User talk:LayinItOnTheLine

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Eric Bloodaxe have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Eric Bloodaxe was changed by LayinItOnTheLine (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92176 on 2021-04-10T21:37:25+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LayinItOnTheLine, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LayinItOnTheLine! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your recent editing history at Gwar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The cartoon is was a one-off gag produced for Funny or Die, not what would be considered part of a brand. The Oderus toy information is fine, but it still needs a source and citation to be added. If you disagree, take it to the article's talk page. Frequent reversions with no edit summary are not acceptable. NJZombie (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cartoon IS part of a brand, one-off or not. LayinItOnTheLine (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. If it was a series, it would be a different story. A one-off cartoon short made for a humor website it not an example of branding. Once again, bring it to the article's talk page if you disagree. Insisting your are correct and demanding others stop removing your edits within an edit summary is not the way edits get made here. You also insist on adding information about a toy being made without adding a source. That's why that keeps getting removed. If you want to contribute with less chance of having your edits changed, play by the same rules everybody else is required to play by. NJZombie (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're more than welcome to edit it yourself if you REALLY wanna do it by the book. Also, one-off or not, it's STILL a GWAR-related cartoon.LayinItOnTheLine (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fuck the rules!LayinItOnTheLine (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Gwar. 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 ~~~~}}.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong LayinItOnTheLine (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you think you did nothing wrong, I have extended your block indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift the block once you demonstrate an understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA and commit to following these policies from now on. Yamla (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

The rules don't apply to me, and I'm not following bullshit policiesLayinItOnTheLine (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've turned off your Talk page access. Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2021 (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.