|
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Galerie Gmurzynska. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nat Gertler ( talk) thanks a lot for your message. I am an independent researcher focussed on art and design as well as their intersections with social developments. The wikipedia page of Galerie Gmurzynska is edited by Grammophone ( talk) for the sole purpose of discrediting the work of the gallery and some people personally. In all cases and sources that are used by Grammophone ( talk) state also the presumption of innocence, what means that this unproven and often quite subjective information is not to be entered into an encyclopedia. Thank you Art&Design3000 ( talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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:Art&Design3000 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you.
Nat Gertler (
talk)
13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, 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.
The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). If you don't change your approach, there is a risk that you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Art&Design3000 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Bbb23 ( talk), I request to remove my block, because I was involved in editing the article according to WP:NPOV, I moved the allegations that are supported by some sources in a controversies and legal issues section and removed all directly cited material that have unproven accusations WP:VERIFICATION. Furthermore, I tried to consolidate the article as an encyclopaedic entry that keeps neutrality stating some key facts of the gallery's history as well as touching base on current and recent controversies. The current version is a deliberate attempt to construe the wikipedia entry as a defamation against living persons WP:BLP. Also the article is completely biased focusing mostly on three controversies WP:COAT. Thus, I request to remove my block as I was also involved in the discussion of the talk page and incorporated the edits of Grammophone ( talk) int othe article. Art&Design3000 ( talk) 09:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nonetheless, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 7 days is a reasonable enough duration. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2014 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art&Design3000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Galerie Gmurzynska. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nat Gertler ( talk) thanks a lot for your message. I am an independent researcher focussed on art and design as well as their intersections with social developments. The wikipedia page of Galerie Gmurzynska is edited by Grammophone ( talk) for the sole purpose of discrediting the work of the gallery and some people personally. In all cases and sources that are used by Grammophone ( talk) state also the presumption of innocence, what means that this unproven and often quite subjective information is not to be entered into an encyclopedia. Thank you Art&Design3000 ( talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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:Art&Design3000 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you.
Nat Gertler (
talk)
13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, 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.
The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). If you don't change your approach, there is a risk that you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Art&Design3000 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Bbb23 ( talk), I request to remove my block, because I was involved in editing the article according to WP:NPOV, I moved the allegations that are supported by some sources in a controversies and legal issues section and removed all directly cited material that have unproven accusations WP:VERIFICATION. Furthermore, I tried to consolidate the article as an encyclopaedic entry that keeps neutrality stating some key facts of the gallery's history as well as touching base on current and recent controversies. The current version is a deliberate attempt to construe the wikipedia entry as a defamation against living persons WP:BLP. Also the article is completely biased focusing mostly on three controversies WP:COAT. Thus, I request to remove my block as I was also involved in the discussion of the talk page and incorporated the edits of Grammophone ( talk) int othe article. Art&Design3000 ( talk) 09:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nonetheless, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 7 days is a reasonable enough duration. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2014 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art&Design3000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)