User talk:188.23.178.232

September 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Becky Anderson (journalist) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)turd[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roger Vinson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Summaries like "put that right there, anyone who reverts is a vandalist" are unproductive. In the future, please go to the talk page to work out any disputes such as these. Please try to work collaboratively. In this case, I feel that User:Brian the Editor is in the right on this one. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Walter Isaacson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SQGibbon (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Broadcasting Board of Governors. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ishdarian|lol^wut 05:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:52, 18 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hmm, I was the first poster on the talk page to start to resolve this editwar. To block me for that is ridiculous. --188.23.178.232 (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Actually, it looks as though User:Ishdarian was the first to post. Not that that matters, since calling other editor's edits vandalism and dismissing their explanations as "typical Wikipedia" is hardly a constructive way to resolve a dispute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:13, 18 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hmm, that typical Wikipedia was meant to the other info on the other article.

Decline reason:

You don't address the reason for your block, so there's nothing in this request for me to review. I did look at your edits, and I can see three reverts of other users, two of which characterized good-faith edits as 'vandalism,' so a block seems appropriate. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:54, 18 September 2010 (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.

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that in some of your edit comments on Roger Vinson you addressed other editors as vandals. This is an inaccurate term to describe someone you are in a content dispute with. Even if you disagree with their arguments, they do have reasonable arguments to support their position. Please avoid using such inflammatory language in the future. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (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.