Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk | contribs) |
|||
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|reason=Repealing because there was another editor in agreement with the fact that the material in question was previously discussed and objected to be included in the article. There WAS consensus previously that the Vogue article was questionable (refer to ARCHIVE 1 in the talk page. Currently, there are TWO editors against ONE editor (Bbb23) who is provoking that the material should stay. Should I be surprised that you sided with Bbb23? Nope, I am not. From what I have read on various talk pages, it appears you Admins abuse your powers and stick/cover up for one another. Corruption at its finest. You, EdJohnston, claimed, "there is no claim that the Vogue material was factually incorrect or defamatory" and yet, actually there are claims that the Vogue material WAS indeed factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, Vogue has come out and said the cover/piece was done as a media campaign by the Syrian government. If you actually did some LEGITIMATE investigative work, you would see that this "block" is absolutely unjustified. EdJohnston said, "The claim that there was consensus to *exclude* the Vogue material can't be verified from the talk page." -- REALLY??? Again, refer to the Archives 1 on the Asma Al-Assad talk page....do some investigative work. How lazy of you. The Vogue article was HEAVILY DISCUSSED in the archives. Finally, " I take no position on the ultimate value to the article of the Vogue material" -- Why don't you take a position? Why don't YOU as an ADMIN and as an EDITOR yourself, take a look at the article in question and see for yourself HOW SLOPPY IT LOOKS!!!!!! Finally, you claim none of the reverts were justified? Did you ACTUALLY GO THROUGH the edits I made? They included grammatical and punctuation errors, REPETITIVE INFORMATION, and the Vogue piece, which for some RIDICULOUS bizarre reason, was given IT'S OWN SECTION IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!! Can someone who is NOT lazy and who is THOROUGH please do some INVESTIGATIVE WORK, read through the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES of the Asma Al-Assad page, and REVIEW previous discussions on the Vogue piece? Is that too much to ask? For YOU, the ADMIN, to do some basic investigative work? Please. What an abuse of power.[[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)|decline=You were warned not to edit war. You continued to edit war. Thus, you were blocked. That is all there is to it; your attacks upon other Wikipedia volunteers do not help your case at all. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|reason=Repealing because there was another editor in agreement with the fact that the material in question was previously discussed and objected to be included in the article. There WAS consensus previously that the Vogue article was questionable (refer to ARCHIVE 1 in the talk page. Currently, there are TWO editors against ONE editor (Bbb23) who is provoking that the material should stay. Should I be surprised that you sided with Bbb23? Nope, I am not. From what I have read on various talk pages, it appears you Admins abuse your powers and stick/cover up for one another. Corruption at its finest. You, EdJohnston, claimed, "there is no claim that the Vogue material was factually incorrect or defamatory" and yet, actually there are claims that the Vogue material WAS indeed factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, Vogue has come out and said the cover/piece was done as a media campaign by the Syrian government. If you actually did some LEGITIMATE investigative work, you would see that this "block" is absolutely unjustified. EdJohnston said, "The claim that there was consensus to *exclude* the Vogue material can't be verified from the talk page." -- REALLY??? Again, refer to the Archives 1 on the Asma Al-Assad talk page....do some investigative work. How lazy of you. The Vogue article was HEAVILY DISCUSSED in the archives. Finally, " I take no position on the ultimate value to the article of the Vogue material" -- Why don't you take a position? Why don't YOU as an ADMIN and as an EDITOR yourself, take a look at the article in question and see for yourself HOW SLOPPY IT LOOKS!!!!!! Finally, you claim none of the reverts were justified? Did you ACTUALLY GO THROUGH the edits I made? They included grammatical and punctuation errors, REPETITIVE INFORMATION, and the Vogue piece, which for some RIDICULOUS bizarre reason, was given IT'S OWN SECTION IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!! Can someone who is NOT lazy and who is THOROUGH please do some INVESTIGATIVE WORK, read through the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES of the Asma Al-Assad page, and REVIEW previous discussions on the Vogue piece? Is that too much to ask? For YOU, the ADMIN, to do some basic investigative work? Please. What an abuse of power.[[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)|decline=You were warned not to edit war. You continued to edit war. Thus, you were blocked. That is all there is to it; your attacks upon other Wikipedia volunteers do not help your case at all. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)}} |
