User talk:Validfortravel

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Validfortravel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page messages[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

December 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ambivalence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the Ambivalence article[edit]

Hello, I've started a discussion on the Ambivalence talk page here about whether your image should be included in the article. Your participation in the discussion would be beneficial and would keep this from turning into a full-fledged edit war. Thanks and hope to see you there. SQGibbon (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalence at the Administrators noticeboard[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research by image[edit]

You are apparently stopping reading your link before you get to " so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments,". The claim that this particular face is "ambivalent" has not been published anywhere, and so the insertion claiming that it illustrates ambivalence is quite clearly " illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one publishes claims about what images display. That's not a thing.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three days for edit warring, continuing despite clear warning. In addition, it seems that you have attempted to appear to be more than one person, apparently in an attempt to bias the outcome of a discussion, and have continued your edit warring without logging in, apparently again with the intention of appearing to be more than one person. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

If the block is solely for edit warring, fair enough, but I have not attempted to appear to be more than one person. I don't know why you think I have.

Decline reason:

A review of the article history indicates the conclusions of the blocking administrator were correct, that you used two IP addresses to continue an edit war. As such, there is no basis provide here to unblock, and you haven't actually asked to be unblocked for that matter. Declining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:57, 12 December 2012 (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.

In the course of reviewing the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I checked the comments made in that case, the comments on the article talk page, and the editing history of the article. It is abundantly clear that there is a consensus against including your picture in the article, so please don't attempt to resstore it when your block expires.
In phrasing the block notice, I quite deliberately stated that the block was for edit warring, and gave the IP-sockpuppetry only as supporting background, prefixed by "In addition, it seems..." This was not because IP sockpuppetry is not a valid reason for a block, nor because there was any serious doubt about it, but because the nature of your previous editing led me to think it likely that you would deny it, whereas the edit warring is so unambiguous that you could scarcely deny that. Yet you still managed to make an unblock request which made no attempt to address the issue of unambiguous edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may well have expected, the length of the block has been increased because of your block evasion. The article has also been protected to prevent more of the same. I strongly suggest that you accept that consensus is against the inclusion of your picture, and either start doing some more constructive editing, or, if you have no interest in doing so, then find something else to spend your time on. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been evading blocks, I suggest you find something better to do than make false accusations against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validfortravel (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 December 2012

To be absolutely precise, it is possible that you are sincere in saying that you "have not been evading blocks", as it is possible that another person has been doing it for you. However, it is clear that the editing while you have been blocked has been done either by you or by someone egged on by you, and Wikipedia policy makes no distinction between the two: someone making edits for you that you would have made yourself had you not been blocked is helping you to evade your block, just as much as if you made the edits yourself. However, all that has paled into insignificance, because I have now seen evidence which proves beyond all doubt that from the start your intention in editing Wikipedia was disruption, amounting to trolling, so you will be blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]