User talk:SecularHumanist1789: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:25, 2 March 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When your block expires, you are welcome to present your arguments in the discussion at Talk:Uyghur people#Uyghurs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and general unsourcedness. Continuing to revert other editors without discussing will lead to a longer block, as per the WP:Edit warring rules.

Also, you may want to review What vandalism is not. Warnings placed on your talk page, while you may not like them, are not vandalism. You are welcome to remove warnings, but calling legitimate warnings vandalism ( as you did here and elsewhere) is not going to get you very far here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

SecularHumanist1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension. SecularHumanist1789 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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=Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension.  [[User:SecularHumanist1789|SecularHumanist1789]] ([[User talk:SecularHumanist1789#top|talk]]) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |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=Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension.  [[User:SecularHumanist1789|SecularHumanist1789]] ([[User talk:SecularHumanist1789#top|talk]]) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |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=Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension.  [[User:SecularHumanist1789|SecularHumanist1789]] ([[User talk:SecularHumanist1789#top|talk]]) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{unblock|reason=Simply no "edit warring" involved. I merely added information to the article on the last edit! Editor "Rjanag" is involved, and therefore not impartial. Seems to have a personal vendetta, obsessive dimension.  [[User:SecularHumanist1789|SecularHumanist1789]] ([[User talk:SecularHumanist1789#top|talk]]) 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)}}
-:Edit warring does not mean only undoing and rollbacking. It means fighting over content in an article by repeatedly editing and not engaging in discussion. This is what you have done; you have made no attempt to comment in the ongoing discussion at the talk page, and instead have attempted to override others' contributions either by undoing them or by adding other content against consensus. When your block is up, you are welcome to participate in discussion.
-:On a side note, calling every editor who contacts you a vandal (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SecularHumanist1789&diff=416760882&oldid=416760818]) is not conducive to discussion or collaboration, and you should avoid doing it in the future. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-:Also, I am not sure what makes you think I am "involved and therefore not impartial"; I have made no edits to the page during the edit war and have only left one comment at the talk page, not particularly supporting either side. This block is about [[WP:NOTTHEM|your behavior, not anyone else's]]. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 17:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)