||
{{unblock|reason= Do you NOT understand the madness in this so called "edit war". I was warned not to edit war.... and then the SAME PERSON who warns me THEN proceeds to undo the edits made WITHOUT consulting consensus on the talk page??? This SAME PERSON DISREGARDS previous consensus in the archives of the talk page? After warning me to not so called "edit war" this person REVERSES the edits I've made (ALL WHICH WERE VALID!) Is that not provocation???? How ridiculous. And please, I can tell you did not do any investigative work. I was warned not to edit war....I made ONE edit after the warning, and that was the edit made after THE PERSON WHO WARNED ME reversed my LEGITIMATE EDITS without consulting the talk page! Why were my edits legitimate? Because the Vogue piece which was given it's own section in the article (WHY???????) was previously contested, discussed, and unanimously agreed to not be included in the article. The second edit, there was REPETITIVE INFORMATION (almost word for word) in TWO places of the article. Again, why the repetition of information????? If you don't believe me, for bloody hell, REVIEW MY EDITS!!!!!! My third edit was adding a COMMA after a series of names (example: Members of the White House include Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha--THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER MALIA!!!! Google Oxford comma or a serial comma!! Basic grammar 101). All my edits were valid and yet they were reversed, indiscriminately, with NO justification and NO communication on the talk page. Meanwhile, I have consulted the talk page for ALL MY EDITS!!!! How shameful. So instead of trying to IMPROVE the article and instead of CONSULTING the talk page, you rather settle for a mediocre article? SHAME!!!!!!! I have UTILIZED the talk page--the opposing editor in question HAS NOT/DOES NOT address the issues brought up. And then when I make the edits, only THEN does this tyrannical editor start making a fit about the changes. Is the talk page not for the purpose of dialogue? Consultation? For open communication? Why don't Admins do some investigative work for a change? Why don't you VIEW the article prior to the edits which prompted these so called "edit wars"??? The article was a BLOODY MESS and I would CHALLENGE you to look the article and review the SLOPPY NATURE! As a matter of fact, why don't YOU improve the article YOURSELF because it is SLOPPY! Instead of trying to defend YOUR OWN and I am well aware Bbb23 is one of YOUR own, why not look into the INTEGRITY of your actions in covering up for tyrannical editors! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Finally, NO ONE is exempt from criticism, including other Wikipedia volunteers, ADMINS, and myself, of course. But let's be OBJECTIVE here. Stop with this BIAS protection of your own Admins. Again, I ask that someone REVIEWS the article in question, REVIEWS the talk page, and REVIEWS the edits in question. The edits I made were VALID based upon the NATURE and STATE of the article and based upon PREVIOUS consensus reached on the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES! Admins should NOT abuse their powers. And according to Bbb23 talk page, it appears he is an abusive admin, as others complain of his unruly behavior, including removing other people's edits from talk pages which DO NOT BELONG TO HIM! If this issue in regards to the article and the objectivity is not resolved and/or addressed (as I have REPEATEDLY requested), I will open a dispute and request a third opinion. There is too much POV and repetitiveness in the article and NO ONE seems to want to address that. Again, SHAME. [[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 09:37, 30 November 2013
March 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Calabe1992 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing!
Thank you for your warm welcome. Will definitely stop by for a spot of tea. Have a great day! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
November 2013
Your recent editing history at Asma al-Assad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to tell me the rules, Bbb23. Certainly, I have already repeatedly asked everyone to refer to the Talk Page. Feel free to partake in the conversations there, as I have already instructed others to do.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring at Asma al-Assad
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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.
