Gobbleygook
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Gobbleygook (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Jesus Christ. My account hasn't been in existence for even a month and already I'm getting a block of this length. I know I should have taken the higher road and let the other user hang him/herself, but after having been wikihounded for days and improperly accused of sockpuppetry I think it was only human that I engaged in edit warring (albeit to a very limited extent) myself. I think what I did was wrong and know better how to handle such happenings again in the future, but am suggesting that in the context of the dispute is something that is understandable. I'd like to analogize it to the way we fought the war on terror particularly in the beginning we made lots of mistakes which wasn't right (and which we subsequently learned from after their subjection to severe criticism) but understandable given the context of the situation. Given that I'm relatively new, have no prior blocks, that I was subjected to severe wikihounding and improperly accused of sockpuppetry, maybe the admins here can grant me clemency.
Decline reason:
The block is not of unreasonable length. Do you concede that you received several warnings on this page relating to your edits? Assuming that the answer is "yes", because they are still visible, why did you ignore them? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:20, 13 May 2013 (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.
- "Not of unreasonable length." It's 2 and a half days for a relatively new account which if I am not mistaken isn't what new accounts get for the first block (usually it's 24 hours). I didn't ignore those edit warnings and to the extent that I did, I've tried to put it in context as to why I did what I did...and that's not including how I'll know not to do it again after getting a block warning like this. I don't know what more I can say to ask for clemency, but there you go. Again, if it's possible that the block be removed or at the very least, have it reduced to say 48 hours or even 24 hours, it'd be great if you or your colleagues could do that. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war edit
There are a couple of issues here. It's good to add more content and context to the Syrian Armed Forces article, but you do not appear to have taken a look at the entire article, which, as other editors have said, does already have a section on the civil war, in the main section *above* the section you inserted the material into. The section you inserted the material into is a section on the various branches of the Syrian armed forces. The material you inserted should have been placed in the section above.
The second issue is one of WP:NPOV. This is really tricky in the context of a article on a very high profile issue, with clear human rights violations involved (on both sides, I should add, it seems there is credible evidence to believe that the rebels may have used Sarin.) The civil war section of the Syrian Armed Forces article should present the issue in a balanced light, so you might have to reword the section you wanted to insert to provide more balance.
Thirdly, if you would like any advice on cooperating with other editors, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)July 2013 edit
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Glenn Greenwald, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Kudu ~I/O~ 21:05, 3 July 2013 (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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)