Blackbeard2k7 (talk | contribs) No more arguing on my talk page. Use article discussion pages for disputes. |
Hungrywolf (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> |
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> |
||
[[Category:WelcomeBotResearch]] |
[[Category:WelcomeBotResearch]] |
||
== My edits and discussions are being deleted == |
|||
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Commander there is a user that has been deleting my edits and discussions. My first edit there was to warn the public about the dangers of visiting the advertised "World Championship" forum. I know someone who has been harrassed and threatened by the site admin there. My comments were deleted by an anonymous user, who I believe to be a user named Hungrywolf, who is the actual site admin of that forum. Instead of re-adding my comments, I removed the section and link completely and moved my comments to the discussion tab. Ultimately the reason for removing the section and link is because there is no verifiable world champion of this video game. There is no official world championship sponsored by sony online entertainment. And so it is not appropriate to be listing anyone as being world champions of this game or implying that there is actually an official world championship tournament for this game, because there isn't one. The link to the forum was removed because it is just a discussion forum. Actually a private one, where you are unable to post without being previously approved by the site administrator. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL section "Links normally to be avoided" #10. However, user Hungrywolf has re-added the section again as well as DELETED my comments in the talk page, which I feel is inappropriate. I am going to remove the section and link once again. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 08:55, 17 August 2007 |
|||
:In my opinion, the other editor was right to remove your warning (as it was [[WP:OR|original research]], and you were right to remove the section. However, you should discuss this with the other editors on the talk page if there is disagreement. --[[User:Sopoforic|Sopoforic]] 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The user Hungrywolf continues to re-add the section and link to his private forums without addressing the issues in the discussion page. What action can be taken to resolve this? [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 10:38, 17 August 2007 |
|||
:From what I can see above, it seems as though you are editing according to policy (with the exception of the OR Sopoforic previously mentioned). I would try to contact Hungrywolf directly about this on his talk page, to see if you can negotiate some sort of truce about this. Failing that, the next step in [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] would be to back away for a little bit. The link has been there for a while previously - it's not going to hurt any thing if it's there a little longer. But this gives you and Hungrywolf a little time to relax and possibly become a little more open about the situation. Then you might want to call in a [[WP:THIRD|third opinion]] to help work things out. The one thing you should NOT do is continue to [[WP:REVERT|revert]] each other's edits. While you're acting in good faith, continuing to fight within the article over this is what we call an [[WP:WAR|edit war]] and could get people blocked if they revert each other [[WP:3RR|more than three times]]. If you're still having problems after all that, check at [[WP:DR]] for the next step in line. Hope this helps. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/Awards|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How long should I wait before bringing in a third opinion? I am not expecting to be able to resolve this dispute directly with Hungrywolf. If you look at his Talk page, you will see that he has already called me many names and made false accusations about me and he does not even know who I am. Also, the user not only re-added the link but also re-added the section. While it is okay for the link to remain until the dispute is resolved, I don't think that this "World Championship" is appropriate for Wiki, as confirmed by the above two helpers. It was re-added to the page again, without any additional commentary in the discussion page. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_requesting_comments] Try this. [[User:Jacroe | Jac]]<sub>[[User_talk:Jacroe | roe]]</sub><sup>[[User:Jacroe/Blank|Blank]]</sup> 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Can someone tell me what my next course of action should be? I have made complaints about [[user:Hungrywolf]] on the article discussion pages and the users talk page, but got no response yet he continues to revert my changes. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 00:29, 18 August 2007 |
|||
:Follow the procedure at [[WP:DR]]. If you don't understand one of the steps, you can ask that question, but, as Animum pointed out, it isn't the purpose of {{tl|helpme}} to solve content disputes. We can only guide you to follow the usual dispute resolution procedure. As Jacroe said, the next step is probably [[WP:RFC]]. --[[User:Sopoforic|Sopoforic]] 04:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Your RFC == |
|||
