20.138.247.64

Remember kids, don't forget to reconsider your attitude towards others - WP:BITE and WP:HOTHEADS especially!

October 2019

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Garry's Mod. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lincoln Towing Service, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. aboideau^talk 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm MarkH21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Garry's Mod have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Also, please use the edit summaries to accurately describe your edits. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Mgasparin (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

20.138.247.64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think this block is a poorly thought ought, half-assed response to be quite frank and I won't stand for it. I do not understand why one cannot mention the elements of the gamemode of the damned game! You would not demand me to include specific sources for each individual element of a game (such as with Clementine, The Darkness or Left 4 Dead, why is this any different? The TTT segment (which there is extensive resource for) was included, I only saw it fitting to include both Zombie Survival and Prop Hunt which are among one of the more populous (as indicated by the mass numbers in the server browser) gamemodes - I only missed out DarkRP because I didn't have the time nor the energy to write about it and since the Facepunch Forums went down many of the sources behind it have faded. A simple chat with me would've sufficed if you had a problem instead of having someone lazily stuck "rv poor sourced content" even though it's related to the CONTENT of the game and contributes in the CONTEXT of the ARTICLE! Pushing me through this is just a waste of our time.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:52, 11 October 2019 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

20.138.247.64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please don't give me a copy paste answer. Either respond directly to me or don't decline at all. I do not see my edits as harmful, or disruptive - as I said - one would not be expected to include specific sources/citations for each individual element of a game (such as with Clementine, The Darkness or Left 4 Dead, why is this any different? And for TTT, it /DID/ include sources. And nobody spoke to me about this issue beforehand, I was slapped with a block without any recourse. It's a disgusting attitude.

Decline reason:

You were given warnings on this page(see above) and persisted with your edits, and threatened to continue to do so here. You were given a recourse(appeal the block) and have exercised it. The block seems valid to me and that combined with your comments here which border on uncivil, I see no grounds to lift the block, and I am declining your request. If you make another, please focus on the reason for the block and keep your request civil. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2019 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

20.138.247.64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is difficult to be civil when the block in question was unreasonable, to my view - I prefer to be frank in my expression. Anyhow, as far as I am concerned, I have addressed the reason for the block, that being that I do not feel I met the criteria for the fence when considering that, as I have said not once but twice before, one would not be expected to include specific sources/citations for each individual element of a game (such as with Clementine, The Darkness or Left 4 Dead, why was this not the case for my edits? In the case of the TTT section of the article (That's Trouble in Terrorist Town) - I did include citations for the information that was available. Therefore, I do not think there were legitimate grounds to block me.

Decline reason:

As you do not see anything wrong with your edits, I have extended your block to give you more opportunity to read and understand WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:DISPUTE. Yamla (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2019 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

20.138.247.64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't mean to be aggressive about this, but I really don't understand why I'm getting this kind of response - I stated before, please demonstrate where I went wrong with the latest edits! In retrospect, I understood why editors reverted the edits related to the TacoNBanana server/gamemode even though it stands alongside GMod Tower (also mentioned in the article) as a significant component of the Garry's Mod community/gamemodes. My intent was to find better sources and restore it at a later point. HOWEVER, I do not understand, as I've said - and I will continue saying until I get a response that directly addresses it to my satisfaction - a precedent has been set in the sense that one would not be expected to include specific sources/citations for each individual element of a game. As an example, I'll give you The Darkness - its gameplay section does not require a citation/source at all, nor does its plot - so I'm not following why there is an issue with me including a brief summary of the popular gamemodes which take up a majority of the server percentage. Please explain this to me, in detail, or I will have no choice but to continue to return until I can get a satisfactory answer. I'm being more than reasonable with you, but you aren't doing much to give me any incentive to attempt a civil approach at all when your immediate response to my question as to why I was blocked, in light of these circumstances that I've explained above, was to block me for longer because I do not understand. You need to remember WP:BITE, extending this block does nothing to suggest otherwise. Thank you

Decline reason:

 Confirmed abuser of multiple accounts. Talkpage access revoked. You may log into your account and request an unblock there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2019 (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.

To reviewing admins, note that the above request is the first unblock request for the new block (the extended block) which I just put in place. Normally after this many unblock requests, talk page access would be revoked for the duration of the block. I urge patience here, given that this is the first request for the new block. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi - to be clear, I am appealing both the original block - for repeatedly adding unsourced content, when in my later edits (which removed the disputed 'TnB' content) I hadn't done any wrong - and the extended block - given when I questioned why I had been blocked, when similar edits/content in other articles were not disputed.20.138.247.64 (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeap. My comment was just to urge the reviewing administrator to leave your access to your talk page intact, while it would normally be removed at this point. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd appreciate if my TPA still wasn't removed going forward, whatever the result. Cheers.20.138.247.64 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The most important things you could do would be to explain what you should do when your edits are disputed and explain when content needs to be cited(WP:CITE). Please review the links you've been given. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not following you though - here, let me show you what I'm trying to ask. This is the edit that I dispute - what is the issue here, with the game modes I have mentioned? If you look at any other video game article, for instance - Kane & Lynch there is a section which references the Fragile Alliance multiplayer gamemode, that does not include separate sources for it.20.138.247.64 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is, what do you when others dispute your edits?(leaving the merits of the actual edits aside for the moment) 331dot (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Justify the edits? The block states it was applied for providing unsourced content, what I am disputing here is that I do not feel this content fell short of the criteria.20.138.247.64 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Justify them how, to who, and where? 331dot (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Justify the edits to whoever has an issue with them; state why you're disputing their view and including the content, either in the edit or on their talk/the article's talk page. Except, in this case, I was blocked for 'unsourced/poorly sourced content' when this wasn't the case, in the end. I acted and reverted the initial offending segment.20.138.247.64 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I will just say as well, I did try this; here.20.138.247.64 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

---