User talk:Lightburst: Difference between revisions
7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) →unasked-for advice: It was clearly erroneous, and based upon a misapprehension of material facts. It was on its face a violation of the WP:Block guideline WP:Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, who are acting in good faith. |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
[[User:Lubbad85|Lubbad85]], if your edit is reverted, you must go to discuss the issue on the article talk page, no matter how right you think you are. You were edit warring, even if the material is valid (and I'm not sure that it was). Any admin you approached would have told you to go discuss the edit on the talk page BEFORE insisting on adding your edit, not after. A dispute over content is not vandalism which is intentionally damaging an article. Valereee is correct, this is a short block for edit-warring. I hope you choose a different edit tactic when you return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC) |
[[User:Lubbad85|Lubbad85]], if your edit is reverted, you must go to discuss the issue on the article talk page, no matter how right you think you are. You were edit warring, even if the material is valid (and I'm not sure that it was). Any admin you approached would have told you to go discuss the edit on the talk page BEFORE insisting on adding your edit, not after. A dispute over content is not vandalism which is intentionally damaging an article. Valereee is correct, this is a short block for edit-warring. I hope you choose a different edit tactic when you return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Valereee|valereee]] [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] and [[User:Bbb23]], [[User:Lubbad85|Lubbad85]] was ''not'' edit warring. Other editors (including me) had put it back. There was neither an edit war nor a copyright violation. And there was a pending discussion on the article's talk page concerning the edits. All facts that should have been considered. This all was an overblown, inordinate, and unwarranted response to something that did not happen. It was clearly erroneous, and based upon a misapprehension of material facts. It was on its face a violation of the [[WP:Block guideline]] [[WP:Block]]s are used to prevent damage or [[WP:disruption|disruption]] to Wikipedia, not to punish users, who are acting in good faith. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 23:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC) |
:[[User:Valereee|valereee]] [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] and [[User:Bbb23]], [[User:Lubbad85|Lubbad85]] was ''not'' edit warring. Other editors (including me) had put it back. There was neither an edit war nor a copyright violation. And there was a pending discussion on the article's talk page concerning the edits. All facts that should have been considered. This all was an overblown, inordinate, and unwarranted response to something that did not happen. It was clearly erroneous, and based upon a misapprehension of material facts. It was on its face a violation of the [[WP:Block guideline]] [[WP:Block]]s are used to prevent damage or [[WP:disruption|disruption]] to Wikipedia, not to punish users, who are acting in good faith. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 23:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Sorry, 7&6=thirteen, but [[WP:CIR|competence is required]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:49, 28 June 2019
| ||
---|---|---|
BlockYou have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring borderline copyvio and promotional material. You should know better by now, after everything. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
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).
Lightburst (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The material is in fact not a copyright violation - the topic was discussed on the talk page. Two other uninvolved editors put the quote back in the article - so to say I am responsible is incorrect. Apparently more editors feel that the material is is not copyright violation. I came to you in order to stop any edit warring from occurring. I asked for the page protection - and the answer was to block me. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Decline reason: You were in fact edit-warring. You were in fact adding promotional material to the article. You demonstrated an aggressive battleground mentality, which you still demonstrate in your comments post-block, indicating no insight into your misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 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.
Sequence of reverts related to the block-quote on the article Christopher Kaelin
unasked-for adviceHey, Lubbad! You haven't asked for advice, so ignore me if you prefer. This is a very short block. You can do it standing on your head. El C is being very patient and kind, and clearly is just trying to help you figure out why the original edit was a problem. Use the time to read over policy so you're on firm ground, then come back tomorrow and start a discussion at the talk page. Hope this isn't unwelcome; apologies if it is. --valereee (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Lubbad85, if your edit is reverted, you must go to discuss the issue on the article talk page, no matter how right you think you are. You were edit warring, even if the material is valid (and I'm not sure that it was). Any admin you approached would have told you to go discuss the edit on the talk page BEFORE insisting on adding your edit, not after. A dispute over content is not vandalism which is intentionally damaging an article. Valereee is correct, this is a short block for edit-warring. I hope you choose a different edit tactic when you return. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
|