{{
unblock|Your reason here}} below.
Toddst1 (
talk) 00:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Michael.suede ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So this is how wiki works. Two guys can dominate a page by simply accusing an editor of being a sock puppet and reverting all changes, then calling a mod to ban the person who is disputing the changes for violating the three edit rule while they themselves continue on their merry way.
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 16:29, 26 February 2009 (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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Magnetic reconnection. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, 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 controversial 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.
Vsmith ( talk) 02:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Michael.suede ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is block is preposterous. Preventing vandalism to a site page should not be punished with a block. Michael.suede (talk) 11:50 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Edit warring is not allowed, especially after people have asked you to stop. TN X Man 15:56, 21 March 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.
Preventing people from vandalizing a page is not engaging in an edit war.
This block is nothing more than scientific censorship and a complete joke.-- Michael.suede ( talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (was going to decline as well, this is what I had written) (1) You didn't state in your edit summaries that you were reverting simple vandalism and (2) the edits that you were reverting didn't appear to be uncommented blanking or simple vandalism. As such, you are not exempt from restrictions on edit warring. Until you can admit that, you are not likely to find a sympathetic administrator. Syrthiss ( talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Preventing the deletion of an entire section of a page IS PREVENTING VANDALISM. Unless it can be demonstrated that the section was inappropriate by wiki standards (which it wasn't), then preventing attempts to delete the section IS PREVENTING VANDALISM.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, 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 controversial 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Concerning your recent contributions at Austrian business cycle theory. Please do not edit war to introduce text that has been objected to. Please seek consensus on the talk page before re-introducing any contentious text. LK ( talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 controversial changes and 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. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 22:26, 20 January 2019 (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:Michael.suede reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you.
Tsumikiria (
T/
C) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing. Stop Edit Warring. This is your final warning. You have passed 3RR. Jorm ( talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
{{
unblock|Your reason here}} below.
Toddst1 (
talk) 00:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Michael.suede ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
So this is how wiki works. Two guys can dominate a page by simply accusing an editor of being a sock puppet and reverting all changes, then calling a mod to ban the person who is disputing the changes for violating the three edit rule while they themselves continue on their merry way.
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 16:29, 26 February 2009 (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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Magnetic reconnection. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, 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 controversial 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.
Vsmith ( talk) 02:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Michael.suede ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is block is preposterous. Preventing vandalism to a site page should not be punished with a block. Michael.suede (talk) 11:50 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Edit warring is not allowed, especially after people have asked you to stop. TN X Man 15:56, 21 March 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.
Preventing people from vandalizing a page is not engaging in an edit war.
This block is nothing more than scientific censorship and a complete joke.-- Michael.suede ( talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (was going to decline as well, this is what I had written) (1) You didn't state in your edit summaries that you were reverting simple vandalism and (2) the edits that you were reverting didn't appear to be uncommented blanking or simple vandalism. As such, you are not exempt from restrictions on edit warring. Until you can admit that, you are not likely to find a sympathetic administrator. Syrthiss ( talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Preventing the deletion of an entire section of a page IS PREVENTING VANDALISM. Unless it can be demonstrated that the section was inappropriate by wiki standards (which it wasn't), then preventing attempts to delete the section IS PREVENTING VANDALISM.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, 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 controversial 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Concerning your recent contributions at Austrian business cycle theory. Please do not edit war to introduce text that has been objected to. Please seek consensus on the talk page before re-introducing any contentious text. LK ( talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 controversial changes and 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. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 22:26, 20 January 2019 (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:Michael.suede reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you.
Tsumikiria (
T/
C) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing. Stop Edit Warring. This is your final warning. You have passed 3RR. Jorm ( talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.