User talk:ACanadianToker/Archives/2018/November

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Thousand Oaks shooting, you may be blocked from editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Thousand Oaks shooting. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ACanadianToker reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: ). Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Thousand Oaks shooting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are pathetic. I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE A TALK PAGE ENTRY! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2018 (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).

ACanadianToker/Archives/2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE A TALK PAGE ENTRY! You are a BULLY! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 8 November 2018 (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 won't get unblocked if you keep shouting in all capitals. Please calm down and take a deep breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

you are nothing but a bully. I was the one who made the talk page entry, you chose to bully me for no reason. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

cited, relevant. only reason was what? 15:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

same reason I cant even edit the talk pages! @Ritchie333: is a BULLY! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

pathetic @Ritchie333: - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Your unblock request needs to focus on your conduct and your conduct only. You have to convince us that, if unblocked, you will follow policies and be a net positive to the project. Personal attacks against other editors don't do that for you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked you because other editors filed a complaint that they were unable to update the article because your edits kept clobbering them. If I had to point a finger at the real issue, it's because currently the MediaWiki software only allows us to protect a page (so nobody can edit) or block an editor from everything (so they can't discuss the issues). Obviously I can't protect, as there are too many people editing the article, and doing nothing would have probably resulting in another administrator blocking anyway.

My advice to you is this - I can take a bit of being slagged off, it comes as part of the job, but it won't help your case. You won't get unblocked unless we can get absolute assurances that you won't touch the article anymore, and will restrict your editing to the talk page. There usually isn't any great requirement to rush and scramble to be the first to edit, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: you are a BULLY! So now you're blackmailing me to restore access? Those other editors are who should be blocked. I made the talk page, to DISCUSS THE ISSUE. Instead the biased just found YOU a BULLY! I will not be blackmailed. You should be ashamed of yourself for bullying me on Wikipedia. Pathetic. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How convenient that I can't even edit the talk page to discuss the issue. But you never wanted that anyway. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I put a pov tag on the article and made a new talk page section for the pov tag. happy to hear from you other there! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Thousand Oaks shooting, you may be blocked from editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Thousand Oaks shooting. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: you are nothing but a BULLY! Go discuss it on the article talk page, that is why I PUT THE TAG ON THERE! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: ITS right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thousand_Oaks_shooting#POV_Tag_on_article - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of any dispute you have with anyone, please stop calling editors bullies per WP:NPA. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)