User talk:Camel gopher

Welcome!

Hello, Camel gopher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Time series database. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ammarpad (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:26, 10 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by user Beetstra for restoring legitimate content to the time series database page that he has repeatedly removed without valid reasons Camel gopher (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not correct. You were blocked for edit warring. Whether or not your edits were correct is irrelevant here. As you have not addressed your edit warring, there are no grounds for considering lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Filing another unblock request here. I have read through the definition of 'edit war', and I admit freely that I took those actions. However, I would like to point out that I was blocked by the other participant in the edit war, who was not blocked! I would like to request that an admin review the situation here, particularly with regards to the actions of Beetstra on the page Time series database. That user has initiated and participated in multiple edit wars to remove content. A review of that user's profile shows this is a pattern of behavior. Camel gopher (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a misuse of unblock request. Unblock request is for requesting unblock (hence the name), not for requesting other user's block. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (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.

Your comment 'restoring legitimate content to the time series database page that he has repeatedly removed without valid reason' is in stark contrast with 'Please join the discussions on the talkpage ánd read previous discussions on other pages. This edit war is not getting you anywhere but being blocked and/or the page being protected.', a message that you just removed earlier today. This is at length discussed on Talk:Time series database and in an earlier discussion on the external links noticeboard. This material does not satisfy our inclusion standards - it has been there for a long time without references, and all it now gets are refs to blog-posts and primary sources (not exactly reliable sources). (and before that, some of them were constantly spammed in with external links to the homepage of the subject - typical WP:SPAMHOLE material).

So, contentious material stays out until consensus for inclusion has been obtained, see also WP:BRD. That consensus is not obtained by reverting material back in, that is achieved on the talkpage, discussions which have been held, discussions which can be restarted, and that is where I invited you to discuss it first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Beetstra, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to block someone for participating in an edit war, when you were the other participant? Conflict of interest much? Camel gopher (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, removing unsourced content is not 'being involved' .. including unsourced content, or including content against without/against consensus is called tendentious editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]