User talk:118.36.229.221

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

December 2012[edit]

Information.svg It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Individualism, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, in order to gain consensus over whether or not to include, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Salvidrim! 12:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Ambox warning pn.svg You've also repeatedly removed another user's comments from the article's talk page -- please note it is very strongly discouraged to alter comments from other users. You are free to disagree, and even reply, but removing it on these grounds is unacceptable. Even worse is removing it repeatedly, as you did, which is also not proper editing behaviour. Also please make sure that you do not engage in discussions through edit summaries; discussions should be held on talk pages, that's what they're here for! I hope this clarifies things a bit. Also, be aware the case has been brought to WP:AN/I. Salvidrim! 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

118.36.229.221 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have repeatedly asked the other users to take their case to the talk page for discussion, and they refused to do so. The other users have failed to show reliable sources for their edits according to WP:IRS, hence their edits MUST be removed until they cite their sources and make their case. I am not trolling, nor am I disrupting. Rather I am holding the other users to Wikipedia's standards. Had the other users taken their case to the talk page, as I repeatedly requested, a discussion would have ensued instead of the edit war. I ask that you apply the same standards to the other users in this dispute. I should be unblocked, the controversial edit should be removed, and the other users should use the talk page to cite their sources and engage in discussion.

Decline reason:

You might well be correct, except for one thing -- edit warring is not acceptable, and except in very limited circumstances -- mostly involving vandalism -- trumps all other considerations. Edit warring per se is disruptive; it doesn't matter if you are wrong or if you are right. What's more, looking at your contributions, I see no participation at all at Talk:Narcissism, just 11 consecutive reverts at Narcissism. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

118.36.229.221 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

You have failed to address the fact that, in my comments, I have repeatedly asked the other users to take the discussion to the talk page. You also have failed to apply the same standard to the other users involved in this dispute and you have discredited the WP:IRS policy by permitting the controversial edit to remain. I urge you to see the history of the past two weeks and reconsider my appeal on the basis that I have, in good faith, attempted to defend the quality of the articles involved by expecting the other users to engage me on the talk page and cite their sources for their edits to remain

Decline reason:

The fact remains that you violated the three revert rule, which is a bright-line rule intended to help prevent edit-warring. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong in your edits, or what policy or guidelines are behind the intent of your edits (with the exception of WP:BLP which doesn't apply here.) I suggest you can take this as an opportunity to reflect on the changes you want to make to the article, and to come up with a persuasive way to request those changes on the article talk page when your block expires. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (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 you wish to block me?[edit]

If you wish to block me because I, again, removed content in violation of the 3 revert rule, note that I have attempted to flag the content instead. However, the wiki-markup does not seem to allow tags on the category links. I elected to remove it instead because

 1) it is in violation of WP:IRS, 
 2) I have asked the other users to engage me on the talk page, and they have refused, 
 3) asked for advice 
 4) other attempts to flag the content have failed due to limitations of the Wiki-markup.  

Please don't block me again. I'm trying abide by Wikipedia's policies and move this dispute in a positive direction.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you edit war again, you will be blocked again. This is a promise. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)