User talk:Headtransplant

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: ). Thank you. TL22 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article Rescue Squadron New article

Template:Article Rescue Squadron New article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TL22 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page

This is a formal request for you to stop posting on my talk page - any posts other than obligatory notifications will be reported as a violation of talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AndyTheGrump_reported_by_User:Headtransplant_.28Result:_.29 which I obligatory notificatied you about on your talk page.

If you continue to be WP:Uncivil, calling me a "troll" and my edits "vandalism", I will also report you. Headtransplant (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of Wikipedia policy: If someone tells you to stay off their talk page, and the instructions at a noticeboard say that you are required to post a notice to their talk page, you should stay off their talk page and add a sentence such as "user not notified per request to stay off his talk page" to your report on the noticeboard. If anyone complains about you doing that, send them to my talk page and I will discuss it with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Drmies. ::# What about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JJMC89_reported_by_User:SuperCarnivore591_.28Result:_.29? He was the other party in the edit war. ::# Also, my template is up for deletion, User:ToonLucas22 put it up for deletion in response to defending myself in the 3RR. Your block prevents me from discussing the deletion. ::# You cited on the page that I was being blocked for "personal attacks" WP:CIVIL. Andy called me a troll at least twice.[1][2] and also called my edits vandalism.[3] Andy has several warnings about civility on his talk page. ToonLucas22 called my edits "worthless"[4] :There were two parties involved in this edit war. :By punishing only me, you are sanctioning the WP:3RR and WP:NPA violations of these others editors. :You are telling them that it is okay to WP:Stalk other editors. The Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:Edit Warring will continue. Based on their behavior today, every edit I have will be scrutinized by these editors and reverted. Headtransplant (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Until you address your actions, any unblock request you make is likely to be declined out of hand. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:13, 14 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Drmies. ::# What about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JJMC89_reported_by_User:SuperCarnivore591_.28Result:_.29? He was the other party in the edit war. ::# Also, my template is up for deletion, User:ToonLucas22 put it up for deletion in response to defending myself in the 3RR. Your block prevents me from discussing the deletion. ::# You cited on the page that I was being blocked for "personal attacks" WP:CIVIL. Andy called me a troll at least twice.[5][6] and also called my edits vandalism.[7] Andy has several warnings about civility on his talk page. ToonLucas22 called my edits "worthless"[8] :There were two parties involved in this edit war. :By punishing only me, you are sanctioning the WP:3RR and WP:NPA violations of these others editors. :You are telling them that it is okay to WP:Stalk other editors. The Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:Edit Warring will continue. Based on their behavior today, every edit I have will be scrutinized by these editors and reverted. Headtransplant (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In my view, you were fortunate that Drmies blocked you only for 72 hours. You are a blend of disruption and incompetence. After this block expires, if you persist along the same lines, the next block will probably be indefinite. Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2015 (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.

Headtransplant, the problem is that your edits on the ARS page and elsewhere are indistinguishable from trolling and, I'm sad to say, not with worth (which is why they were reverted by two editors). Your comment about someone else's supposedly shitty day, that's either a personal attack or trolling--take your pick. Now, stalking is only stalking (by our definition) if it's done to harass a person. If they're looking at your edits, it's probably to see if they make sense. Sure, I could tell Andy that he should have referred to your edits as trolling rather than to the person making them as a troll, but the fact of the matter is that you made some seventy or eighty edits, none of which improved anything at all, and all of which have taken up considerable time and energy, including mine. If seasoned editors tell you you're doing something that's either wrong or useless, it's probably a good idea to listen to them--you may learn something. All the best, Drmies (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JJMC89_reported_by_User:SuperCarnivore591_.28Result:_Closed.29

User:Bbb23, reason please.

User:SuperCarnivore591 violated 3RR with five revisions.

Headtransplant (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbb23, reason please. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted your vandalism of the page 5 times, with others doing it additional times. Dream Focus 04:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty solid reason, wouldn't you agree, User:Headtransplant? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: - Changes without consensus is not vandalism, but rather normal disruptive editing. Both users broke the 3RR, altrough JJMC89 at least stopped after a considerable amount of time. --TL22 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a large chunk of content from a page is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Dream Focus 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a large chunk of content from a page ten times in a forty-minute period to be specific.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Hypomanic Edge

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Hypomanic Edge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TL22 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Congress for Cultural Freedom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transition. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]