User talk:EmonyRanger

Here's my talk page, give me a chat!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm having an problem with long-term behavior by an editor on an article I attempted to edit. I posted my complaint to the Administrators notice board but retracted it when I was informed it was not the proper venue. I have duplicated my complaint here. Can you tell me what board would handle such issues or how best to resolve them? Thanks. EmonyRanger (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmonyRanger. When you have a content dispute, the first place to go is to the article's talk page. I see there's already some discussion there. If consensus from those who appear there cannot be reached, then a post to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, or initiating a request for comment are options. Mind you, I've only taken the merest glance at what's going on, but I think the issue of weight here looms large. The characterization of a seven-year-old girl examining her sister's genitalia as molestation, pedophilia and sexual abuse is so absurd and disproportionate on its face, that it makes me suspect the issue *may be* over a misunderstanding (I think on your part, but again, I've barely looked) that just because you can find a source that says something, it must be included, when a dialectic of sources, if examined to provide due weight to such a claim, would result in that sources characterization not being included at all, or being given much shorter shrift.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read the talk page for the article and your sandbox. My feeling is that the talk page discussion is (was) productive and the history shows no evidence of edit warring (that I could find). I would suggest politely implementing one of the suggestions on the talk page you feel you agree most with and taking it from there. If you really get stuck, consider a request for comment. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 00:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your responses. I didn't un-revert my many compromise attempts in order to avoid edit warring. I will try a request for comment. EmonyRanger (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I'm amazed you're edit-warring over that BLPN thing. If you do it again you'll pay a visit to 3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my warning to you on my Talk page here. Nomoskedasticity, there's no need to take EmonyRanger to WP:AN3. I'll deal with it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but administrative action by you in this area would be extremely innappropriate. EmonyRanger (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning. You may remove or hat or strike your comments, but you may not touch anyone else's. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: You misunderstand. I'm restoring another editor's submission, moved first by Nomoskedasticity then again by Bbb23. The original editor was blocked by Bbb23. If the editor's comments were inappropriate and needed redacting or removal I could understand but neither is the case, their submission is being refactored, having the effect of hiding it, when it's relevant to the edtior's appeal of his block. Neither Nomoskedasticity nor Bbb23 has the right as you say to "touch anyone else's [comments]", unless necessary - and this is unnecessary. I am not the bad actor here but if I am blocked for this so be it. EmonyRanger (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at WP:BLPN. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New block[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]