User talk:Jamieneedsakicking

Edit warring on Black Box

Hi Jamieneedsakicking, you are currently engaged in an edit war with me on the Black Box page. You are a new user, so it is understandable that you may not be familiar with some basic rules of Wikipedia editing, including: 1. Do not edit war. When another editor reverts an edit you have made, it is not appropriate to revert back. Your recourse at that point, if you disagree with the revert, is to discuss the issue on the talk page. 2. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the change you are making is appropriate and improves the article, not on the editor who reverts your edit for the sake of maintaining the article in its current form—except for self-explanatory or obvious edits, which this isn't. If you believe the content in the article is inaccurate/false, you need to do more than say so. Going forward, if you feel confident that your claim about this article is correct, please discuss on the talk page. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it only becomes an edit war when a user reverts an edit twice - so actually the only person beginning an edit war was you. Secondly, your claim that mentioning controversy over lip-syncing is not displaying a 'neutral POV' is spurious at best. The group was sued twice over this, and it led to a permanent change in how musicians are credited. Thirdly, by simply reverting my original edit rather than looking at the reasons why, you reintroduced inaccuracies into the article. The group's success absolutely did not 'wane' after the lip-syncing scandal. It broke in 1989 at the heart of the success of 'Ride on Time' - and as you can see from the discography on the very same page, most of their major hits were between 1990 - 1992.

I will re-edit to ensure we are not edit warring. Please have the courtesy not to simply revert to a less accurate version. Seeing as you are so 'familiar with some basic rules of Wikipedia editing', this shouldn't be beyond you. Jamieneedsakicking (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, you've just moved into the neighbourhood, try not to be a jerk to other editors. Just a tip. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need tips, thank you. Take a look in the mirror before criticising others. Jamieneedsakicking (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo - block

@Ponyo, please explain why you have blocked my account for no reason. Jamieneedsakicking (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]