Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pink News with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Pink News with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:SPS, especially the line that deals with self-serving sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit warring on Australian Christian Lobby or you'll be in violation of WP:3RR and most likely be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
When material you add or restore to an article is challenged and reverted, it is up to YOU to discuss the matter on the article talk page and get consensus there BEFORE the material can be added. The source you used was not reliable for the information added. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Zaalbar, thanks for considering my responses at your RSN discussion thoughtfully. Just wanted to let you know I'm heading out for the weekend, so I may not have another chance to respond. Just FYI in case you were going to be looking for any more input from me there. Cheers, have a great weekend. Zad68
20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that you stop roaming Wikipedia trying to re-define Shepard's murder as a "possible" hate crime based only on the claims of the perpetrators. We would not change an article on a murder to a "possible murder" based on the sole claim by the perpetrator that they were innocent. We stick to the facts and the reliable sources. The minority view may be appropriate to be mentioned in the Shepard article itself, but it is certainly not relevant elsewhere. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Just wanted to say 'thanks' for all your hard work lately. Belchfire-TALK 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at LGBT rights in Ecuador shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Zaalbar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Bbb23's stated what my reverts are here [1] Number 1 may be seen as a revert. I'm not sure though since it had been two days since "supporters" was removed and I used the talk page during that time to discuss that. After two days no sufficient source had been provided and so I added "supporters". Number 2 is definitely not a revert, as the edit war has been over "supporters" and I didn't touch that but decided to work on other wording and left the disputed "supporters". Number 3 wasn't a revert either, I just removed a statement to editors that had been there for a while which I didn't think should be there (there were no previous disputes over it). Number 4 is the only revert (unless you count number 1, which I wouldn't since it is just a removal of un-sourced information on 24 December after the talk page discussion concerning it had resulted in no supportive source since it started on 22 December). Zaalbar (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for edit warring. Bbb23 has clearly stated that this revert count is not what you're blocked for. Max Semenik (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (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.
Zaalbar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Unblock requests are to respond to the issues the led to the block AND to address any discussion since (see WP:GAB and WP:AAB). "Read up higher" does not address anything at all - especially because a few lines above is a very clear decline with nothing new to even SUGGEST that you understand WP:EW or WP:REVERT. To go back and make the edit you did in the middle of a discussion was pure edit-warring and disruptive, and against the promises that are inherently made during dispute resolution. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 25 December 2012 (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.
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Zaalbar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm afraid a grave mistake has been made. My twin brother operated the Acoma Magic account and when he was banned, he was quite annoyed and quit Wikipedia. I felt bad for him and decided to try editing Wikipedia. I've looked at his contributions and continued some of his editing, hence the accounts are quite similar. Zaalbar (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
People are collapsing talk page discussions under the guide of WP:DENY. Somebody may want to edit that policy because the large title box highlighting that the collapsed discussions has a blocked sock puppet contributing there will make more people want to bother reading it. The policy/people are working against their purpose. This is my last post on Wikipedia so bye. Zaalbar (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matthew Shepard. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)