User talk:Evanand1
 | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
Welcome!
|
Evanand1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I realize my error, and that I was going to be blocked. I Just do not see why there are many people how want to revert facts without checking the source. I will take my punishment, but why one week and not 24hrs?
Decline reason:
Wot 331dot said. Looking at the degree of disruptive editing, I'd have blocked for longer. This edit makes it very plain that you've no idea as to how to work collaboratively, that you've no idea what you did, and that you haven't a clue as to what to do instead. This edit calls into question whether you should ever be allowed to edit here again. Please explain how it was inappropriate and what you will do instead in a similar situation. Please read WP:BRD and explain in your own words what it means and how it applies to your situation. Please read WP:CIVIL and please explain how it applies to your situation. Please read WP:42 and explain how it relates to your situation. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:00, 2 October 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.
- Blocks are not a punishment, but are done to protect Wikipedia. It is possible to be unblocked if you explain what you did wrong, why you won't do it again, and how you will edit constructively. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Talk page discussion about the issues at Meadow Brook Hall[edit]
Hi Evanand1, when your block expires or is lifted I hope you will join the discussion at Talk:Meadow Brook Hall. It would be great if you explained there why you think the existing source is incorrect. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Bonadea, It would be great to know why you had the urge to revert my change without seeing I made the change back in march. It would be nice to know whoever changed that fact, did so without even inquiring? You all jumped into to something that you did not realize what was going on in the first place. 2nd off you tried so hard to get me blocked after I reverted your change that you did to me. Why did you do that in the first place? How about a little communication before jumping in and making assumptions. The revert and undo buttons honestly shouldn't even be allowed!! It takes time for every person to edit on wikipedia. If an edit is not destructive and only a differences of opinion, why even waste someone else's time and throw their work away. Maybe they have done hours of research that you haven't! It's not right in real life and it's not right online either. Don't throw peoples work away. Talk first if you have a difference of opinion!
- There were several attempts at communication made: [1], [2], [3]. Several different people (including me, but I was not the first one) asked you to stop reverting and instead discussing your proposed changes. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and regulations, some of them more strict than others - and the rule about edit warring is stricter than most. The notes you received, which I linked to just now, clearly state that if you revert more than three times within a 24-hour period, you will be blocked (unless you are, e.g., reverting blatant vandalism). When you were reported I can understand that it made feelings flare, but it would have been a much better idea to do what it said in the notification you received, and make your case in the report instead of just removing it. The bottom line is: Please read the info that people take the time to post to your talk page. (As for "not destructive and only a difference of opinion", that's not quite true. Your removal of a source and use of Google Maps violated a couple of different guidelines/policies. But that's not a discussion to have here - again, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you proposed changes when your block expires or is lifted.) Please also remember to be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors. It is pretty unacceptable to call good-faith editors "trolls", for instance. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Evanand1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is unfair to block someone when everyone was being just as destructive, reverting a change without asking why that change was done is rude. Rude behavior is not acceptable offline, so why is it tolerable here? I admit I did wrong by going back and forth, and letting anger get the better of me, but others should not have not incited a flame war by constantly reverting a change either! honestly we all should be blocked for at least 24hrs not just me! In real life if someone wrote a paper and it was on bulletin board and someone else came along and threw it away without talking to the person who wrote it, would that be tolerable? No! It should not be here either. Users should first talk before reverting a change of someone else, it's rude! it only brings out the worst in us not communicating with one another because it is easy to do. It's rude in real life, and should not be acceptable here! Talk before reverting or undoing a change, that is whats civil! We all have difference of opinion, and the internet just makes us easy to do things without taking any time. Don't be lazy communicate first!
Decline reason:
WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 19:09, 2 October 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.
Yamla, did you not read my statement? It clearly states what I did wrong.
- Huh. You're still arguing that you actually weren't really wrong, that it is someone else's fault. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I left clear instructions on how to show readiness for unblocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Why are you instigating? This is was between me and the Amdin that blocked me and the last person Yamla, I did not ask for your commentary! If you read I did not ask to be unblocked but my time shorten and I stated what I did in the last message to Yamla. I will not conversate further on this matter with you two!!!! I will only talk to Yamla or the original person that blocked me, Thank you! What is wrong with you people on Wikipedia, you are worst than Facebook and YouTube. Please get a life, and stop using the internet to wage war with words and criticize everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanand1 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
October 2018[edit]
I've removed your talk page access due to your above post. I hope that you have a change of attitude when the block expires. If you want to be unblocked before then, you may use UTRS as described above. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Evanand1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22827 was submitted on Oct 02, 2018 20:57:25. This review is now closed.