The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie reported by Bbb23 (talk) (Result: 24 hours). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Repealing because there was another editor in agreement with the fact that the material in question was previously discussed and objected to be included in the article. There WAS consensus previously that the Vogue article was questionable (refer to ARCHIVE 1 in the talk page. Currently, there are TWO editors against ONE editor (Bbb23) who is provoking that the material should stay. Should I be surprised that you sided with Bbb23? Nope, I am not. From what I have read on various talk pages, it appears you Admins abuse your powers and stick/cover up for one another. Corruption at its finest. You, EdJohnston, claimed, "there is no claim that the Vogue material was factually incorrect or defamatory" and yet, actually there are claims that the Vogue material WAS indeed factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, Vogue has come out and said the cover/piece was done as a media campaign by the Syrian government. If you actually did some LEGITIMATE investigative work, you would see that this "block" is absolutely unjustified. EdJohnston said, "The claim that there was consensus to *exclude* the Vogue material can't be verified from the talk page." -- REALLY??? Again, refer to the Archives 1 on the Asma Al-Assad talk page....do some investigative work. How lazy of you. The Vogue article was HEAVILY DISCUSSED in the archives. Finally, " I take no position on the ultimate value to the article of the Vogue material" -- Why don't you take a position? Why don't YOU as an ADMIN and as an EDITOR yourself, take a look at the article in question and see for yourself HOW SLOPPY IT LOOKS!!!!!! Finally, you claim none of the reverts were justified? Did you ACTUALLY GO THROUGH the edits I made? They included grammatical and punctuation errors, REPETITIVE INFORMATION, and the Vogue piece, which for some RIDICULOUS bizarre reason, was given IT'S OWN SECTION IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!! Can someone who is NOT lazy and who is THOROUGH please do some INVESTIGATIVE WORK, read through the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES of the Asma Al-Assad page, and REVIEW previous discussions on the Vogue piece? Is that too much to ask? For YOU, the ADMIN, to do some basic investigative work? Please. What an abuse of power.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned not to edit war. You continued to edit war. Thus, you were blocked. That is all there is to it; your attacks upon other Wikipedia volunteers do not help your case at all. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (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.
Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Do you NOT understand the madness in this so called "edit war". I was warned not to edit war.... and then the SAME PERSON who warns me THEN proceeds to undo the edits made WITHOUT consulting consensus on the talk page??? This SAME PERSON DISREGARDS previous consensus in the archives of the talk page? After warning me to not so called "edit war" this person REVERSES the edits I've made (ALL WHICH WERE VALID!) Is that not provocation???? How ridiculous. And please, I can tell you did not do any investigative work. I was warned not to edit war....I made ONE edit after the warning, and that was the edit made after THE PERSON WHO WARNED ME reversed my LEGITIMATE EDITS without consulting the talk page! Why were my edits legitimate? Because the Vogue piece which was given it's own section in the article (WHY???????) was previously contested, discussed, and unanimously agreed to not be included in the article. The second edit, there was REPETITIVE INFORMATION (almost word for word) in TWO places of the article. Again, why the repetition of information????? If you don't believe me, for bloody hell, REVIEW MY EDITS!!!!!! My third edit was adding a COMMA after a series of names (example: Members of the White House include Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha--THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER MALIA!!!! Google Oxford comma or a serial comma!! Basic grammar 101). All my edits were valid and yet they were reversed, indiscriminately, with NO justification and NO communication on the talk page. Meanwhile, I have consulted the talk page for ALL MY EDITS!!!! How shameful. So instead of trying to IMPROVE the article and instead of CONSULTING the talk page, you rather settle for a mediocre article? SHAME!!!!!!! I have UTILIZED the talk page--the opposing editor in question HAS NOT/DOES NOT address