User talk:MichaelScott9986000

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, MichaelScott9986000, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to BBC News (TV channel) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Tamravidhir (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary you said vandalism, here you say test, which is it? I was simply removing all unsourced content because who knows if it's accurate or not.

August 2019

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the point that all edits need to be referenced according to WP:V, do you disagree?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BBC News (TV channel); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at BBC News (TV channel) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC) @Davey2010: @Kirbanzo: I am just removing content that isn't sourced and could be wrong so doesn't comply with WP:V, I'm the one following your rules[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:MichaelScott9986000 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at BBC News (TV channel). 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 ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 14:29, 14 August 2019 (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).

MichaelScott9986000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply enforcing a core content policy of wikipedia by making sure content is sourced. 31 hours is random. I saw an edit reverted because it was unsourced so deleted all unsourced content. If a little unsourced content isn't allowed then why is all of that unsourced content allowed

Decline reason:

This is now a checkuser block for violating WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2019 (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 is now a indefinite CU block. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You should probably deny their unblock request since CU evidence invalidates it. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirbanzo: That would mean that every time a user is cu-blocked, any unblock request is invalid, which is not true. In addition, no administrator, CheckUser or otherwise, can decline an unblock request when they are the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]