I will not be certifying the RFC, as I have not had a conflict with this user. We interacted somewhat because I mistook a content dispute for vandalism, but other than that I have not been involved in the dispute at all. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You made 3 legitimate edits due to spam and he reverted all 3 of them. You also placed a block warning on his talk page as a result. Do you not consider that a dispute/conflict? Can you clarify what dispute you mistook for vandalism? From everything I've read so far, the user inappropriately accused me of vandalism and you gave him advice regarding such, but that was unrelated to the spam you reverted and warned him about. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::He removed the offending line, and so it is now a content dispute, in which I am not involved. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually he did remove the offending line, and created a new section called "References" in which he spams the same link 4 times. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the RfC and deleted it. The RfC was not properly certified, as it only met the 2-person threshold after 5 days, not 2 as required. Also, there was no evidence presented for having "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute. I do agree there is problematic behavior there, but it seems it is under control, and RfCs are formal dispute resolution that should only be used when things have gotten really out of hand. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:No problem. I assure you, however, that it will eventually be necessary to re-instate it. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::With due respect, I disagree. My feeling is, if things continue the way they're going, it'll be handled by ordinary blocks. It's subtler things that become the really difficult problems. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Field Commander == |
|||
If you're going to include commentary like the section you recently put in, it needs to be completely sourced, otherwise it's just going to get removed again. Thanks, <b>[[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="indigo">E<small>LIMINATOR</small></font><font color="crimson">JR</font>]]</b> 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Please review this article http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1229. NOTE: I had already posted this message in your talk page, but someone reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EliminatorJR&diff=154201773&oldid=154196846 Here]. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Also Please refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EliminatorJR&diff=154201773&oldid=154196846 this diff] in which {{user|Hungrywolf}} has used a sock puppet to remove a comment that I had added to your talk page. This is even after already being warned of removing other peoples comments from talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hungrywolf#August_2007]. Proof of his sock puppetry can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Hungrywolf_%281st%29 here]. Although it has not yet been officially approved, you can see from the evidence I have presented that there is indeed sock puppetry. I would also like to point out that the same sock puppet of Hungrywolf made an edit to an article about Sony confirming the statements I made in the reception section of the Field Commander article. Ironic, isn't it? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Online_Entertainment&diff=prev&oldid=78716857]. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* OK - I'm just going offline now - will look tomorrow. Thanks, <b>[[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="indigo">E<small>LIMINATOR</small></font><font color="crimson">JR</font>]]</b> 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== M.U.L.E. == |
|||
With regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E. I have not re-entered any previously deleted links. I have added a link to an article from a gaming magazine site, which I do not believe violates WP:EL. [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* I looked at the links and agree, which is why I didn't revert it. <b>[[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="indigo">E<small>LIMINATOR</small></font><font color="crimson">JR</font>]]</b> 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Whatever about the suitability of the link ... |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola_apps_important.svg|25px]] You are in danger of violating the [[Wikipedia:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:M.U.L.E.| on [[:M.U.L.E.]]}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.<!-- {{uw-3rr3}} --> - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:31 hours|a period of '''31 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:M.U.L.E.|at [[:M.U.L.E.]]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:[[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)|[[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I did not perform any disputing edits after seeing your warning.|decline=I've looked over the history, and you did make 4 content reverts in 24 hours, which is explicitly not allowed under [[WP:3RR]]. Unblock declined. — -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
