User talk:207.195.254.141

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

I have protected this page because there seems to be edit warring taking place. The revert rule exists to stop edit warring and at this point you (and others) have gone past 3 reverts and so could be blocked. I have protected the page instead.

If you have disagreements concerning content the best way to resolve these is through discussion on the articles talk page. I also notice from your edit summaries things like "remove POV", please note the N in NPOV means neutral, not NO. This is achieve be representing a range of points of view...

Thanks. --pgk(talk) 20:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by the three revert rule. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Bad faith block. I didn't vandalize any pages. they were all legimate edits after the other side of the argument was completely removed from that page."

Decline reason: "No evidence of bad faith, and saying so without evidence is something of a personal attack. Looking at the diffs, you engaged in an edit war. That's very very bad. It disrupts Wikipedia and deters editors from editing. We frown upon it. And we don't judge the behaviour of one editor against the behaviour of others: you may or may not have seen other editors misbehaving, but that is neither reason nor excuse to do the same. --➨ ЯEDVERS 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This isn't a bad-faith block. The five difs that I used to justify the block are:

If others are involved in this revert war then they should also receive the appropriate discipline.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So user:Ryulong should be blocked too, he went over the revert limit and he was the one that started it.207.195.254.141 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Blanking is vandalism and reverting vandalism is an exception to 3rr. Thanatosimii 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your judgement of it as "vandalism" is just that, your own judement. Editors can and do remove content that violates npov or policy on original research. 207.195.254.141 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the vandalism article. Blanking = Vandalism Thanatosimii 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also this case up for review at the 3RR noticeboard for comment.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On this topic, I realise that there are divisive articles and subjects on WP. To avoid similar circumstances arising in the future, please use the article's Talk page to discuss the relevant sections with other interested parties. You may well be able to achieve consensus without taking actions such as deleting sections of articles wholesale.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But the user deeceevoice has been doing that repeatedly. Just check the page's history.207.195.254.141 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)