![]() |
Hi Chandra Shekher Mishra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Pearl Jam, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
08:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Pearl Jam. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. regentspark ( comment) 14:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Petr Čech, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wikipedia is user-generated and cannot be used as a source, also see
WP:Circular
Iggy (
Swan)
16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note messages on my talk page and the article talk page. In future, if you could keep all of your messages in the same thread, rather than adding a new section every time, that'd be great. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
regentspark (
comment)
14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Chandra Shekher Mishra ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for 1 week by a user named RegentsPark for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hrs. Im totally innocent in this matter. According to the terms and conditions, a user can not revert any edit on the page because of opinion clash and the same has been done to me. I added a content on Pearl jam's page suggesting them to be one of the greatest of all timr and backed it up with reference conataining a veteran musician's (Corey taylor) same verdict on the band from a renowned music streaming platform TIDAL. But the user mentioned above, reverted it saying that the information wasn't constructive. I read about it on wikipedia and it was clearly written that edits which add a sense of meaning to an article should not be reverted. I told this to him and re done my edit and this way he continuously reverted my edits more than 3 times in less than 24hrs which is not allowed over here. Since im new i didnt knew this and didnt took any step. The user then falsely acclaimed me of having reverted edits and sent me a message in a rude manner warning me to be blocked and forced me to get frustated because mine edits were a result of a long hard work. In anger, i took a wrong step of getting a bit rude(though i didn't use any vulgar language). He took the advantage and blocked me for a straight one week which is too much even if i was the faulter. Im totally innocent and Regents Park is an hater of the band who only because of his opinion has took the whole control over the Pearl Jam page and is now vandalisingthings over there. So its a kind request to please look out the matter, uplifting my block and warning him not to revert any changes which are backed by reliable references. Chandra Shekher Mishra ( talk) 07:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC) A honest wikipedian - Chandra Shekher Mishra
Decline reason:
This does not appear to address the reason for your block, as described by regentspark above. Content disputes are simply not resolved by one party insiting that "i will keep doing my edits because they are no wrong and they are justified". And attacking the blocking admin in your unblock request really doesn't help either. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:09, 16 September 2018 (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.
Thank you for your personal email to me. At the Teahouse we like to welcome new editors and invite them to seek help from us if the encounter difficulties editing Wikipedia. I'm replying here as I don't think a personal/private email reply is appropriate on this occasion. We only use that form of communication on rare situations where privacy is needed. Everything else is done in an open snd transparent environment here.
I do appreciate your concerns over your recent block, which appears to be because of angry or inappropriate content you emailed privately to another editor who blocked you, both for that and your earlier edit warring.
I don't know the content of that message (which appears to be the main reason for your block). I should observe that your own private email to me was perfectly polite.
I've looked at your edits to the article on Pearl Jam - and I'm afraid I agree completely with the rationale for their removal by RegentsPark. This has been explained clearly in the talk page of the article itself. You must remember this is an encyclopaedia with worldwide viewers and has to have a neutral tone in everything said here. You were actually quite wrong drawing the conclusion that many people said that they're the world's greatest rock band when the reality is that one superfan is cited as saying this. Fans would, wouldnt they? It was reverted as it is a wholly unacceptable edit which you repeatedly inserted, and you need to appreciate why this was unacceptable if you want to continue editing here once your block expires. Had a famous, uninvolved person made that remark, it might have been acceptable to name them, and then quote them. But what you did was to extrapolate one person's opinion into a broad statement of fact, and to put it right in the top part of the article. This was not ok, and goes against all of our attempts to be neutral and factual. In future you must not revert changes without discussing them with other editors - and not by private email. If someone reverts your edits don't just repeat them; consider there must be a good reason and if you can't understand it, contact him/her to discuss it with them before continuing. This is the way we collaborate on Wikipedia.
