|
Hi, could you explain on Talk:Manila hostage crisis#Sleetman's edit why you think your edit should be included? Thanks.— Chris! c/ t 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing to invite you back to a focussed discussion on Talk:Manila hostage crisis about the remark on Global Times. For now, I protected the article in the version before the edit war began. -- Der yck C. 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss your changes on the talk page first, in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sleetman, I hope there is no ill-feeling between you and me even though we had some disagreement.— Chris! c/ t 05:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sleetman i have noticed that many of your edits are being revert. Reading over Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may help in editing style - thus helping to save your edits from being reverted. Editions like this will most likely be revert for its bias tone and/or attempt at political criticism in the opening sentence of the article . If you have any questions at all pls ask i am more then willing to help - bellow are links you may find usefull. Moxy ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) {{ Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} {{ Essays on building Wikipedia}}
So far noone has noticed - but you must be mindful of our WP:3RR. Moxy ( talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
York University has an
edit summary that is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, you have claimed consensus for an edit when no such consensus exists. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Furthermore, you are edit-warring and in violation of the
three-revert rule, which may result in the suspension of your editing privileges. User claimed consensus for adding their text when no such consensus exists.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The material you have restored was removed because it does not appear to be appropriate for a biography of a living person. Editors should not restore such material without first establishing that the sources are compliant with policy. Guettarda ( talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not reinsert controversial material without first establishing that it is acceptable. The WP:BLP policy clearly says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Guettarda ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You're in violation of 3RR here, an issue you should be aware of given the warnings you've recently received regarding other articles, and need to undo your violation to avoid the risk of being blocked. I am filing have filed a report at
WP:3RR/N.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
When someone asks you to stop calling them a certain name (like ma'am or miss or what-have-you), it's generally considered polite to stop. When you continue to do so after several requests from other editors and are obviously trying to upset them, then it crosses the line into disruptive editing. You have been blocked for 31 hours. You may appeal this block by placing {{unblock|Your reason here}} beneath this message. TN X Man 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
i've stopped calling the user ma'am/miss. I should point out that the user did not tell me WHY calling the user that title was offensive.
Decline reason:
You don't seem to have grasped why what you did was inappropriate; if someone asks you not to call them by a specific name it is polite to stop doing so. Instead you used your next reply to taunt Bearcat ("Please miss (didn't call you ma'am) "). Pause, think about why you are blocked and consider making a more thoughtful request for unblocking. -- Errant ( chat!) 19:19, 12 May 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've stopped calling Bearcat a miss/ma'am and will not do so given that user's sexual orientation. Had I known about that user's sexual orientation, I wouldn't have called that user miss/ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even without knowing anything about an editor's sexual orientation, if someone asks you to stop calling them a specific name then you stop - and you don't appear to have grasped that simple issue of civility yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've explained thoroughly why I won't be calling user Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I've also explained why I made that taunt given the threat of editblocking Bearcat made. Had the user expressed why he took offense to it, I definitely would not have made that taunt especially in light of that user's sexual orientation. Sleetman (talk) Today, 13:07 (UTC−7)
Decline reason:
Declined; three requests in the space of an hour suggest that you haven't really paused to consider the matter properly. Come back tomorrow and try to start fresh. Ckatz chat spy 20:48, 12 May 2011 (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.
I suggest that Bearcat should read WP:GLUE before continuing this discussion. -- Tathar ( talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As I've explained for the above personal reasons, I won't be calling Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I would also like to point out that during my block, Bearcat exploited the situation to report me of Sockpuppetry and made changes to an an article in which the user and I are currently in dispute by first making the disputed change on the article [6] and then (using his administrative powers) protecting the version of article with the changes he wants [7] such that ordinary users with no administrative powers cannot redact that article. Is this kind of conduct of administrator's on Wikipedia even allowed?Sleetman (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You had plenty of chances to stop. It was abundantly clear that you were baiting the user in violation of WP:CIVIL. If you continue to make essentially the same unblock request, your talkpage will be locked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:15, 12 May 2011 (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.
In case all of the above was not adequately clear... continuing to use the honorific "ma'am", and even "sir", is treading a very very thin line and you are risking being blocked for it again. Drop the honorific, it will only cause you trouble. -- Errant ( chat!) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, your edits are under discussion at the BLP noticeboard here, please join in the discussion and make your case for inclusion, also please consider not reverting the disputed content back in whilst under discussion at the noticeboard, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. -
2/0 (
cont.)
07:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How do any of the edits here and here constitute edit warring? Concerning the first edit warring complaint by user Nomoskedasticity, the first report is a simple transfer of information from one section to another (no addition or removal of disputed content). The second and third report is a removal of sections by Armstrong sourced to a web-blog which violates WP:RS (Note that I went to great lengths asking user Guettarda here why he thinks the inclusion of a web-blog with no editorial oversight deserves to be regarded as a reliable source although I have yet to receive a response from him) The fifth report simply clarifies the quotes praising Armstrong and adds criticisms of Armstrong that either fully comply with Wikipedia sourcing guidelines or have been verified on the talk page ( particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong) by virtue of a majority consensus as reliable sources.
Decline reason:
15:53 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 16:00-16:05 esentially does the same thing, along with the removal you noted. 16:09 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 22:58 reinserts the Andrea Levin material that was just removed in a previous edit. I'm sorry if you're unclear on what a revert is. If you have questions in the future, you may want to ask. An unblock while you're still confused seems like a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2011 (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.
Blocked again? I'm not suprised. I would recommend reading and re-reading the Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong when you were edit-warring, edit-warring is not tolerated. Making more than 3 reverts is against policy. The ONLY exception to this is removing libelous/unsourced information from a BLP. Adding back information that is sourced to reliable sources is not an exception. Even then, it is better to report it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself. Again, while you are blocked, consider reading & re-reading the policies. DigitalC ( talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Friendly notice to let you know that you are currently at the limit of 3RR on Karen Armstrong. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ckatz
chat
spy
08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir, the edits I've made on Armstrong's page do not in any way constitute edit warring; they were either changes that were already agreed upon in Armstrong's talk page or changes (tags) that were not the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges on Armstrong's page. I should also point out that I've made every possible attempt to avoid editing warring: firstly, when user Nomoskedasticity reverted my edit [7] I immediately took it to the talk page as per his suggestion; the subsequent edits I made (addition of tags) were not the object of contention of previous editing disputes; and secondly, as per DigitalC's suggestion of "reporting it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself," that is exactly what I did by raising the issue of the neutrality of my edits here. Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't seem to grasp what "edit warring" means. Whether edits were or were not "the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges" is irrelevant: what is relevant is whether you repeatedly made reversions. Raising possibly controversial edits on a talk page is the right thing to do, but doing so does not then mean that repeated reversions somehow don't count as edit warring. Wikipedia's policy is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you comment on talk pages on the reversions you are making, or the reversions you are making have not previously been the subject of dispute". JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As per the comments in the edit block decline, that is a complete misrepresentation of what happened; I didn't "repeatedly" make any reversions, although I'm aware that I did make a reversion....which as soon as another editor an issue with my reverts I immediately went to the talk page and BLP noticeboard. As for the content of the reversion itself, I repeat that the quotes that I re-added had already achieved consensus on the talk page and added editing tags in a manner that fully complied with Wikipedia editing policies given the unsourced content on Armstrong's Wikipedia-page (an example: This quote - "This was published in 1982 as, Through the Narrow Gate, to excellent reviews." - in Armstrong's Wikipedia page under her career's section has no citations); the reversion of these edits suggest that the reverting editor (Nomodeskaticity) is not editing from a NPOV. Sleetman (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted in the last unblock, you are still not clear on what constitutes edit-warring. In the future, you need to use the article talk page for discussion if there are multiple editors disputing your edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 10 June 2011 (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.
