BillWalton
May 2018 edit
Hello, I'm Daylen. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to WhiteWave Foods have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Daylen (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Daylen. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Horizon Organic have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Daylen (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to WhiteWave Foods. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Deli nk (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to WhiteWave Foods, you may be blocked from editing. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to WhiteWave Foods. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 15:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
BillWalton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I added a link regarding the use of "Organic". There is nothing offensive or incorrect with the addition. It is of interest to the to visitors of company page. It is in no way spam and promotes an unbiased page. I have repeatedly requested an explanation of why the link is removed and have not received on. It seems to me that the person removing the page is likely biased and surly not open to even minimal discussion or explanation. I'd appreciate at least some explanation for the blockage, beyond single words like span or not-constructive. I have asked several independent readers to give comments.
Decline reason:
This has generally been explained to you above. But to summarise: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 18:04, 31 May 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.
BillWalton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is strange that you list so many reasons for the Block, I think it is an after construction as you have only previously listed spam. Reading the wiki definitions of each of your entries, I can't see any of the applying except that my added link maybe better placed outside the body. However I could not find any item on the wiki links page that said my link could not be in the body. By the way this is the first time, you gave this excuse. I also did not see how my link could be spam, it is not an advertisement, soliciting, video book spam or any of the other categories. The source is reliable. If there has been warring, it is by you removed my links, I have not removed anything. If you disagree with any of this ( WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:EW.) please give details and explain, as I can't see how your clames are accurate.
Decline reason:
Directing people to an external link is spamming. You edit warred by restoring it after it was removed from articles, when you should have discussed the matter. Leaving that aside, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. As you don't seem to understand what was problematic about what you did, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 May 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.
I would also note that, if you are associated with that website in some way, you also need to read WP:COI and(if you are an employee) WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the last response to my unblock request. It is the first response which made sense. If I understand this correctly, some "Directing people to an external link is spamming" but not all. Reading the wiki section "How not to be a spammer" was a great help, it would have been nice if the original editor had take the time to give a valid basis for the blocking. Had this been done there might not have been any need for the block at all. Reading this it seems to me that the section "Contribute cited text, not bare links." is the only section that applies and I will look into this further. I will take the phrase "first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source." to heart. However I'd like to say the original block listing WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:EW seems bias and a shotgun attempt to silence my good intentions and it makes me question the original editor objectivity. How ever this may be decided as I learn more of what the traditions and customs of wiki are about. Thank you for the last comment, it will help me be a better contributor. One more thing, I did try to discuss this, but only received blanket "no" type comments, never once did I get any help to understand the issue.
Now I am trying to understand what is considered custom on wiki. What follows would be my edit of the page, would it be acceptable?
It seems the use of the “Organic” label has less meaning than one can expect. Horizon Organic milk has a class action suite. The lawsuit is Brown v. Danone North America LLC, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-07325, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The link would be lawsuit. i hope to learn how to contribute, please let me know if anything woul;d be wrong with this .
- Primary sources are not what we are primarily interested in. Wikipedia wants independent reliable sources. If there are things like news reports that discuss the suit, you may have something. Once unblocked, you can discuss the matter on an appropriate article talk page. I don't know enough about this matter to be able to tell you if it is a good contribution. You seem to suggest that you have a conflict of interest, you will need to disclose it in order to be unblocked if you make another request. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Not at all, I do not have any interest what so ever, I just stumbled on the website and read about the problems with the organic label. The suggestion of a conflict of interest is about the, in my experience, high handed, or at least inconsiderate handling by the original editor. There are many sources discussing the problems with the organic label and Horizon in particular, I can't see how there could be any question of the reliability of either of my links, one has the legal reference the other is a repeatable association and has won similar law suites, i.e. neither frivolous nor biased. I do not know what a "article talk page" is, where do I find it for "Horizon Organic" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Organic. Thank you again, for the help, I am new at this.
- When viewing the article, there is a tab at the top labeled "talk". Clicking it will take you to the talk page; I will also link to it directly: Talk:Horizon Organic. Dlohcierekim what would you like to see for an unblock here? 331dot (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Unblock discussion edit
At first glance, not adding links to that website. And no one adds an ex link to a website to that many articles w/o having some sort of WP:COI- even if it's just a need to "get the word out". Verbalizing understanding of the pages referenced by Yamla above (restating in one's own words. not just saying, "I understand".)-- WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:EW. Not adding any ex links not being directly used to source content via Template:Cite. Not adding content based on observation or opinion. Not wp:edit warring. Tell us what user will do instead of edit warring. Letting us now what edits user will make instead of adding ex links. Any admin may unblock at their discretion or add or subtract to the conditions as they see fit.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't understand the paragraph above, the English does not make sense as far as I understand. It surly is not addressing any of my actions. I tried to add only one link, now there might be two, surely that is ok as it is done on many Wiki sites. I am not trying to get the word out, what ever "word" it is referring to. As the present article is, it is like a promotion or ad and I do think it needs balance. My links are not opinion, both refer to legal cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.150.251 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)