User talk:Us.terross

August 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Your edits have been disputed; discuss on the article's talk page why you are removing content, gain consensus from other editors -- before you resume removing said content. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i am attempting to make changes that more accuratly reflect a true non biased perspective on the united states election which is not only a two team sport but an election between 3 partys who will be on the ballot in all 50 states i resent being blocked for only trying to make changes that will be less likely to influance the election unfairly for any candidate pleasde consider lifting the ban Us.terross (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an excuse to engage in edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i apologise if that is what i appeared to be doing i was simply trying to include gary johnsons poll numbers next to trump and clintons it is undemocratic to exclude him when he is polling as high as 16 % in some states please remove my ban and i promise not to remove any thing i only as that i be allowed to add gary johnsons poll number by state next to the numbers of hillary and trump on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Most_recent_polling Us.terross (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As long as you are pledging to continue making the same edits that got you blocked in the first place, there's no reason to unblock here. Please also read Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 16 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i think there was a misunderstanding i did not so i would make the same arbitrarily. i only asked for permission to make the change that i am still unsure why i was denied to make i was only trying to ass an extra column in an existing table to list garys pol numbers next to trump and clintonUs.terross (talk) 5:36 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

If you do not understand the reason for block, then I can't unblock you. Your block will expire in about 24 hours. I recommend you not to make any more unblock requests, but to take that time to learn more about how Wikipedia functions. I recommend you to read our WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR policies. Feel free to ask me (here, on this page) if you need some clarifications. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2016 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DatGuy was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Us.terross/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Us.terross, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 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 are 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.
Discuss your edits on the talk page of the article; gain consensus to add the changes that you want. Otherwise, if you continue to add and remove content as you please, other editors will undo your edits - nothing will be achieved. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]