User talk:Eris Lover

Welcome!

Hello, Eris Lover! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

March 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know why my account was blocked. I was given no evidence supporting the reason I was blocked, so I have nothing to respond to. I don't know what to provide counter-evidence for. I do know that my IP was blocked as part of a range of IPs which was blocked to stop someone else who was abusing their editing privileges. At that time, I was posting anonymously. I was advised to create an account so that I could edit. I did that. Within about three minutes after I started editing again, Black Kite blocked me. I sent a request to ArbCom to unblock me. They unblocked my IP, but not my account. I don't know why they left my account blocked. So, now, I'm requesting my account to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline only: could you re-submit the unblock request to our unblock ticker request system please? I know this is another hurdle doing the same thing, but that way will be the fastest and easiest to get it there where it should. Alternativeny, you can follow up on the email you sent to the ArbCom ban appeals team. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (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.

There was an investigation done here. You were found to be a suspected sockpuppet of User:Belchfire. I've asked Black Kite to take a look at this and respond further if necessary. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is mine. I posted under that originally and created my account later. However, I never broke any policy under either account that I know of.-Eris Lover (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Black Kite means when he says "obviously a sock" (and I'd like to so that I, at least, can put together a counter-argument). I'm not even clear how he could have even less obviously reached that conclusion since he blocked me after my one and only edit. I assure you that I have no other accounts on Wikipedia.-Eris Lover (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusual for a new editor, as their first contribution her, to revert a contentious edit to a previous version, as you did. Comment, please?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the discussion above, the IP address which had done previous edits on that article is mine. I hadn't created an account yet. This was discussed here.-Eris Lover (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that this was a particularly obvious DUCK block. If another admin wishes to unblock, that's up to them, though I would suggest a close eye. Black Kite (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've blocked me from editing for well over a week while giving no evidence to support your block and given that you couldn't identify who I'm supposed to be a sock of and given that you blocked me minutes after my one and only post from my one and only account and given that you blocked me from participating in the SPI on Belchfire where you accused me (where I might have been able to defend myself) and given that at least two different admins stated that they saw no wrongdoing on my part, I believe that I should at least be given the reasons you think this is, in your words, 'a particularly obvious DUCK block'.-Eris Lover (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Andrade

Ima beus. Feel free to add more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.122.247 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Christianity and homosexuality shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Christianity and homosexuality. 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.

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page, and get consensus there. Of ALL the editors here on WP, I consider MannJess the most patient, considerate and diplomatic, and you would gain a lot in making a friend of him. You will get a LOT more accomplished if you get consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP policies is incorrect. Please read WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and [WP:3rr]]. If an edit you make is challenged, it's a good idea to take it to the talk page, especially if you have been advised to by several experienced editors. There's no hurry. Give others time to respond, and listen to what they have to say as you expect them to listen to you. Personally, I think you have the potential to be a productive editor here on WP, but that chance will be wasted if you keep getting blocked for edit-warring. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be a good idea to remove your last message from the article talk page. You're not going to accomplish anything by antagonizing anyone. Remain calm, cool and collected, and have a pleasant and productive discussion with your fellow editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. As you can see, I left a message on MannJess's page explaining that you have initiated discussion on the talk page. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mann_jess#Eris_Lover. Please stop accusing people of breaking policy and bad faith. Be civil, and assume good faith. Those are WP policies, too. See WP:CIVILITY, WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I told MannJess that you had a point, and reminded him to discuss your proposed changes with you on the article talk page. The editors you are dealing with are far more experienced and familiar with WP policies than you, and are policy sticklers to a man. You'll do yourself a great big favor by listening and learning. As I said, you can get A LOT accomplished here if you work together with the more experienced editors than against them, and that's will be A LOT easier to do if you watch your temper. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apr 26, bible and homosexuality

He Eris Lover, Don't worry about reverting my edit there; I'm cool w/ the changes. Appreciate you trying, though. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]