User talk:71.234.162.94

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Supernatural (TV series). Note that the three-revert rule 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three-revert rule. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (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: "First of all C.Fred, I checked the complaint that Ophios made about me. Apparenly his idea of me "refusing to make a logical compromise" is either accpeting exactly what he does, or getting banned. It really isnt something that can be compromised on anyway. Either they are listed as stars, or they are not. Also, I find it unfiar that there were two sides to this "edit war" and I get banned while he gets nothing. None of us were right, it was just a disagreement over weather or not two castmembers ae main charachters. I feel that they are not since they are not catagorized as such, nor are they listed as stars on the official website, but he feels they are becuase they are contracted. Why am I banned, but he is not, even though he made the same amount of revisions as me?"

Decline reason: "You have clearly been edit warring, and thus this block is valid. When the block expired, do not effect the same edits again. Instead, please attempt to solve the dispute via dispute resolution. In order, you should probably try the following methods: Request a Third Opinion, then try Request for Comment then try Request for Mediation. These methods will bring in uninvolved and neutral editors to review and help solve a deadlock. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 18 May 2008 (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 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: "Fine, I was edit warring. However, why is it that the guy I warring with (ironicly the guy that reported me) is also not blocked, even though he is in clear violation of the three-edit rule as well? And why have I been told not to make the same edit again, essentially saying that I have to keep his edit? Why are you considering his opionion the only valid one (or atleast the default one)? Arent you being extremly bias here?"

Decline reason: "Alleged misconduct by another user is not a reason to unblock you. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. —  Sandstein  07:14, 18 May 2008 (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.

I'll let another admin respond above. The isue is not "letting his edit stand". The issue is bringing in outside commentary to solve the deadlock. When you are no longer blocked, the correct procedure for avoiding an edit war is to bring in outside help, as I have described above. If you do that, and your version of the article is the "right" one, then other editors who are unfamiliar with the situation will confirm that. But simply pushing your version by repeatedly reverting to it is unhelpful and gets you blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So why is the guy that I was warring with not blocked too? Why is he able to report me for the same thing that he is guilty of, yet he gets off scot free with his edit being the "default" on until this is settled?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.162.94 (talk • contribs)
Personally, I have no idea. I was not involved in the decision to block you, and have no familiarity over the situation. I can tell, by looking at your contributions, that you were clearly edit warring, however. Your only responsibility is over your own actions, and as yet, you have not made any indication that you intend to stop edit warring. Indeed, every comment you have made indicates that you intend to put your own version back as soon as you can, and that you have no intention of solving this dispute by the rules. Regardless of what has happened to any other user for anything else, YOU have made no statement to indicate to an administrator that YOU do not intend to be a problem, which is why YOU are not unblocked... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt really matter. Im gonna be automatically unblocked in less than a day anyway. And to be honest, yes, I have very intention of trying to get the article corrected. The user that I was warring with seems to treat the article like his own little police state, constantly guarding it and refusing to budge in any of the discussions weve had (then he reports me to an admin that he is friends with for me being unreasonable). However I can tell you that now that I am aware of the existance of these mediators, I do have every intention of using them. I never really had any intention of getting unblocked, I just wanted to know why the other guy wasnt.
FWIW I agree, the other editor should have been blocked as well, as you were both violating a policy regarding revert warring. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, User:Ophois reverted 8 times between 05:57, 17 May 2008 and 05:55, 18 May 2008. The IP editor is quite right to feel aggrieved that he got blocked and Ophois did not. That is human nature. I would block Ophois now, but I'm leaving the computer in a few hours. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • These types of things happen far too often here. It has a chilling effect on participation in the project. Bellwether BC 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)