User talk:Gravyring

Your recent edits

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 or 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) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gravyring, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlingford Lough

Hi Gravyring, I received your message about re-opening the DR on this article. I looked back at the DRN and the article talk page. Rather than have me try to guess, could you tell me exactly what your concerns are right now? What changes do you want to make or not have made? If I can help, I will. I do not think re-opening the DRN is a worthwhile option right now. The DRN did mention the possibility of an RfC but that might not bring any better results. If I can, I am happy to help with the article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Based on your last message on my talk page, I will have a look at the article as a whole then. I will see if I have any suggestions and let you know.Coaster92 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gravyring. I found some policies that seem to apply in this case. I left a comment on the article talk page along with the policies. Let's see if there is a response.Coaster92 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gravyring. Got your message. I am not an expert on dispute resolution but suggest you review WP:Dispute resolution, WP:Mediation Cabal, and WP:Consensus. It is tricky because these issues generally needed to be resolved by consensus, which is discussed in WP:Consensus (and can take time). Anyhow, let me know your thoughts after you have a chance to review the policies I mentioned. Good luck.Coaster92 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! Gravyring, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely, because you are acting like a POV-pushing single purpose account in a Troubles-related dispute. I note in particular the two wormy ANI reports you've made in the last two days; throwing things against the wall just in hope that something sticks. This subject area is contentious enough when good faith editors have such strong feelings; there's no sense allowing bad faith editors to stir things up even more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This block is bogus. Using talkpages is hardly gaming the system. I will appeal as a block of this nature does not warrant the crime.Gravyring (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked as this sentence seems entirely over the top and not befitting my apparent crime. I admit to raising 2 issues at ANI, and I admit to editing on the Carlingford lough page which falls under The Troubles restrictions, but not to the disruptive extent that I had been blocked for. On editing on the page, I had made 4 edits to the page over a period of 3.5 weeks here [1], [2], [3] and here [4]. The first 2 edits were discussed here [5] at User:Murry1975 talkpage as this User reverted my first edits, the final 2 edits were discussed were discussed here [6] with the 4th edit and attempt at WP:CONSENSUS by way of 'Reaching consensus by edits'. My edits can not be described as disruptive. The Carlingford lough page is marinaded in years of edit warring and POV yet I was the first user to raise a DR and RFC to help ease discussion. 2nd issue is that I raised 2 issues at ANI regarding 2 users who were gaming on Carlingford lough page. I did not realise I had to notify them as I assumed this would be done by an admin, and given that my edits were being stalked I did not think about it really. Sorry that this is so long but an indefinite block for an innocent mistake and or edit warring is not warranted.

Decline reason:

Edits 2, 3 and 4 appear to be attempts to repeatedly make the same edit. As per WP:BRD, the first time it's reverted you are not supposed to re-add it until you have discussed and obtained new consensus to do so. As such, attempting to force the edit through slow edit-warring is inappropriate - especially in topics such as Troubles-related. Your follow-up WP:BATTLE mentality is mere icing on the cake, providing further proof that your intent appears to be to stir up things, get your own way, and damned be those who dare get in your way. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (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.

I've fixed the unblock template for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had hoped that in my 5 days away common sense would of prevailed but as it is I request to be unblocked as this sentence seems entirely over the top and not befitting my apparent crime. I admit to raising 2 issues at ANI, and I admit to editing on the Carlingford lough page which falls under The Troubles restrictions, but not to the disruptive extent that I had been blocked for. On editing on the page, I had made 4 edits to the page over a period of 3.5 weeks here [7], [8], [9] and here [10]. The first 2 edits were discussed here [11] at User:Murry1975 talkpage as this User reverted my first edits, the final 2 edits were discussed were discussed here [12] with the 4th edit and attempt at WP:CONSENSUS by way of 'Reaching consensus by edits'. My edits can not be described as disruptive. The Carlingford lough page is marinaded in years of edit warring and POV yet I was the first user to raise a DR and RFC to help ease discussion. 2nd issue is that I raised 2 issues at ANI regarding 2 users who were gaming on Carlingford lough page. I did not realise I had to notify them as I assumed this would be done by an admin, and given that my edits were being stalked I did not think about it really. Sorry that this is so long but an indefinite block for an innocent mistake and or edit warring is not warranted. I have been blocked for 5 days when typically I would expect a 24-48 hr block. Sentence does not fit the crime.Gravyring (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the previous decline of the identically worded request above, and the comments below. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have now been blocked for 6 days for a slow edit war, 4 edits spread over a month, and the first 2 edits I was not aware were contentious, however I did raise an rfc and a DR on the disputed edits, and so tried to resolve the issue using the wiki tools and do things in the right way. I was blocked by an admin who openly admitted that he did not have the time or inclination to look into the issue, see here [13]. I was also blocked for not notifying a user regarding 2 issues I had raised at WP:ANI. This was the first time I had used the WP:ANI page and was not aware that I had to contact the users mentioned. Now that I know, I will raise the issues in future. I have seen users get blocked for 48hrs for aggressive edit warring, where as I have now served 3 times that for a slow edit war which I now acknowledge as wrong. I wish to continue contributing to wiki. Please may I be unblocked. thanks.Gravyring (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of your unblock requests addresses the reason for your block. (They address issues such as edit warring and not informing users of an ANI report, which may be contributing factors, but are not the reasons cited for the block.) Nowhere have you said anything which suggests that you intend to edit in any way other than as a point-of-view-pushing single purpose account, as described in the block log, and in the block notification above. Your request for unblock is also not helped by misrepresenting what other users say. For example, Floquenbeam did not "openly admit that he did not have the time or inclination to look into" the issue that led to your block, which was your disruptive editing. He/she said that he/she did not have the time, inclination, dispute resolution skills or patience to look into the underlying topic which was the subject of the dispute. If you genuinely can't see that those are two completely different matters, then you may lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2012 (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.

ah but edit warring is not the reason for your block per se, as is noted both in the block log and in the block notice still visible on this page: "POV-pushing single purpose account, only here to stir up trouble" Also, the link you provide shows the blocking admin refusing to become the "beat cop" for Troubles-related-articles, which you can hardly blame him for considering it is an area subject to constant POV pushing by single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. Perhaps if you indicated some other subject area where you might like to work, where your personal POV wouldn't cause you to act in a disruptive manner, an admin would feel more inclined to grant your request. If you wouldn't mind, could you restore the comments that were below the unblock request I declined? Since I cited them in my decline it could be useful to admins reviewing this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeblebrox, I had no intention of setting up an account but got sucked in and responded to requests for me to set up an account here [14]. I had no intention of focusing solely on The Troubles, but as I am from Northern Ireland, it is a topic that I am familiar with more than most. But other topics I would like to focus on would come under banking(Credit Risk) and Football(Soccer) but in the short time I've been on wiki I've not had a chance to spread my wings. I had removed the comments because I am just fed up with that particular user hounding me. Didnt mean to remove any of your reference.Gravyring (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]