User talk:DoubleBwiki

March 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Leaf-Chronicle. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aoidh (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DoubleBwiki. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page.
Message added 07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent edit warring, and for repeatedly adding content to articles without reliable sources, both from this account and anonymously. The issues have been patiently explained to you on other talk pages, but you have not accepted what you have been told. The policies that you have been told about are not there just to be awkward: we really do very frequently get people posting false information to articles, and we really do very frequently get people using unreliable sources such as blogs which turn out to have inaccurate information, so we do have to require more reliable sources. And yes, we even get Wikipedia editors creating fake sources on blogs etc to support deliberate lies that they are posting. (I am not accusing you of doing that: I am just trying to make it clear why we have to insist on reliable sources, and why we cannot accept the sort of sources you have given.) No doubt the treatment you have received seemed arbitrary, but it really isn't. If you can find reliable sources for up to date circulation figures, then putting those figures into the relevant articles will be really helpful, but without reliable sources it will, unfortunately, not be acceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a note to help you avoid falling into a mistake that new editors who have been blocked sometimes make. As long as the block is in place, it means that you do not have permission to edit English Wikipedia. It does not mean that you are free to edit as long as you don't use this account. Sometimes new editors think it's OK to get round the block either by not logging in, or by creating a new account, and the result of that is that they get blocked for a longer time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was unaware that edit warring was not allowed

Decline reason:

Per below, but even without that, what kind of fools do you take us for? Did you seriously think constantly undoing someone else's work would be something we would look favorably upon? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2014 (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 were warned about edit warring and acknowledged that warning before even creating this account, and continued to edit war after that acknowledgement. - Aoidh (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Daniel Case: "Did you seriously think constantly undoing someone else's work would be something we would look favorably upon?" I don't know what the rules are here, I thought my persistence for truth would be appreciated it seems not. I just had data from what I believe is true from what I believe is a reliable source. Someone else did not think it was reliable. I was unaware of the 3 re-edit rule. Blocking me is exactly what drives new editors away from wikipedia. 2602:306:C498:8200:9D24:4087:DCDC:261D (talk) 6:50 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

No, what drives editors away from Wikipedia is the belligerence of editors like yourself who persistently ignore requests to discuss the content they are adding and simply revert anyone who disagrees with them. As has been pointed out above, you were made aware of the edit warring policy previously - if you chose not to read it, that's hardly Wikipedia's fault. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 3 March 2014 (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.