User talk:McGlockin

Welcome to Wikipedia from Guerillero

Hi, McGlockin. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Guerillero | My Talk 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation in signatures on Talk:Disinformation

Why did you put your signature on this editor's comment? -- 76.211.5.175 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Disinformation. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Read WP:VAND Tentontunic (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported.

[1] Tentontunic (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Soxwon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion _(talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the "article" claiming Soxwon is a vandal, nor your edits to his talkpage are appropriate. Please stop attacking other editors with whom you disagree. Acroterion _(talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone, there was vandalism by tentontunic.

None of the people you're interacting with are vandals: you simply disagree with them. And you're edit warring. Please stop both the attacks and the edit-warring. Acroterion _(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion _(talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

On reviewing your contributions, it's clear that you've been edit-warring. Please take the 24 hours to review Wikipedia policies on the three-revert rule, edit-warring, no personal attacks and assumption of good faith. WP:BATTLE might be worth reading as well. You may not edit-war by claiming vandalism: vandalism is clear-cut and usually involves the word "poop" or some other variation. Acroterion _(talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So because I reverted a complete deletion of an article I am edit warring? You clearly have an agenda.McGlockin (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were blocked for violating the three-revert rule and assuming bad faith. I've left some links for you to read above: please read them so that you can interact constriuctively in a collaborative editing environment, rather than treating it as a battlefield. And no, I have no agenda in this matter apart from educating you on constructive edit practices. Acroterion _(talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not block the people deleting the article? I was just reverting the deletions and advising them to suggest changes in the talk section. If your not going to look at the history of the article why bother passing judgment? You can claim you don't have an agenda, but the evidence doesn't support that claim. We will have to see what the resolution center thinks.McGlockin (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I reverted deletion of entire article and was blocked for itMcGlockin (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is always against the rules, even when you are sure you are right, because it disrupts the project without actually accomplishing anything useful (after all, others can revert just as often as you can). If you find yourself in a similar situation, try one or more of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE for resolving the problem with out edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 reverted the removal of two paragraphs six times. We call that edit-warring, and you compounded it by resorting to name-calling. If you want the material included, you need to make a constructive case for its inclusion, rooted in Wikipedia policy on sourcing, neutral voice and avoidance of soapboxing. Acroterion _(talk) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you enter into discussions, when your block expires, remember that your goal in that article is not to show the world how bad Fox News is, but to clearly and simply explain what disinformation is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR (and sock) warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This applies to your not-logged-in IP, 99.169.66.28 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]