User talk:79.97.54.72

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Republic of China. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - Vianello (Talk) 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republic of China. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, I hope you are impartial and also ban user laurent, as he/she was in the "edit war" also. My appeal is this: I explained why i edited certain words in the talk page,and among the few replies I got were from the aforementioned user saying "you must be drunk" The changes I made were logical, and i explained my reasoning. I made the orginal change that started this, and my edit was undone,without constructive debate. If someone makes the first change to a page, and it is undone without a sensible reason, should the original editor be punished.There is no onus on me buddy,but on lauren. I await your reply eagerly,cheersd

Decline reason:

After your first block, you undoubtedly read about edit-warring, and learned that, when you disagree with others, rather than edit-warring, you discuss your desired changes on the talk page, and wait until consensus is established before repeating them. You probably also read WP:DISPUTE, and saw the long list of things you can do to usefully resolve an editing dispute. I looked at the talk page, and I don't see the clear consensus that your preferred version is the best one, so I don't understand why you prematurely added it to the article again. (Your preferred edit looked to me to be not entirely neutral - it isn't hard to guess how you feel about this place by what you wrote. You'll know you're writing in a neutral way when people looking at your edits can't easily guess your opinions. But I'm not familiar enough with this subject to make a judgement, and you'd be in the wrong for editing before consensus was reached even if you were in the right about your desired changes). FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 July 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.

You are fresh off your block and the first thing you do before anything else is to continue where you left off? Not smart. Not smart at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

{unblock|I take your point onboard,and not going to argue.however I feel my points were fair and logical, and the nature of my ban is unjustified,this one anyway. I know why, and athough i already stated I understand your point,more imput would have been nice. ah wel, I know the answer to my appeal. I look forward to seeing laurents block though, as i was insulted and he was the one who actually did something wrong. cheers }}

Blocking admin comment: Even if they were fair and logical, that does not allow you to resume edit warring. You have been reverted by three different editors, all of which are long standing and established editors. Please see WP:Consensus as you seem to be going against it. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

---