User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:07, 1 September 2007 editBlack Kite (talk \| contribs)Administrators85,341 edits →Blocked: decline← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:11, 1 September 2007 edit undoLuk (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators44,791 edits unblock reviewedNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:

	{{unblock reviewed\|1=This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.\|decline=Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — <b>]</b> 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.\|decline=Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — <b>]</b> 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)}}
			:(edit conflict) Your 3 reverts on 3 different articles are obviously an attempt to game the system. I endorse this block. Some of your reverts even seem not to be in phase with the current consensus that exists on these pages. Therefore, I suggest you to propose changes on the talk pages and gauge consensus before entering a fruitless and harmful edit-war. — -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:11, 1 September 2007

Welcome!

Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. WP:3RR is not a license to revert 3 times per article per day. You have been warned three times in the last few days about edit warring- , , . The fact you haven't made a 4th revert in these cases is a clear attempt to game the system. Edit warring is not an accpetable way to deal with content dispute - discuss with other editors instead in future. WjBscribe 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.

Decline reason:

Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — ELIMINATORJR 20:07, 1 September 2007 (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.

(edit conflict) Your 3 reverts on 3 different articles are obviously an attempt to game the system. I endorse this block. Some of your reverts even seem not to be in phase with the current consensus that exists on these pages. Therefore, I suggest you to propose changes on the talk pages and gauge consensus before entering a fruitless and harmful edit-war. — -- lucasbfr 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:07, 1 September 2007 editBlack Kite (talk \| contribs)Administrators85,341 edits →Blocked: decline← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:11, 1 September 2007 edit undoLuk (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators44,791 edits unblock reviewedNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:

	{{unblock reviewed\|1=This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.\|decline=Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — <b>]</b> 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.\|decline=Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — <b>]</b> 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)}}
			:(edit conflict) Your 3 reverts on 3 different articles are obviously an attempt to game the system. I endorse this block. Some of your reverts even seem not to be in phase with the current consensus that exists on these pages. Therefore, I suggest you to propose changes on the talk pages and gauge consensus before entering a fruitless and harmful edit-war. — -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)