* ''"I did not perform any disputing edits after seeing your warning"'' - actually, you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlackbeard2k7&diff=154377316&oldid=154294468] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M.U.L.E.&diff=prev&oldid=154378741] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* ''Look at the close proximity of time between your warning and my last revert. I did not see your warning until after having performed that last revert. You should note that the user reverting my edits was previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. Please allow me to continue discussing the dispute on the talk page of the article. I should be allowed to defend myself against his false accusations. I promise not to revert again for at least the amount of time you indicated in your block.'' [[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*: You'll need to discuss this with the unblock review admin, as I will not be unblocking at this time - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 16:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== You and Hungrywolf == |
|||
Right - I am giving both you and Hungrywolf this same message. This revert war is <i>ridiculous</i>, you're both not achieving anything. I suggest you both take this to the [[WP:THIRD|third opinion]] page, and if that doesn't work then open a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]]. I have both pages watchlisted and if this breaks out again after you are unblocked then I will block both of you on the spot and protect the pages. Discuss this, don't war about it, because you're wasting your time, my time and that of other users which could be used to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks, <b>[[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="indigo">E<small>LIMINATOR</small></font><font color="crimson">JR</font>]]</b> 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It's already been to [[WP:3o]], and my third opinion was (finally) that the link can stay. That apparently didn't solve anything. It would seem this is heading for RFC and/or page protection. All I know is I'm not getting any further involved besides justifying my opinion on the talk page. --[[User:{{{User|Darkwind}}}|{{{User|Darkwind}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Darkwind}}}|talk]]) 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I feel like I was singled out in this dispute. Why hasn't [[user|Hungrywolf]] been blocked as well? Just because he spread his violations across 2 articles doesnt make it OK does it? |
|||
06:44, 28 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_Commander&diff=prev&oldid=154119342] |
|||
09:30, 28 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M.U.L.E.&diff=prev&oldid=154136338] |
|||
05:38, 29 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Field_Commander&diff=prev&oldid=154327053] |
|||
05:45, 29 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M.U.L.E.&diff=prev&oldid=154327703] |
|||
12:55, 29 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M.U.L.E.&diff=prev&oldid=154377121] |
|||
13:11, 29 August 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M.U.L.E.&diff=prev&oldid=154379382] |
|||
[[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: These are separate articles with quite separate disputes, far as I can see here. You went clearly over the 3RR line, whereas they did not. There are other ways of addressing this other than revert-warring, which is ''never'' productive. The other editor, BTW, has received a final warning & I will be watching his actions on these articles for some time - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<font color= "#7070a0">l<font color= "#9090c0">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I appreciate your neutral point of view, but the 3RR rule does indicate that a user can be blocked for being disruptive. The user made 4 reverts in 30 hours on the {{article|M.U.L.E.}}, spewing personal attacks and false accusations against me. In the meantime, I have done the research on my added material and even called in third opinion who agreed with me. This is why I feel that your block was one-sided.[[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: When the third person gave his opinion he wasn't aware that you were trying to indirectly link to a Website which offered for download illegal copyrighted software. [[User:Hungrywolf|Hungrywolf]] 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Apparently you did not read his response then. After he reviewed your long list of false accusations of illegal piracy, which you even duplicated on his own talk page (and received warnings of "admin shopping" as a result), he confirmed that I did not link to any site with copyrighted material, and that whatever links are contained within the article have no bearing on the dispute whatsoever. You also have not shown anyone proof of anything that was asked of you, making your entire argument invalid.[[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Please let the Admins know if the software available for DOWNLOAD on this Website [http://atarimule.neotechgaming.com/ Atari MULE Online] that you are linking to (now indirectly) is not illegal & is not pirated or infringes copyright. [[User:Hungrywolf|Hungrywolf]] 12:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I never added that link and I am not going to continue repeating myself. I've already answered your question and stated my reasons for adding the link to the disputed article. Third opinion agrees with me, and so unless you can find a valid reason (with proof) for why the article is not relevant to the game, you should not be removing it.[[User:Blackbeard2k7|Blackbeard2k7]] 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:19, 31 August 2007
Welcome!
