Lionseeker
|
Blocked edit
--Stephen 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Lionseeker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I edited a page (phimosis) to make it more accurate and provided a reference. My edit was reverted with no explanation, so I changed it. The people engaging in an edit war are those who keep reverting my edits (which followed guidelines) without any justification. I also edited a page that did not follow the neutral point of view guidelines as it claimed that something very specific to the U.S.A. also applied to the rest of the world, when this is not the case. Again, my edit followed guidelines - the edit was referenced and led to a reputable source. For undoing other peoples' malicious actions (reverting my edits) by reintroducing my edits, I have been blocked from editing. Could someone please unblock me? Thanks
Decline reason:
You have been given a 24 hour bock for being disruptive, specifically reintroducing your own edits. In future, I suggest you establish consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring.— PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2008 (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.
Your edits seem really familiar to me, but I can't quite place why. Have you edited Wikipedia using another username? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This user was vandalizing on the above-mentioned IP like crazy last night and edit warring with multiple editors, I got him range-blocked as I was patrolling recent changes so he created an account and started vandalizing again. I then reported his sockpuppetry and had him blocked on this account to. He is also 146.87.255.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well.--Finalnight (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting a change without discussion is a problem. The editors involved in this are encouraged to explain their actions (I've often found the editors who do this have a good reason which isn't articulated). However, this many reverts in a short period of time is fully unacceptable, and completely runs afoul of WP:3RR. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What Finalnight has said (including on another page that I can't edit) is a complete lie. I continued to edit for the reasons mentioned [non-neutral point of view article (genital mutilation, which wrongly claimed that "circumcision" spread to the West when in fact the U.S.A. is the only Western country taht routinely circumcises children) and I corrected another article (phimosis) which left out important information - that "circumcision" (male genital mutilation) removes important nerve endings]. For both articles, I at first did not add any reference as the edits I made are common knowledge. I kept editing because people kept changing the articles so they were inaccurate again. Eventually I decided it would be best to register and ensure the articles were edited properly in order to try to avoid my important edits being deleted. I then edited said documents, USING REPUTABLE REFERENCES, and the edits were reverted with no explanation and no references given to the inaccurate information, unsurprisingly. So I edited again, and was blocked. FisherQueen, I am sure many people also edited the articles in a similar way to the way in which I did - most likely people annoyed at those who are for male genital mutilation spouting incorrect information. If you're for male genital mutilation then it's your choice, but at least make sure the information you present is correct. In addition, I am not any vandal, but I know that there are some vandals on this I.P. address and I've seen warnings before about vandalism. In short, Finalnight is lying, I made important changes to two articles, the changes were removed, I reinstated them, and was blocked. That is what happened and I would sign an oath to it.Lionseeker (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't start using refs until very late in your vandalizing spree, and you assertation that I am lying is laughable and contradictory to the edit histories that the adminstrators read when they blocked you on two accounts. Also, since you have been unblocked, you have started inserting NPOV information and references into articles again instead of building consensus as you were directed to by the admins.--Finalnight (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Editing advice edit
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policies by introducing content based on unreliable sources, you could be blocked. Please use the talk page to discuss controversial changes in future. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)