BeyonderGod
June 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
BeyonderGod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I should be unblocked from editing warring because I have completely referenced my sources from the original sources that i got them from and where other fellow editors have not done that they added their own Opinions and not actual information so why am I being banned if I'm proving my citations correctly?? I dont get it here do i need over 13,000+ edits to be on the good side? I am banned for the 2nd because of false information made by other editors. Beyonder (talk) 5:54 pm, Today (UTC+1)BeyonderGod
Decline reason:
Blaming others and not addessing directly the reason for your block gives me no confidence that you will change the behavior that has led to you being blocked twice now in the last three months. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 5 June 2016 (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.
BeyonderGod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again lets try this again..... A Edit warring is by Wikipedia is "A edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."
Now here is the problem.....
- I haven't Repeatedly overridden others contributions I have literally stated multiple times I have Fixed/corrected the information made by the said other editor i gave citations and references directly from the source materials.
- David A. has not once done a dispute resolution after i won the debate over Beyonder page as for The Living Tribunal and Beyonders pages he hasn't ONCE try to engage with me over a solution the fact He only UNDOS/Rollbacks my edits without stating a reason is a direct given Edit Warring if you can clearly SEE/READ I have given the reasons for my edits while said Editor HASNT once done so he has not once proven me wrong and its only ACCEPTED around many places that he is not a person who can argue he would rather believe/think he is right when he is proven wrong constantly shown and i have made no effect to do so either because of this reason.
- I am banned for adding CORRECT/FACTUAL information Doug you can look up this information yourself and see that David A is adding HIS own opinion from his own Wikia at vsbattles I am not causing a war here or anything above.
- I can accept when i am wrong when i am shown that i am wrong David A should be banned for 3 months as well for contributing to the Edit Warring just like me because this is the 3rd time he has gone SCOTT FREE.
- Now if you Admin can actually ADDRESS my faults with evidence then i will take the 3 months if not this is all biased. Beyonder (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Decline reason:
You were edit warring, so the block stays. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2016 (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 have reinstated the declined unblock request again. Please do not remove it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can have a civil resolution with David A but it matters if he can actually keep the argument on-topic and not bring anything else up like the 1st time on here. Beyonder (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- If you wish to have your unblock accepted, can you please give us a link to the consensus that supports the changes you have been repeatedly making. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can read on nothing on ANY of these official sources mention anything about 16th-Dimensional information.
- Marvel Wiki: The Living Tribunal: This is where the information came from the original source.
- The Living Tribunal Old Bio
- The Living Tribunal Recent Bio
As for the Beyonders Page
They aren't mentioned as Hyper or Higher dimensional beings they are point blank describe as The enigmatic All-Powerful Beyonders
All my sources are directly given by the company. Beyonder (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- I didn't ask for your sources, and I didn't ask for a repeat of your content argument. I asked you to provide a link to the discussion in which your sources were reviewed, where your disputed changes were discussed, and where you obtained a consensus agreeing with you. Do you have it, or do you not? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
David A wont have a civil discussion so you ask him and we can settle this right now and right here without any more trouble. Beyonder (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- Thank you for confirming that you do not have a consensus for your disputed changes - no doubt the reviewing admin will find that useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
So you saying i cant Dispute resolution the very thing you offered??? Beyonder (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- When you are unblocked, start a discussion on the relevant talk page and wait for consensus. If you find that is not productive, follow the dispute resolution steps at WP:DR. If you repeat the changes you have been edit warring extensively over without getting a clear decision in your favour from one of those venues, you will be blocked again, probably indefinitely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- A bit more, which I hope might help... You have had plenty of discussions over various disputed changes that you have tried to make over the past year or more, in which you have failed to achieve a consensus. You have also had plenty of advice on how to deal with such disputes, so it's a bit much now complaining that you are being prevented from seeking dispute resolution. While you are blocked, I would strongly urge you to re-read the words of advice you were given by User:JamesBWatson, in your previous block here, and actually listen to what he said and think about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
JamesBWatson didnt give any advice an advice would be "BeyonderGod why not just have a civil discussion with David A which will be moderated." But nope he didnt say that but instead he gave me a his rude/uncivil opinion about myself so i didnt want to take in such a uncivil/ignorant comment by him so if i cant request a debate (which ill likely win anyway) then no point to see the biased here. Beyonder (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- OK, Please yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thats my Fiance job. Beyonder (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) BeyonderGod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I haven't done anything but cite and link my sources there is no edit warring just a wikipedia editor adding proper information. Rule 6 of Editing Wikipedia I have followed within the lines of Wikipedia rules where David A has not cited ANY sources other than his opinion so how can i change something that applies to your rules? i have done nothing wrong here and being infinitely banned for adding official sources is wrong now? I should be unblocked for the grounds of actually doing research and reading my sources correctly i have given numerous links and citations but you guys never look at them you guys instantly think its a "Edit" war even here Beyonders Talk Page David A is giving nothing but his opinions "Again, it does not matter what the handbooks or Tom Brevoort say." Handbooks are the PRIMARY SOURCE and Tom Brevoort is the EDITOR of the series which the Beyondersd held from and he is ignoring the sources as Hyperbole without any real discussion other than him being proven wrong look back at the Kami Tenchi debate He posted NO official sources he cited nothing not even 1 source from the series itself that holds his opinions where I literally go within 5 minutes finding official sources to what i stated no Opinions needed for such arguments. Beyonder (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Decline reason:
Your total refusal to listen to anything anyone says to you here is turning this into a monumental waste of the valuable time of volunteers. To bring an end to that waste of time, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. The only unblock avenue open to you now is WP:UTRS, but I would strongly recommend you wait for at least the six months suggested at WP:Standard Offer, and that you spend some of that time pondering all of your past problems and what *you* have been doing wrong (I'm not going to repeat what that is again, as you have been told enough times by enough different people). A request at WP:UTRS that simply repeats your assertions that you are right and ignores the need for consensus for disupted changes will, almost certainly, be summarily dismissed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2016 (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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, BeyonderGod. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)