|
My edits and discussions are being deleted
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Commander there is a user that has been deleting my edits and discussions. My first edit there was to warn the public about the dangers of visiting the advertised "World Championship" forum. I know someone who has been harrassed and threatened by the site admin there. My comments were deleted by an anonymous user, who I believe to be a user named Hungrywolf, who is the actual site admin of that forum. Instead of re-adding my comments, I removed the section and link completely and moved my comments to the discussion tab. Ultimately the reason for removing the section and link is because there is no verifiable world champion of this video game. There is no official world championship sponsored by sony online entertainment. And so it is not appropriate to be listing anyone as being world champions of this game or implying that there is actually an official world championship tournament for this game, because there isn't one. The link to the forum was removed because it is just a discussion forum. Actually a private one, where you are unable to post without being previously approved by the site administrator. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL section "Links normally to be avoided" #10. However, user Hungrywolf has re-added the section again as well as DELETED my comments in the talk page, which I feel is inappropriate. I am going to remove the section and link once again. Blackbeard2k7 08:55, 17 August 2007
- In my opinion, the other editor was right to remove your warning (as it was original research, and you were right to remove the section. However, you should discuss this with the other editors on the talk page if there is disagreement. --Sopoforic 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The user Hungrywolf continues to re-add the section and link to his private forums without addressing the issues in the discussion page. What action can be taken to resolve this? Blackbeard2k7 10:38, 17 August 2007
- From what I can see above, it seems as though you are editing according to policy (with the exception of the OR Sopoforic previously mentioned). I would try to contact Hungrywolf directly about this on his talk page, to see if you can negotiate some sort of truce about this. Failing that, the next step in dispute resolution would be to back away for a little bit. The link has been there for a while previously - it's not going to hurt any thing if it's there a little longer. But this gives you and Hungrywolf a little time to relax and possibly become a little more open about the situation. Then you might want to call in a third opinion to help work things out. The one thing you should NOT do is continue to revert each other's edits. While you're acting in good faith, continuing to fight within the article over this is what we call an edit war and could get people blocked if they revert each other more than three times. If you're still having problems after all that, check at WP:DR for the next step in line. Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How long should I wait before bringing in a third opinion? I am not expecting to be able to resolve this dispute directly with Hungrywolf. If you look at his Talk page, you will see that he has already called me many names and made false accusations about me and he does not even know who I am. Also, the user not only re-added the link but also re-added the section. While it is okay for the link to remain until the dispute is resolved, I don't think that this "World Championship" is appropriate for Wiki, as confirmed by the above two helpers. It was re-added to the page again, without any additional commentary in the discussion page. Blackbeard2k7 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what my next course of action should be? I have made complaints about user:Hungrywolf on the article discussion pages and the users talk page, but got no response yet he continues to revert my changes. Blackbeard2k7 00:29, 18 August 2007
- Follow the procedure at WP:DR. If you don't understand one of the steps, you can ask that question, but, as Animum pointed out, it isn't the purpose of {{helpme}} to solve content disputes. We can only guide you to follow the usual dispute resolution procedure. As Jacroe said, the next step is probably WP:RFC. --Sopoforic 04:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Your RFC
I will not be certifying the RFC, as I have not had a conflict with this user. We interacted somewhat because I mistook a content dispute for vandalism, but other than that I have not been involved in the dispute at all. Natalie 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You made 3 legitimate edits due to spam and he reverted all 3 of them. You also placed a block warning on his talk page as a result. Do you not consider that a dispute/conflict? Can you clarify what dispute you mistook for vandalism? From everything I've read so far, the user inappropriately accused me of vandalism and you gave him advice regarding such, but that was unrelated to the spam you reverted and warned him about. Blackbeard2k7 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- He removed the offending line, and so it is now a content dispute, in which I am not involved. Natalie 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually he did remove the offending line, and created a new section called "References" in which he spams the same link 4 times. Blackbeard2k7 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- He removed the offending line, and so it is now a content dispute, in which I am not involved. Natalie 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the RfC and deleted it. The RfC was not properly certified, as it only met the 2-person threshold after 5 days, not 2 as required. Also, there was no evidence presented for having "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute. I do agree there is problematic behavior there, but it seems it is under control, and RfCs are formal dispute resolution that should only be used when things have gotten really out of hand. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I assure you, however, that it will eventually be necessary to re-instate it. Blackbeard2k7 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Field Commander
If you're going to include commentary like the section you recently put in, it needs to be completely sourced, otherwise it's just going to get removed again. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please review this article http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1229. NOTE: I had already posted this message in your talk page, but someone reverted it Here. Blackbeard2k7 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also Please refer to this diff in which Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) has used a sock puppet to remove a comment that I had added to your talk page. This is even after already being warned of removing other peoples comments from talk pages [2]. Proof of his sock puppetry can be found here. Although it has not yet been officially approved, you can see from the evidence I have presented that there is indeed sock puppetry. I would also like to point out that the same sock puppet of Hungrywolf made an edit to an article about Sony confirming the statements I made in the reception section of the Field Commander article. Ironic, isn't it? [3]. Blackbeard2k7 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK - I'm just going offline now - will look tomorrow. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
M.U.L.E.
With regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E. I have not re-entered any previously deleted links. I have added a link to an article from a gaming magazine site, which I do not believe violates WP:EL. Blackbeard2k7 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the links and agree, which is why I didn't revert it. ELIMINATORJR 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever about the suitability of the link ...
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on M.U.L.E.. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Alison ☺ 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Blackbeard2k7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not perform any disputing edits after seeing your warning.
Decline reason:
I've looked over the history, and you did make 4 content reverts in 24 hours, which is explicitly not allowed under WP:3RR. Unblock declined. — -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:31, 29 August 2007 (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.
- "I did not perform any disputing edits after seeing your warning" - actually, you did [4] [5] - Alison ☺ 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the close proximity of time between your warning and my last revert. I did not see your warning until after having performed that last revert. You should note that the user reverting my edits was previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. Please allow me to continue discussing the dispute on the talk page of the article. I should be allowed to defend myself against his false accusations. I promise not to revert again for at least the amount of time you indicated in your block. Blackbeard2k7 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You and Hungrywolf
Right - I am giving both you and Hungrywolf this same message. This revert war is ridiculous, you're both not achieving anything. I suggest you both take this to the third opinion page, and if that doesn't work then open a request for comment. I have both pages watchlisted and if this breaks out again after you are unblocked then I will block both of you on the spot and protect the pages. Discuss this, don't war about it, because you're wasting your time, my time and that of other users which could be used to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's already been to WP:3o, and my third opinion was (finally) that the link can stay. That apparently didn't solve anything. It would seem this is heading for RFC and/or page protection. All I know is I'm not getting any further involved besides justifying my opinion on the talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel like I was singled out in this dispute. Why hasn't Hungrywolf been blocked as well? Just because he spread his violations across 2 articles doesnt make it OK does it?
06:44, 28 August 2007 [6]
09:30, 28 August 2007 [7]
05:38, 29 August 2007 [8]
05:45, 29 August 2007 [9]
12:55, 29 August 2007 [10]
13:11, 29 August 2007 [11]
Blackbeard2k7 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- These are separate articles with quite separate disputes, far as I can see here. You went clearly over the 3RR line, whereas they did not. There are other ways of addressing this other than revert-warring, which is never productive. The other editor, BTW, has received a final warning & I will be watching his actions on these articles for some time - Alison ☺ 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your neutral point of view, but the 3RR rule does indicate that a user can be blocked for being disruptive. The user made 4 reverts in 30 hours on the M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), spewing personal attacks and false accusations against me. In the meantime, I have done the research on my added material and even called in third opinion who agreed with me. This is why I feel that your block was one-sided.Blackbeard2k7 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- When the third person gave his opinion he wasn't aware that you were trying to indirectly link to a Website which offered for download illegal copyrighted software. Hungrywolf 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently you did not read his response then. After he reviewed your long list of false accusations of illegal piracy, which you even duplicated on his own talk page (and received warnings of "admin shopping" as a result), he confirmed that I did not link to any site with copyrighted material, and that whatever links are contained within the article have no bearing on the dispute whatsoever. You also have not shown anyone proof of anything that was asked of you, making your entire argument invalid.Blackbeard2k7 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please let the Admins know if the software available for DOWNLOAD on this Website Atari MULE Online that you are linking to (now indirectly) is not illegal & is not pirated or infringes copyright. Hungrywolf 12:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I never added that link and I am not going to continue repeating myself. I've already answered your question and stated my reasons for adding the link to the disputed article. Third opinion agrees with me, and so unless you can find a valid reason (with proof) for why the article is not relevant to the game, you should not be removing it.Blackbeard2k7 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)