User talk:82.209.185.111

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

July 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Bulldog shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

British Bulldog[edit]

You removed "British" from the same article four times in less than 24 hours. That is the definition of edit warring. Jim1138 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott[edit]

I've decided, since you continue to edit Andy Scott from British to English. To report this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Erzan (talk) 19:50, 04 August 2012 (UTC)

I am from the UK and this British/English controversy is absurd. Either description could be equally valid. The only person who could adjuducate on whether he considered his indentity to be primarily English or British is Tony Scott himself and sadly he is no longer with us so we will never know. In the absence of a personal preference a default position clearly favours British as it is a more inclusive term internationally. We all have British passports - there is no English passport. We are all citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we are not English citizens. We all vote in British elections - there are no national English elections or an English legislative assembly. The Queen is Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England. We have a British government - there is no English government and the Prime Minister is of the UK of GB and NI. English is mainly relevant within Britain to distinguish one the four distinctive ethnic groups that make up our state alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. --Corbynz (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott has stated, on record, that he was English, that that was his identity. That aside, your message has nothing to do with the dispute, unless you wish to challenge an English nationality and identity, which actually seem to be the case.

The above unsigned statement is totally uncorroborated by the anonymous author. No evidence whatsoever has been provided to substantiate this claim ! --Corbynz (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tony Scott". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:34, 6 September 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) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tony Scott. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amp71 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent edit warring, and contentious editing, frequently defying clear consensus. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
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.

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


Request reason:

I have not defied consensus because no consensus has been reached. You should consult the talk page. I have made one change (which restored the article to its original form) the editor with whom I have a dispute, have done the same. Yet you chose to block me. You are blocking me on the wrong grounds.

I would also like to bring to your attention the request made (in the comment section) by the editor whom I am in dispute with, he got his answer, yet opted to go against it by reverting the article, which I reverted back, an action which you decided to block me for, claiming I defied a consensus…which never was reached.

Thank you. 82.209.185.111 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not "made one change". Your contribution history for the past couple of weeks consists primarily of reverts in the Tony Scott article. That's edit warring. It is commendable that you have engaged in discussion on the talk page, but I see two other editors disagreeing with your arguments, and three others reverting your edits, yet you continue. That's why you were blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (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.

Two editors have disagreed and one has agreed. One of them opted out of the discussion early, whereas afterwards making no further changes to the article (Corbynz), it’s all there in the history section. I will also have you know that Erzan (who initiated the edit war) requested comments from other editors pertaining weather Tony should be described as English or British, doing so as a way of resolving the dispute. The consensus (as I’m typing this, 2-1, was that Tony should be described as English) Erzan let it rest for about a week, then reverted back from English to British, I reverted back from British to English (today) and was consequently banned. I appreciate your input. I do. But not your misrepresentation of the dispute, I wanted the admin who blocked me to comment on this block but since I’m blocked I cannot post onto his wikipage.