Just to clarify: I dont know the admin named Regents Park, nor have any interest in rock music articles. I'm simply responding by giving this feedback as a totally independent person, named by HostBot in a Teahouse welcome message, who is keen to help and advise new editors like yourself. My advice is simply to wait out your block, and in future interact respectfully and politely with the other editors at all times. Starting out editing here can be a rocky journey for some. The Teahouse is here to help users to edit; it's not to intervene in disputes which have been handled fairly, and with oversight by other admins. Regards fom the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Chandra Shekher Mishra ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23238 was submitted on Nov 13, 2018 08:31:33. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 08:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Chandra Shekher Mishra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Pearl Jam, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
08:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Pearl Jam. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. regentspark ( comment) 14:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Petr Čech, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wikipedia is user-generated and cannot be used as a source, also see
WP:Circular
Iggy (
Swan)
16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note messages on my talk page and the article talk page. In future, if you could keep all of your messages in the same thread, rather than adding a new section every time, that'd be great. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
regentspark (
comment)
14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Chandra Shekher Mishra ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for 1 week by a user named RegentsPark for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hrs. Im totally innocent in this matter. According to the terms and conditions, a user can not revert any edit on the page because of opinion clash and the same has been done to me. I added a content on Pearl jam's page suggesting them to be one of the greatest of all timr and backed it up with reference conataining a veteran musician's (Corey taylor) same verdict on the band from a renowned music streaming platform TIDAL. But the user mentioned above, reverted it saying that the information wasn't constructive. I read about it on wikipedia and it was clearly written that edits which add a sense of meaning to an article should not be reverted. I told this to him and re done my edit and this way he continuously reverted my edits more than 3 times in less than 24hrs which is not allowed over here. Since im new i didnt knew this and didnt took any step. The user then falsely acclaimed me of having reverted edits and sent me a message in a rude manner warning me to be blocked and forced me to get frustated because mine edits were a result of a long hard work. In anger, i took a wrong step of getting a bit rude(though i didn't use any vulgar language). He took the advantage and blocked me for a straight one week which is too much even if i was the faulter. Im totally innocent and Regents Park is an hater of the band who only because of his opinion has took the whole control over the Pearl Jam page and is now vandalisingthings over there. So its a kind request to please look out the matter, uplifting my block and warning him not to revert any changes which are backed by reliable references. Chandra Shekher Mishra ( talk) 07:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC) A honest wikipedian - Chandra Shekher Mishra
Decline reason:
This does not appear to address the reason for your block, as described by regentspark above. Content disputes are simply not resolved by one party insiting that "i will keep doing my edits because they are no wrong and they are justified". And attacking the blocking admin in your unblock request really doesn't help either. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:09, 16 September 2018 (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.
Thank you for your personal email to me. At the Teahouse we like to welcome new editors and invite them to seek help from us if the encounter difficulties editing Wikipedia. I'm replying here as I don't think a personal/private email reply is appropriate on this occasion. We only use that form of communication on rare situations where privacy is needed. Everything else is done in an open snd transparent environment here.
I do appreciate your concerns over your recent block, which appears to be because of angry or inappropriate content you emailed privately to another editor who blocked you, both for that and your earlier edit warring.
I don't know the content of that message (which appears to be the main reason for your block). I should observe that your own private email to me was perfectly polite.
I've looked at your edits to the article on Pearl Jam - and I'm afraid I agree completely with the rationale for their removal by RegentsPark. This has been explained clearly in the talk page of the article itself. You must remember this is an encyclopaedia with worldwide viewers and has to have a neutral tone in everything said here. You were actually quite wrong drawing the conclusion that many people said that they're the world's greatest rock band when the reality is that one superfan is cited as saying this. Fans would, wouldnt they? It was reverted as it is a wholly unacceptable edit which you repeatedly inserted, and you need to appreciate why this was unacceptable if you want to continue editing here once your block expires. Had a famous, uninvolved person made that remark, it might have been acceptable to name them, and then quote them. But what you did was to extrapolate one person's opinion into a broad statement of fact, and to put it right in the top part of the article. This was not ok, and goes against all of our attempts to be neutral and factual. In future you must not revert changes without discussing them with other editors - and not by private email. If someone reverts your edits don't just repeat them; consider there must be a good reason and if you can't understand it, contact him/her to discuss it with them before continuing. This is the way we collaborate on Wikipedia.
Just to clarify: I dont know the admin named Regents Park, nor have any interest in rock music articles. I'm simply responding by giving this feedback as a totally independent person, named by HostBot in a Teahouse welcome message, who is keen to help and advise new editors like yourself. My advice is simply to wait out your block, and in future interact respectfully and politely with the other editors at all times. Starting out editing here can be a rocky journey for some. The Teahouse is here to help users to edit; it's not to intervene in disputes which have been handled fairly, and with oversight by other admins. Regards fom the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Chandra Shekher Mishra ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23238 was submitted on Nov 13, 2018 08:31:33. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 08:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)