| Revision as of 10:17, 26 May 2008 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:uw-3rr|William Rodriguez}} You're at 3 reverts, while I'm at 2. Still, I'm not go revert your ''removal'' of sourced information and addition of some unso...' | Latest revision as of 07:31, 29 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:William Rodriguez|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You're at 3 reverts, while I'm at 2. Still, I'm not go revert your ''removal'' of sourced information and addition of some unsourced information (even if you did add some sourced information, as well) and possible ] violations again today. | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{#if:|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->Sockpuppet of indef-blocked {{user|Jrandi}}. See ], closure of 3RR case on ]. ] (]) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about {{#if:|in the article ]|on Misplaced Pages}}, you may have a ]. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's ] policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should '''avoid''' or '''exercise great caution''' when: | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=My edits have been constantly vandalized by another user and my corrected sources constantly reverted by the user who clearly is biased against the person we are writting about. Please see the talk page and see the biased opinion of the other user and the insulting etiquete against other members|decline=Okay, but that does not mean you can abuse multiple accounts to violate 3RR or give yourself an advantage in a edit war or content dispute, all that does is make you just as much at fault as the other editor you has a conflict of interest about the topic. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| #'''editing''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I only use one account, all the others should be deleted- only Wtcsurvivor is valid and the only one I have been using since last year, again any other incative one should be eliminated, but as far as my other complaint, it still stands|decline=I reviewed your contributions at ] and your discussion on the talk page. You appear to be in a disagreement with another editor- you'd like the article to reflect what an admirable person Rodriguez is, which is adding your own bias, while the other user doesn't find him admirable but, as far as I can tell, isn't actually adding bias to the article. Maybe I missed some nuances, but your edit-warring is not okay, nor are your personal attacks- calling the good-faith edits of ] vandalism, and accusing him of being motivated by mental illness, are not the ways that Wikipedians collaborate. Play nice, or you'll have to take your ball and go home. — ]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| #'''participating''' in ] about articles related to your organization or its competitors; | |||
| # '''linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]); | |||
| #:and you must always: | |||
| # '''avoid breaching''' relevant policies and guidelines, especially ], ], and ]. | |||
| FisherQueen, you may want to read again the talk page, I was the one accused of mental illness and not all the way around, so I believe you may have been referring to me equivocaly. Please correct.Thanks] (]) 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see ]. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> | |||
| — ] ] 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| FisherQueen, I am still waiting for your correction.] (]) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The ''stated'' reason for blocking {{user|Jrandi}} was improper user name, so ''this'' reason (sockpuppet of an indef blocked user) for an indef block may be invalid. Jrandi/Wtcsurvivor is still disruptive, though. — ] ] 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point about the sock accusation, I guess I assumed the blocking admin would have dotted his i's and crossed his t's, so that goes out the window. I still see this account as being very disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry but I disagree. I have been using Wtcsurvivor since last November and nothing else. Disruptive ? when my edits has been vandalized by the same user? I disagree.] (]) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=User FisherQueen erroneously accuse me of calling the other party insults related to mental health, when it was all the way around and no correction to the statement made|decline=You were being ] by ].— ] (]) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| 5 days and still waiting for a retraction from FisherQueen. ] (]) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I have been accused and made a scapegoat even though the other user who Started the warring has not being discipline. I f you read the page William Rodriguez, they have been going party editing as I am blocked. I sent email to William Rodriguez and to John Shroeder. I believe that fairness should have been that the other user who was very insulting in the talk page ( I only put in quotes what she said and then again, wrongly accused of being the one insulting.}please REVIEW carefully the page and the TALK page. I am requesting an unblock. ] (]) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)|decline=This does not address the reason for your block, i.e. sockpuppetry. Page protected. — <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
Latest revision as of 07:31, 29 January 2022
Sockpuppet of indef-blocked Jrandi (talk · contribs). See WP:AN3, closure of 3RR case on William Rodriguez. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wtcsurvivor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edits have been constantly vandalized by another user and my corrected sources constantly reverted by the user who clearly is biased against the person we are writting about. Please see the talk page and see the biased opinion of the other user and the insulting etiquete against other members
Decline reason:
Okay, but that does not mean you can abuse multiple accounts to violate 3RR or give yourself an advantage in a edit war or content dispute, all that does is make you just as much at fault as the other editor you has a conflict of interest about the topic. — Tiptoety 22:15, 27 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.
Wtcsurvivor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only use one account, all the others should be deleted- only Wtcsurvivor is valid and the only one I have been using since last year, again any other incative one should be eliminated, but as far as my other complaint, it still stands
Decline reason:
I reviewed your contributions at William Rodriguez and your discussion on the talk page. You appear to be in a disagreement with another editor- you'd like the article to reflect what an admirable person Rodriguez is, which is adding your own bias, while the other user doesn't find him admirable but, as far as I can tell, isn't actually adding bias to the article. Maybe I missed some nuances, but your edit-warring is not okay, nor are your personal attacks- calling the good-faith edits of User:Jazz2006 vandalism, and accusing him of being motivated by mental illness, are not the ways that Wikipedians collaborate. Play nice, or you'll have to take your ball and go home. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 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.
FisherQueen, you may want to read again the talk page, I was the one accused of mental illness and not all the way around, so I believe you may have been referring to me equivocaly. Please correct.ThanksWtcsurvivor (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
FisherQueen, I am still waiting for your correction.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The stated reason for blocking Jrandi (talk · contribs) was improper user name, so this reason (sockpuppet of an indef blocked user) for an indef block may be invalid. Jrandi/Wtcsurvivor is still disruptive, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good point about the sock accusation, I guess I assumed the blocking admin would have dotted his i's and crossed his t's, so that goes out the window. I still see this account as being very disruptive. Tiptoety 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree. I have been using Wtcsurvivor since last November and nothing else. Disruptive ? when my edits has been vandalized by the same user? I disagree.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wtcsurvivor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User FisherQueen erroneously accuse me of calling the other party insults related to mental health, when it was all the way around and no correction to the statement made
Decline reason:
You were being disruptive by edit warring.— PhilKnight (talk) 20:47, 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.
5 days and still waiting for a retraction from FisherQueen. Wtcsurvivor (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wtcsurvivor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused and made a scapegoat even though the other user who Started the warring has not being discipline. I f you read the page William Rodriguez, they have been going party editing as I am blocked. I sent email to William Rodriguez and to John Shroeder. I believe that fairness should have been that the other user who was very insulting in the talk page ( I only put in quotes what she said and then again, wrongly accused of being the one insulting.}please REVIEW carefully the page and the TALK page. I am requesting an unblock. Wtcsurvivor (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block, i.e. sockpuppetry. Page protected. — Sandstein 22:52, 1 June 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.