User talk:GenoV84/2021/January

Archives

Antony Flew

Please see talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antony_Flew#Blog_as_source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.77.25 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Flew

Just stating that I am not a vandal and that I am attempting to engage in a legitimate discussion and debate to follow Wikipedia policy. Please respond to the discussion on the Antony Flew discussion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antony_Flew#Blog_as_source

Per Wikipedia policy, I am allowed to edit and engage without having a registered account. I do object to your attempts to silence me and ignore my comments just because I am unregistered. 76.97.77.25 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded on the Talk page and restored your comment.--GenoV84 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O request

I followed a request for a third opinion on a dispute you were involved in on the Antony Flew page. When checking your talk page here for the other editor's notification, I noticed you had removed the message with no warning or edit description.

Can you come to the talk page for the article to give the argument for your side? Alternately, do you want to opt out and not participate in that dispute?
How come you removed the message?

Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet:

I reported the anonymous IP to the AIV since he continued to vandalize and remove sourced content on the same Wikipedia article despite having been warned multiple times (also, he changed his IP address in order to evade block after the 4th warning). Do I have to discuss with vandals?
Removing other editors' comments on my own Talk page is allowed according to Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines, and there was no objection against it from the anonymous IP that commented on my Talk page.--GenoV84 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per 3O guidelines, I'm entirely unrelated to this whole dispute, so I don't necessarily have background for the way the two of you have previously acted with one another. That said, 3Os do work better when both editors have stated the arguments for their side. Thank you for being able to civilly provide an argument, and I hope you can both have fruitful editing careers. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is GenoV84. Thank you. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Noahidism) for a period of 1 month for edit warring after two blocks for the same behavior (granted, that was in 2018). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]