71.162.85.88

stop deleting my entry it is true and properly sourced

Whether edit was true or not is irrelevant - You used a forum post as a source, which is a violation of WP:RS. He was well within his right to revert your edit. Eik Corell (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Mephistophelian (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Battlefield: Bad Company 2. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

- Vianello (Talk) 19:19, 13 March 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Other users have continually deleted my valid and properly sourced entry. I rentered it and was blocked. The source used is an official technical support thread from the developers of the game. This is a valid source, not simply a "forum post" as was alluded to by another user. I believe unbiased means that unflattering but true facts be presented as well. The entry did not exagerate or stretch the truth, and was very objective. It did not make any untrue or unsubstantiated claims. It was properly entered and properly sourced. I do not believe wikipedia should present only flattering facts about anything, while filtering out anything negative. This is a fact guide, not an advertising forum for the game. You can get me here or email rick@rickadavis.com

Decline reason:

The only exception to our policy on edit warring is reverting blatant vandalism. In the future try to keep bold, revert, discuss in mind, and pursue page protection or dispute resolution if needed instead of edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So the people who continually removed my post were not vandals, but I was? Am I edit warring alone, with myself? Corporate lackeys are whitewashing anything negative, and they are the ones who should be blocked. All Truth should be presented.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. The other key edit-warrior has now been dealt with as well. In the future, however, forum posts != valid, even if they are from "official" technical fora. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 13 March 2010 (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.

Ok, point taken, I've just blocked one of the other edit warriors who reverted you three times, and now I'm off to leave a warning on the article talk page about further edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

January 2014

I was surprised to see a "message" notice when I did a search for "GIGE", which is, AFAIK, not related to any "Battlefield" game or similar entry. I quickly realized that I wasn't part of the original debate shown above: I got the notice since Verizon's DHCP server issued me an IP address which used to be assigned to the previous contributor. It's a tempest in a teapot, of course, and I'm not sure if I could log on to avoid it, but I recommend that Wikipedia implement a "timeout" policy on IP-address-based discussions and/or limit them to users whom access the original article. 

William Warren

---