User talk:Anthonyse3
As I have responded to GermanJoe, its opinion is biased. I pointed out, according to its independent reference, ArangoDB should have been removed, as ArangoDB put their webpage link there. GemanJoe is conducting vandalism. It's has negative impact to the community. Anthonyse3 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Anthonyse3
August 2018[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Graph database. 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. Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Anthonyse3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
A few more details to clarify the issue GermanJoe acted on 15:53, 15 August 2018 to remove TigerGraph from the Graph Database wikipedia list as "no independent source of citation". I edited an entry on 17:09, 22 August 2018 with reputable citation from Dataversity. On 08:35, 22 August 2018, GermanJoe immediately deleted my entry without talking to me. Please check the trace on his talk page and also the time GermanJoe acted. I looked through this page, most citations are similar to the one I put as Dataversity. I posted a talk on GermanJoe's page, then without a fruitful and genuine response, on 18:34, 22 August 2018 , GermanJoe bluntly removed my edits. Drama continues, Laser brain on 18:46, 22 August 2018 with a surface reason, acted as an independent arbitrator and quoted "knock off the edit warring-". More interesting, on 18:53, 22 August 2018, Velella came in. All this happened in 10 minutes. How could an edit trigger so much consistent act (do not allow TigerGraph name appear on this list) happen in such short time? I'm disappointed this happened here. I'm fine removing TigerGraph citation from this list. However, I'm hoping to let the community decide whether this is a consistent professional vandalism. Funny Thing, whenever I put a talk to the above three writers, they will put a wikipedia guidance there with consistent focus on saying this is not an independent citation. And all this happens in short time, making me more uncomfortable with their intention. I have pointed out one example ArangoDB put their homepage in this page. It's even less independent as a counter argument. Then, everyone can see their comments and arguments above. I have left a talk note to Graph Database wikipedia page original author. See what he thinks? Please check this history and make wikipedia a real clean, fair environment.
Decline reason:
There is no "I'm right" exception to the policy regarding edit warring and your unblock request does nothing to address your multiple reverts contrary to policy. You should review WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB if you will be making further appeals. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:54, 22 August 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.
Anthonyse3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To support my suspicion, if you go to GermanJoe's talk page, pull up the talk history, you will see Laser brain revert my talk on GermanJoe's talk page, this happened right after Laser brain reverted my edit on Graph Database wikipedia. I'm pretty sure this evidence shows these two persons are related, or the same person. Please check this history and make wikipedia a real clean, fair environment. How would you revert another editor's talk in 1 minute? Please investigate.
Decline reason:
This is not an unblock request. You were blocked for what you did, not for what others did. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 22 August 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.
Anthonyse3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
OK, I am blocked, I can live with this. Yes, the block is “about me” “not them.” However, what I don’t understand is how there isn’t some kind of investigation into how having me reverted and blocked was coordinated so quickly between the two editors Laser brain and GermanJoe, who appear to be related. Blocking me without looking into the conduct of the other editors involved in the same edit war is the height of hypocrisy. Deftamble (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
procedural decline only. Your block has already expired. Had it not, I would have considered revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block, due to your continued abuse of the unblock template. Yamla (talk) 22:30, 24 August 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.