion on the article talkpage. 173.35.54.125 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 15 September 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.

Tony Ferguson

Chill out, man. The problem was just that FN 71 was not added to the List of UFC bonus award recipients. You should change your attitude. Most people are not here to fight with others. Evenfiel (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.