OK, since you have switched from "my edits were justified" to "I didn't repeatedly revert", here are a few diffs which show you repeatedly making edits which are in whole or in part the same. This is not a complete list, nor even anywhere near complete, it is just enough to show that you have reverted several times in the same article:
JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As I've yet to receive a response from JamesBWatson to my explanation of how my reverts aren't disruptive, I'm asking once again that my edit block be liftedSleetman (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have CLEARLY failed to read WP:EW - you're flip-flopping between unblock reasonings. At this point, be advised that further unblock requests that do not show that you have clearly read WP:GAB, and therefore do not show that you understand the reason for your block and that the behaviour will not recur will lead to a locking of your talkpage for the duration of this block. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (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 Sleetman, adding so many tags to articles as you've done here and elsewhere isn't a good way to proceed. The best thing is to check the references at the end of the sentence or paragraph to see if the information is there, and if it isn't to look for sources yourself. If you can't find any, then ask for sources on talk. Tagging should be a last resort before removal, and even then it's best to stick to one tag for the section or sentence in question. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi, could you explain on Talk:Manila hostage crisis#Sleetman's edit why you think your edit should be included? Thanks.— Chris! c/ t 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing to invite you back to a focussed discussion on Talk:Manila hostage crisis about the remark on Global Times. For now, I protected the article in the version before the edit war began. -- Der yck C. 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss your changes on the talk page first, in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sleetman, I hope there is no ill-feeling between you and me even though we had some disagreement.— Chris! c/ t 05:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sleetman i have noticed that many of your edits are being revert. Reading over Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may help in editing style - thus helping to save your edits from being reverted. Editions like this will most likely be revert for its bias tone and/or attempt at political criticism in the opening sentence of the article . If you have any questions at all pls ask i am more then willing to help - bellow are links you may find usefull. Moxy ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) {{ Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} {{ Essays on building Wikipedia}}
So far noone has noticed - but you must be mindful of our WP:3RR. Moxy ( talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
York University has an
edit summary that is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, you have claimed consensus for an edit when no such consensus exists. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Furthermore, you are edit-warring and in violation of the
three-revert rule, which may result in the suspension of your editing privileges. User claimed consensus for adding their text when no such consensus exists.
Ckatz
chat
spy
20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The material you have restored was removed because it does not appear to be appropriate for a biography of a living person. Editors should not restore such material without first establishing that the sources are compliant with policy. Guettarda ( talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not reinsert controversial material without first establishing that it is acceptable. The WP:BLP policy clearly says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Guettarda ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You're in violation of 3RR here, an issue you should be aware of given the warnings you've recently received regarding other articles, and need to undo your violation to avoid the risk of being blocked. I am filing have filed a report at
WP:3RR/N.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
When someone asks you to stop calling them a certain name (like ma'am or miss or what-have-you), it's generally considered polite to stop. When you continue to do so after several requests from other editors and are obviously trying to upset them, then it crosses the line into disruptive editing. You have been blocked for 31 hours. You may appeal this block by placing {{unblock|Your reason here}} beneath this message. TN X Man 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
i've stopped calling the user ma'am/miss. I should point out that the user did not tell me WHY calling the user that title was offensive.
Decline reason:
You don't seem to have grasped why what you did was inappropriate; if someone asks you not to call them by a specific name it is polite to stop doing so. Instead you used your next reply to taunt Bearcat ("Please miss (didn't call you ma'am) "). Pause, think about why you are blocked and consider making a more thoughtful request for unblocking. -- Errant ( chat!) 19:19, 12 May 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've stopped calling Bearcat a miss/ma'am and will not do so given that user's sexual orientation. Had I known about that user's sexual orientation, I wouldn't have called that user miss/ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even without knowing anything about an editor's sexual orientation, if someone asks you to stop calling them a specific name then you stop - and you don't appear to have grasped that simple issue of civility yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've explained thoroughly why I won't be calling user Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I've also explained why I made that taunt given the threat of editblocking Bearcat made. Had the user expressed why he took offense to it, I definitely would not have made that taunt especially in light of that user's sexual orientation. Sleetman (talk) Today, 13:07 (UTC−7)
Decline reason:
Declined; three requests in the space of an hour suggest that you haven't really paused to consider the matter properly. Come back tomorrow and try to start fresh. Ckatz chat spy 20:48, 12 May 2011 (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.
I suggest that Bearcat should read WP:GLUE before continuing this discussion. -- Tathar ( talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As I've explained for the above personal reasons, I won't be calling Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I would also like to point out that during my block, Bearcat exploited the situation to report me of Sockpuppetry and made changes to an an article in which the user and I are currently in dispute by first making the disputed change on the article [6] and then (using his administrative powers) protecting the version of article with the changes he wants [7] such that ordinary users with no administrative powers cannot redact that article. Is this kind of conduct of administrator's on Wikipedia even allowed?Sleetman (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You had plenty of chances to stop. It was abundantly clear that you were baiting the user in violation of WP:CIVIL. If you continue to make essentially the same unblock request, your talkpage will be locked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:15, 12 May 2011 (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.
In case all of the above was not adequately clear... continuing to use the honorific "ma'am", and even "sir", is treading a very very thin line and you are risking being blocked for it again. Drop the honorific, it will only cause you trouble. -- Errant ( chat!) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, your edits are under discussion at the BLP noticeboard here, please join in the discussion and make your case for inclusion, also please consider not reverting the disputed content back in whilst under discussion at the noticeboard, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. -
2/0 (
cont.)
07:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How do any of the edits here and here constitute edit warring? Concerning the first edit warring complaint by user Nomoskedasticity, the first report is a simple transfer of information from one section to another (no addition or removal of disputed content). The second and third report is a removal of sections by Armstrong sourced to a web-blog which violates WP:RS (Note that I went to great lengths asking user Guettarda here why he thinks the inclusion of a web-blog with no editorial oversight deserves to be regarded as a reliable source although I have yet to receive a response from him) The fifth report simply clarifies the quotes praising Armstrong and adds criticisms of Armstrong that either fully comply with Wikipedia sourcing guidelines or have been verified on the talk page ( particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong) by virtue of a majority consensus as reliable sources.
Decline reason:
15:53 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 16:00-16:05 esentially does the same thing, along with the removal you noted. 16:09 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 22:58 reinserts the Andrea Levin material that was just removed in a previous edit. I'm sorry if you're unclear on what a revert is. If you have questions in the future, you may want to ask. An unblock while you're still confused seems like a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2011 (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.
Blocked again? I'm not suprised. I would recommend reading and re-reading the Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong when you were edit-warring, edit-warring is not tolerated. Making more than 3 reverts is against policy. The ONLY exception to this is removing libelous/unsourced information from a BLP. Adding back information that is sourced to reliable sources is not an exception. Even then, it is better to report it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself. Again, while you are blocked, consider reading & re-reading the policies. DigitalC ( talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Friendly notice to let you know that you are currently at the limit of 3RR on Karen Armstrong. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ckatz
chat
spy
08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir, the edits I've made on Armstrong's page do not in any way constitute edit warring; they were either changes that were already agreed upon in Armstrong's talk page or changes (tags) that were not the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges on Armstrong's page. I should also point out that I've made every possible attempt to avoid editing warring: firstly, when user Nomoskedasticity reverted my edit [7] I immediately took it to the talk page as per his suggestion; the subsequent edits I made (addition of tags) were not the object of contention of previous editing disputes; and secondly, as per DigitalC's suggestion of "reporting it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself," that is exactly what I did by raising the issue of the neutrality of my edits here. Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't seem to grasp what "edit warring" means. Whether edits were or were not "the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges" is irrelevant: what is relevant is whether you repeatedly made reversions. Raising possibly controversial edits on a talk page is the right thing to do, but doing so does not then mean that repeated reversions somehow don't count as edit warring. Wikipedia's policy is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you comment on talk pages on the reversions you are making, or the reversions you are making have not previously been the subject of dispute". JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (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.
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As per the comments in the edit block decline, that is a complete misrepresentation of what happened; I didn't "repeatedly" make any reversions, although I'm aware that I did make a reversion....which as soon as another editor an issue with my reverts I immediately went to the talk page and BLP noticeboard. As for the content of the reversion itself, I repeat that the quotes that I re-added had already achieved consensus on the talk page and added editing tags in a manner that fully complied with Wikipedia editing policies given the unsourced content on Armstrong's Wikipedia-page (an example: This quote - "This was published in 1982 as, Through the Narrow Gate, to excellent reviews." - in Armstrong's Wikipedia page under her career's section has no citations); the reversion of these edits suggest that the reverting editor (Nomodeskaticity) is not editing from a NPOV. Sleetman (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted in the last unblock, you are still not clear on what constitutes edit-warring. In the future, you need to use the article talk page for discussion if there are multiple editors disputing your edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 10 June 2011 (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.
OK, since you have switched from "my edits were justified" to "I didn't repeatedly revert", here are a few diffs which show you repeatedly making edits which are in whole or in part the same. This is not a complete list, nor even anywhere near complete, it is just enough to show that you have reverted several times in the same article:
JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sleetman ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As I've yet to receive a response from JamesBWatson to my explanation of how my reverts aren't disruptive, I'm asking once again that my edit block be liftedSleetman (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have CLEARLY failed to read WP:EW - you're flip-flopping between unblock reasonings. At this point, be advised that further unblock requests that do not show that you have clearly read WP:GAB, and therefore do not show that you understand the reason for your block and that the behaviour will not recur will lead to a locking of your talkpage for the duration of this block. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (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 Sleetman, adding so many tags to articles as you've done here and elsewhere isn't a good way to proceed. The best thing is to check the references at the end of the sentence or paragraph to see if the information is there, and if it isn't to look for sources yourself. If you can't find any, then ask for sources on talk. Tagging should be a last resort before removal, and even then it's best to stick to one tag for the section or sentence in question. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)