the issues brought up. And then when I make the edits, only THEN does this tyrannical editor start making a fit about the changes. Is the talk page not for the purpose of dialogue? Consultation? For open communication? Why don't Admins do some investigative work for a change? Why don't you VIEW the article prior to the edits which prompted these so called "edit wars"??? The article was a BLOODY MESS and I would CHALLENGE you to look the article and review the SLOPPY NATURE! As a matter of fact, why don't YOU improve the article YOURSELF because it is SLOPPY! Instead of trying to defend YOUR OWN and I am well aware Bbb23 is one of YOUR own, why not look into the INTEGRITY of your actions in covering up for tyrannical editors! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Finally, NO ONE is exempt from criticism, including other Wikipedia volunteers, ADMINS, and myself, of course. But let's be OBJECTIVE here. Stop with this BIAS protection of your own Admins. Again, I ask that someone REVIEWS the article in question, REVIEWS the talk page, and REVIEWS the edits in question. The edits I made were VALID based upon the NATURE and STATE of the article and based upon PREVIOUS consensus reached on the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES! Admins should NOT abuse their powers. And according to Bbb23 talk page, it appears he is an abusive admin, as others complain of his unruly behavior, including removing other people's edits from talk pages which DO NOT BELONG TO HIM! If this issue in regards to the article and the objectivity is not resolved and/or addressed (as I have REPEATEDLY requested), I will open a dispute and request a third opinion. There is too much POV and repetitiveness in the article and NO ONE seems to want to address that. Again, SHAME. [[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Do you NOT understand the madness in this so called "edit war". I was warned not to edit war.... and then the SAME PERSON who warns me THEN proceeds to undo the edits made WITHOUT consulting consensus on the talk page??? This SAME PERSON DISREGARDS previous consensus in the archives of the talk page? After warning me to not so called "edit war" this person REVERSES the edits I've made (ALL WHICH WERE VALID!) Is that not provocation???? How ridiculous. And please, I can tell you did not do any investigative work. I was warned not to edit war....I made ONE edit after the warning, and that was the edit made after THE PERSON WHO WARNED ME reversed my LEGITIMATE EDITS without consulting the talk page! Why were my edits legitimate? Because the Vogue piece which was given it's own section in the article (WHY???????) was previously contested, discussed, and unanimously agreed to not be included in the article. The second edit, there was REPETITIVE INFORMATION (almost word for word) in TWO places of the article. Again, why the repetition of information????? If you don't believe me, for bloody hell, REVIEW MY EDITS!!!!!! My third edit was adding a COMMA after a series of names (example: Members of the White House include Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha--THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER MALIA!!!! Google Oxford comma or a serial comma!! Basic grammar 101). All my edits were valid and yet they were reversed, indiscriminately, with NO justification and NO communication on the talk page. Meanwhile, I have consulted the talk page for ALL MY EDITS!!!! How shameful. So instead of trying to IMPROVE the article and instead of CONSULTING the talk page, you rather settle for a mediocre article? SHAME!!!!!!! I have UTILIZED the talk page--the opposing editor in question HAS NOT/DOES NOT address the issues brought up. And then when I make the edits, only THEN does this tyrannical editor start making a fit about the changes. Is the talk page not for the purpose of dialogue? Consultation? For open communication? Why don't Admins do some investigative work for a change? Why don't you VIEW the article prior to the edits which prompted these so called "edit wars"??? The article was a BLOODY MESS and I would CHALLENGE you to look the article and review the SLOPPY NATURE! As a matter of fact, why don't YOU improve the article YOURSELF because it is SLOPPY! Instead of trying to defend YOUR OWN and I am well aware Bbb23 is one of YOUR own, why not look into the INTEGRITY of your actions in covering up for tyrannical editors! