User talk:TRLIJC19/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gray's Anatomy (disambiguation), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Gray's Anatomy (disambiguation) was changed by TRLIJC19 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863437 on 2011-08-25T20:20:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Miranda Bailey. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. 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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Callie Torres. 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.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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; 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. I note that this is your second such notice today Mtking (edits) 05:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You've acknowledged two warnings about edit warring yet persisted in wars across three articles related to Grey's Anatomy. As a result:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

C.Fred (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the other user not blocked for violating three revert? TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is the mitigating factor that they've explained their edits on the article talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As have I. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some of the comments you left on talk pages, like this one. I suggest you take the next 24 hours to review some Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:NPA. I particularly point out the second sentence of the latter: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." —C.Fred (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Or were you "hacked" again? Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I don't appreciate sarcasm Eagles 24/7. I wasnt hacked again actually. TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

What makes you think you can nominate this article for GA without doing any work to it? You literary made one edit to it, which was reverted. — Status {talkcontribs  04:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no rules on who can nominate pages. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

You are just back from a block regarding your edits to Grey's Anatomy related pages, please be careful with your edits and discuss and obtain consensus for the changes you are making as I see no evidence that you are doing that in your contributions. Mtking (edits) 05:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am editing the pages to the way it is stated in the show. The user opposing me feels I am wrong and I will start discussion on the talk page... TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How am I edit warring by reverting an edit. I started discussion. Other user did not start discussion so what makes my argue less valid than other user. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As soon as your block expired, you continued to edit war. Only after making the articles the version you desired did you start a discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have emailed you to further discuss. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no privacy-related reason to discuss via e-mail, I will reply to you here. You did not start a discussion on the talk page first, then revert, you reverted, then, after a user warned you about getting blocked again for editing, you started a discussion on the talk page. That is not how it works here. When you get off from this block, discuss first, then, after a consensus has formed on the talk page, you can revert if that is what consensus says. The other user tried to calmly discuss the changes to you, and instead you respond with this. You are welcome to post an unblock request here if you still feel that the block is unjust, but I will not be doing any unblocking. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TRLIJC19 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I started discussion after I reverted edits that had already reached consensus. User who blocked me has been sarcastic and vaguely rude to me throughout this. I was doing the right thing by reverting an edit on a topic that had already reached consensus. Other user violated three revert but was not blocked. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM, WP:BRD, WP:EW ... the block is clearly valid, and I'm not convinced you understand that, nor am I convinced that you won't do it again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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.