User talk:Sirblew

Your edit to Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Sirblew,

Please read edit summaries before you revert. I was moving your criticisms section to the Reception area, not deleting it. I stated that I was "Moving" it in my edit summary. I've added another source and fleshed it out a little bit; I have not mindlessly reverted it. Remember to check twice before you undo. Thanks, FusionMix 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. FusionMix 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

You've violated WP:3RR on Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath. Do not revert again, or you'll be blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, I endorse the advice of the above user to work this out on the article talk page rather than revert-warring over it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the major editors of that article, I feel I must say that I have said in at least three sections of the talk page on that article what the problem is with the addition, and the page was even semi protected to stop that section being readded. The sources given were not by SirBlew, and are not valid in any event.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you insert your opinion about game balance again, you will be reported to WP:AN3 for violating the 3 revert rule. The provided reference does not support your commentary. Please stop adding your personal point of view regarding game balance into the article. Please consider using the article's talk page to discuss your concerns instead. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to further add that your actions were reported last night to the Adminstrator's Incident Board, if you continue adding that sentence you will be blocked from editing the article for a period they deem fit. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You are edit-warring. If you re-insert your content one more time without engaging in meaningful discussion on the article's talk page, you will be blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated insertions of uncited POV material in Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath and refusal to discuss these insertions, when asked, on the article talk page.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not re-insert links to YouTube without a clear explanation as to why you feel they definitely add benefit to the project. Such links rarely are beneficial as adding encyclopedic information to the articles. Articles are not to be a mere source of indiscriminate links; link are to support the facts peresnted in the articles. See WP:EL. Note: If you reinsert this again, you will be in danger of violating Wikipedia's 3RR rule, which states that you cannot engage in edit warring by a reversion of more than three times of the same or similar material to the same article within 24 hours. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death Magnetic. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring by breaking Wikipedia's three revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:28, 29 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked before I read my messages. I also requested a discussion about it in the article talk page as an alternative to simple undoing. I added justification for my edit too, but this was ignored. I believe this is unfair.

Decline reason:

You were asked to stop and discuss things before you were blocked - it's your responsibility to read messages left for you. Also, the link you were adding is not allowed according to our external links policy. That you left the reason for your edit on the talk page is a good start, but you should stop and discuss things after being reverted and wait for a consensus to form on the issue before continuing. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (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.

It says YouTube is allowed on a case by case basis. What's wrong with that? The YouTube video demonstrates the core of the discussion in a simple way that no words can describe accurately. --Sirblew (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this particular video demonstrates said issue should come from another source. Your presentation of it, unqualifed, makes it orginal research. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia only presents views as they are properly documented. Your statement that the video supports a hypothesis is not found anywhere else. Unless it is, in which case, please provide a reference for that view. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, note that the block was for edit-warring; even if the source was completely appropriate, edit-warring is still a blockworthy offense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwave edits

Seems we've been going backwards and forwards reverting each other. I re-added the reference about the circumstances behind Tom Araya's hospital visit being in dispute but with different wording. That was a fair edit from whoever originally put it in and unfair of me to consistently revert, though the original editor also made some vandal edits so I just assumed this was one of them. But it seems valid. I've removed the "Assuming they don't cancel again" message after Slayer though because that's a ridiculous thing to add. Every band on the lineup is there "assuming they don't cancel". But I'm assuming the main dispute was from the Tom Araya source. Either way, hopefully there'll be no more back and forth reverting between us. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]