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Finally, NO ONE is exempt from criticism, including other Wikipedia volunteers, ADMINS, and myself, of course. But let's be OBJECTIVE here. Stop with this BIAS protection of your own Admins. Again, I ask that someone REVIEWS the article in question, REVIEWS the talk page, and REVIEWS the edits in question. The edits I made were VALID based upon the NATURE and STATE of the article and based upon PREVIOUS consensus reached on the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES! Admins should NOT abuse their powers. And according to Bbb23 talk page, it appears he is an abusive admin, as others complain of his unruly behavior, including removing other people's edits from talk pages which DO NOT BELONG TO HIM! If this issue in regards to the article and the objectivity is not resolved and/or addressed (as I have REPEATEDLY requested), I will open a dispute and request a third opinion. There is too much POV and repetitiveness in the article and NO ONE seems to want to address that. Again, SHAME. [[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Do you NOT understand the madness in this so called "edit war". I was warned not to edit war.... and then the SAME PERSON who warns me THEN proceeds to undo the edits made WITHOUT consulting consensus on the talk page??? This SAME PERSON DISREGARDS previous consensus in the archives of the talk page? After warning me to not so called "edit war" this person REVERSES the edits I've made (ALL WHICH WERE VALID!) Is that not provocation???? How ridiculous. And please, I can tell you did not do any investigative work. I was warned not to edit war....I made ONE edit after the warning, and that was the edit made after THE PERSON WHO WARNED ME reversed my LEGITIMATE EDITS without consulting the talk page! Why were my edits legitimate? Because the Vogue piece which was given it's own section in the article (WHY???????) was previously contested, discussed, and unanimously agreed to not be included in the article. The second edit, there was REPETITIVE INFORMATION (almost word for word) in TWO places of the article. Again, why the repetition of information????? If you don't believe me, for bloody hell, REVIEW MY EDITS!!!!!! My third edit was adding a COMMA after a series of names (example: Members of the White House include Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha--THERE SHOULD BE A COMMA AFTER MALIA!!!! Google Oxford comma or a serial comma!! Basic grammar 101). All my edits were valid and yet they were reversed, indiscriminately, with NO justification and NO communication on the talk page. Meanwhile, I have consulted the talk page for ALL MY EDITS!!!! How shameful. So instead of trying to IMPROVE the article and instead of CONSULTING the talk page, you rather settle for a mediocre article? SHAME!!!!!!! I have UTILIZED the talk page--the opposing editor in question HAS NOT/DOES NOT address the issues brought up. And then when I make the edits, only THEN does this tyrannical editor start making a fit about the changes. Is the talk page not for the purpose of dialogue? Consultation? For open communication? Why don't Admins do some investigative work for a change? Why don't you VIEW the article prior to the edits which prompted these so called "edit wars"??? The article was a BLOODY MESS and I would CHALLENGE you to look the article and review the SLOPPY NATURE! As a matter of fact, why don't YOU improve the article YOURSELF because it is SLOPPY! Instead of trying to defend YOUR OWN and I am well aware Bbb23 is one of YOUR own, why not look into the INTEGRITY of your actions in covering up for tyrannical editors! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Finally, NO ONE is exempt from criticism, including other Wikipedia volunteers, ADMINS, and myself, of course. But let's be OBJECTIVE here. Stop with this BIAS protection of your own Admins. Again, I ask that someone REVIEWS the article in question, REVIEWS the talk page, and REVIEWS the edits in question. The edits I made were VALID based upon the NATURE and STATE of the article and based upon PREVIOUS consensus reached on the TALK PAGE ARCHIVES! Admins should NOT abuse their powers. And according to Bbb23 talk page, it appears he is an abusive admin, as others complain of his unruly behavior, including removing other people's edits from talk pages which DO NOT BELONG TO HIM! If this issue in regards to the article and the objectivity is not resolved and/or addressed (as I have REPEATEDLY requested), I will open a dispute and request a third opinion. There is too much POV and repetitiveness in the article and NO ONE seems to want to address that. Again, SHAME. [[User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie|Les Etoiles de Ma Vie]] ([[User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie#top|talk]]) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}