User talk:Westvoja

Dinosaurs

Hi Westvoja: I'm sorry to keep reverting your updates to Bird, but you really need to explain your reasoning to the other editors. I know it's frustrating when you feel strongly about something and other editors keep reverting it, but it's important—particularly in an FA-class article—to make sure potentially controversial information (and this is controversial, as the endless reverts show) is properly referenced. Right now, you're making multiple revisions per day, but putting in no edit summaries to explain your reasoning. You've declined to respond to polite requests for comment from several editors, and have chosen not to engage in any talk page discussions about the changes. It's putting all of us in a very awkward situation; we're all trying to improve the article, but butting heads! :/ It's evident from what you wrote on my talk page that you don't think the current lead is clear enough in its indication that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Do you have references that show that scientists think that birds are dinosaurs, rather than just being related to dinosaurs? If so, post those reference links on the article's talk page so we can tie them into the article! Please feel free to contact me again. MeegsC | Talk 13:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. OK, I've looked at a couple of the articles you've pointed me to. Unfortunately, though some of them have references listed at the bottom, none of them has an in-line citation for that "controversial" statement about birds actually being dinosaurs instead of merely being related to them. Any chance you have a reference at your end that we could include? Do you know of a particular published article/book that can be accessed on-line, for example, or at a library? I think other editors would be far more likely to accept this edit if they could see that there is scientific support for it—and surely there must be somewhere if you've read about it! MeegsC | Talk 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Looking through your contributions, I note the repeated insertion of contentious material into the Bird article, despite a clear consensus that it is inappropriate. This does not appear to be in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, and if necessary I will take steps to prevent further similar edits by you. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bird. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've actually now reverted it 4 times

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Bird has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.note that you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. From the entries above, and the tone of your response to me, it is clear that you have decided to ignore warnings and take the consequences. However, please note that future blocks may be for more extended periods. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle suggestion

From your spelling style and articles edited I get the impression that you have a lot of scholarship ahead. As someone who started with an interest in biology, evolution and related subjects early, I know that there are fields of knowledge and ideas that take time to fit in properly. Understanding the nuances of evolution, cladistics, phylogenetics, speciation and taxonomy takes a lot of time and a lot of reading. I hope you will not take any of above the blocks personally and spend your energy fighting against it. It would help instead to read more detailed works in due time and not get carried away by just a few statements that one may hear on a documentary on a science channel. Wishing you well. Shyamal (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All birds are dinosaurs"

This is not a good faith edit, don't forget you can be blocked again, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Attempt To Block Me

Dear Westvoja,

I realize that you must be frustrated by the repeated removals of your "non-avian dinosaur" viewpoint. However, if you want this information to be recognized and placed in an article, you must do a couple of things. The first thing would be to bring your argument to a talk page. My advice would be the WP:Birds Talk Page with a friendly note left on the WP:DINO talk page, though you may wish to switch it. Once there, outline your argument as eloquently and persuasively as you can and include a number of refs. Once that is up, you will have to defend your view until you can convince the consensus to change to support your view. Then, and only then, can your information be included in the articles. Do I think that you can change consensus? No, but it shouldn't stop you from trying.

One thing that can stop you from trying is if you are pernamently blocked. You are on the path to being pernamently blocked, as your continue to edit war against consensus and attempt to block other users. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but since you are not an administrator, you are unable to block me. Sorry.

I hope you take my advice, because I believe you are on the brink of being pernamently blocked (which, BTW, I can't do either)

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it absolutely clear, next time you modify the lead against the consensus, I will block you again, for longer. 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC

I see you have a habit of reverting people without discussing your edits or your reasoning on talk pages. Wikipedia doesn't really deal with the type of gossip sites that you're using as sources - it waits for official confirmation. It's an encyclopedia, not a news site. Please try to discuss things in the proper fashion. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AC/DC. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this warning is a bit of overkill to be honest. Yes, Westvoja reverted and yes, the link is against policy, but he did only revert once and there was no obvious edit war. "Disruption" is a slightly unfair term to use, and a threat of blocking is inappropriate given the situation. Try to WP:assume good faith. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His failure to discuss is garnering this status. Regardless, check the article history and you will see that he placed it in once on 9-28 (it was removed)..then he placed it in again, was reverted and he reverted that. That is enough without discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean there. His only recent edit before today (September 29) contained no link. Nobody explained to him, either in talk or in edit summary, what was wrong with his edit. So how is he supposed to know? He's not the only one failing to discuss. The problem with his link was explained in an edit summary, and yes, he reverted it once. That's not enough for this kind of warning. Consider a friendlier way of pointing out someone's mistakes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Two and a Half Men. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you may want to read infobox instructions that are quoted in the hidden note (), instead of removing it. --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week 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. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

For reasons that the administrator is abusing his blocking power! All I did was edit the Two and a Half Men article by labeling Sheen as a former star. In no way did I remove Sheen from the article but I was blocked for that reason.

Decline reason:

This is a proper block - a glance at the history of the article shows that you were definitely edit warring. To improve your chances for a favorable outcome, I suggest that you read and follow the guide linked below before again requesting to be unblocked. —DoRD (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again I request an unblock. I have read the blocking policy and I find that this block on my account is NOT necessary regardless of a prior edit warring. It was unclear and only dealt with the infobox. Which the entire problem is to do with the infobox. I didn't fully understand it but I do now. And the administrator was unclear of the problem due to their constant undoing of my all my changes done to the Two and a Half Men article. I just simply placed Charlie Sheen as a former star as he is no longer involved in the show. Others agree with me but the administrator in question just continued to fight an edit war with me. In order to prevent all this the administrator should have just fixed the error and explain why it was an error insead of undoing all my changes. It offends me that they could not review my entire edits and understand my intent. In no way did I intend to vandalize the article. My sole intention was to update the article for the benefit of the readers.

Decline reason:

You were warned about the issue with the infobox at User_talk:Westvoja#September_2011. This should not have been a shock. Why do you believe your block is "not necessary" per the blocking policy? It's clear you do not understand that what you did was edit warring and you should not have done it, regardless of what occurred with the other party. Also, neither of those involved in the edit war with you are administrators so I'm not sure why you keep referring to them as such. only (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2011 (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.

Note: I have enclosed the above request in {{unblock}} lest it not be noticed by other administrators. —DoRD (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TV

While your block is in effect I suggest you familiarise yourself with MOS:TV, which says that we always treat fiction in the present, articles must reflect the entire history of a series, and main cast members stay on the list even after their departure from the series. Even when a series is ended we say "it is a series", not "it was a series". This applies to cast members as well, which is why they remain on the cast list even after they've left and why we say "starring Charlie Sheen", not "formerly starring Charlie Sheen". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ngoubou for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ngoubou is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ngoubou until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 21:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]