User talk:Shelbychevette

July 2015[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chevrolet Corvette (C3). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but you cannot just create a new account and revert edits that match standard practice as dictated by the Template:Infobox automobile. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chevrolet Corvette (C7), you may be blocked from editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chevrolet Corvette (C3). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 25 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

gaming system block

Decline reason:

That does not address the reason for your block. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2015 (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.

Haven't used wikipedia in some time since I don't have the time, nonetheless this block is without merit. He's playing supervisor on articles and hostile. He/she doesn't add anything to articles merely rearrange and removes information as he sees pleasing, this is not his website to own and not a place to approve and move around others additions Also his edits are hostile accusing me of vandalism when in actuality I believe Corvette articles are better maintained as is and had been previously edited Lukeno94 also threateningly accuses me of being a sock which I am notShelbychevette (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your familiarity with WP:3RR, please identify your previous accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have any set accounts, I don't edit Wikipedia regularly just add a small bit here or there once in awhile, last time I edited regularly was 2007 and that was without a user name. I randomly created a name only to hide my IP address, otherwise I wouldn't even bother creating an account at all. Lukeno94's edits IMO take away from the Corvette inboxes making them hard to read or access information that should be readily available. IMO The infoboxes were much more usable previously which is why I reverted the edits. Lukeno94 just wants to rearrange a million articles to suit his liking without meaningful input from anyone.Shelbychevette (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance that any administrator is willing to give any credibility to Shelbychevette's claims, I invite them to compare Template:Infobox automobile to the changes I made. You'll see that all of the changes complied with the template documentation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the template say to remove years on engines and transmissions. And who makes this template? Shelbychevette (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

gaming the system, like to report editor for edit warring

Decline reason:

That still does not address the reason for your block. See WP:NOTTHEM. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2015 (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.

I'd say it is about them since they had me blocked only to maintain and restore their own edits. I don't see anything in the "infobox template" about removing years from transmissions and engines . I believe the years are notable enough to be included in the infobox which is why the previous editor placed them there and I believe should remain there. I'd like to report Lukeno94 for edit warring, he simply accused me of vandalism after changing up the infobox and removing engine and transmission years which I restored and then accuses me of vandalism, being disruptive and being a sock.Shelbychevette (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you because you immediately started edit warring across articles after creating an account and knew enough to start preparing a report for WP:ANEW. I'm willing to unblock you if you start discussing your edits on talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I believe the Corvette articles are now missing vital yearly information on the engine and transmissions available. However I would like to report Lukeno94 for edit warring. I believe he is gaming wikipedia to protect his own edits. I reverted his edits then he accuses me of being a vandal, then being disruptive and being a sock.Shelbychevette (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I purchase used cars and like to easily know what transmissions and engines are available which is why I consider this vital information.Shelbychevette (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't exactly confirm you will stop reverting and start discussing your edits. Can you please confirm? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what needs to be discussed, I want the Corvette infoboxes returned to their previous state with the yearly transmission and engine details provided. It's Lukeno94 who reverted my edits accusing me of vandalism to protect his copy edits, I'm fully within my right to revert them. Thanks though I'll wait for the expiration of the block to take Lukeno94's edits up with ANI.Shelbychevette (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing I have to say on this matter here; I did not remove any transmissions or engines as some of the edits suggest, nor is the yearly information "vital", and it certainly isn't standard practice (which is not something I came up with myself) or in the template (which was not created by me). I stand by my sockpuppet claims as well, for that matter; in fact, every post here has reaffirmed my stance on that (particularly the claims about my history - not something a new editor would have the slightest idea how to find, much less know about). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed vital years on Corvette models pertaining to engines and transmissions, a quick scan of your edit history reveals you rearrange articles and remove information, this is not your website, you add little if anything to wikipedia, your contributions are limited to that of a copy editor who alters and in poor faith removes additions years after they were made by editors who are long gone. The template guidelines written up from years ago are a suggestion not law which you unilaterally enforce on articles nor does the template state to remove yearly information from infoboxes. You remove information from articles that have remained untouched for 5+ years until you show up.

Feel free to make whatever false claims about me you'd like, I never claimed to be a new editor, I add minor things here and there and have no desire to use an account beyond a couple edits over a single period on a single article, this does not make me a sock. If my IP address remained private I wouldn't bother making any accounts at all. It's you who games wikipedia to protect your own deleterious edits, I reverted these edits on the Corvette to return yearly information to the infoboxes, you immediately accuse me of vandalism and game wikipedia to have me blocked for disruptive editing stating I'm a sock with a grudge against your destructive edits. I'll compile an example of your disruptive edits and take them up with ANI soon.Shelbychevette (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you do that. People take really kindly to obvious sockpuppet accounts coming straight back from a block to file a case about the exact thing that got them blocked... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelbychevette, I took a look at some of the reversions you made. I totally understand why you wanted to make the changes. I'm not sure I agree with the way some of the pages are being forced into the one size fits all template. So I get your motivation and generally agree with what you want. However, for better and worse, there is a way things work on Wikipedia. I would suggest and welcome your input in the appropriate talk page ([[1]]). I think a case could be made to either allow some time for the motor information to be copied elsewhere in the article or perhaps a consensus can be reached which would allow for a bit more flexibility in the tables that are in question. I know it might seem like Luke is being heavy handed with the edits. Remember, he is making a good faith effort to improve the articles. We will never agree with all the edits but if we negotiate and discuss we can probably reach mutual agreement. I hope that when the 72 hours is up you will post some comments about why you think the edits are problematic. Hoping to hear from you in the talk sections! Springee (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lukeno94 - out of hand? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]