User talk:Bananasasas

Welcome!

Hello, Bananasasas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Square One: Michael Jackson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your alert. I have followed the guidelines as I understand them and proven my edit is correct. It was not challenged with any sources so it should stand. Please visit Talk:Square_One:_Michael_Jackson. I also find the tone of the person responding to be unpleasant and almost threatening. I don't understand it all. Why is this controversial? I have corrected an important fact on that page that is helpful and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. Bananasasas (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was conscious that you might not have been aware of edit warring and also that you were in the middle of one. You are doing the right thing with your comments on the talk page and backing up your contention with sources. I can understand why you would feel the response is unpleasant as well and I have just warned the other editor. I hope that the discussion stays on the content and not the contributors. Woody (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this edit before I made the above comment. I would respectfully ask that you let a consensus form on the talk page before making edits that may be controversial and before making edits for which there is an active discussion ongoing. There is no deadline here and it can wait a few days for a consensus to form. It might be worth asking for outside opinions using the content dispute resolution process. Woody (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody I will try the content dispute option. Thank you for your guidance. Bananasasas (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to Michael Jackson.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Woody (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Topic-banned from making any edits related to Michael Jackson for 6 months

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing in discretionary sanctions area

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/MJ, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for violating discretionary sanctions, as described at WP:GS/MJ,

you have been blocked from editing for 72 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. 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. qedk (t 愛 c) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

Blocked for doing proper research

Woody

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).

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

Request reason:

I shouldn't be blocked for proper fact-checking and using sources that back-up my research.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 22 June 2020 (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 edits to Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist) are a clear violation of your topic ban.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I edit conflicted (x2) while making exactly the same edit as the above. You were blocked as as part of the ]]WP:GS/MJ|general sanctions surrounding Michael Jackson articles]] which are all explained on this talk page above. You were banned from editing any MJ related edits for 6 months and you managed to breach that within a week. If you continue to edit like this when the block is lifted you will most likely end up being blocked from editing indefinitely. Woody (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not edited any page since the unwarranted block. I only followed up on my discussion on a Talk Page. Are we calling a discussion on this page an edit? There is a definite agenda here to have misleading info on the pages I edited. It seems more of a popularity contest on what stays rather than an actual fact-based digital encyclopedia. Anyone who discourages fact-checkers who use sources should be banned like myself is only counting edit history. Credible research makes this a trusted source and should be encouraged. I can not say I understand the block as my edits were reverted without any discussion. Bananasasas (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were topic banned from anything to do with Michael Jackson on June 17. You edited Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist) on June 22nd. That violated your topic ban, as has been pointed out to you. Yamla (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2020 (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.

Yamla Can't you bother to read my query and respond? Are you just being a mall cop here? I didn't make any edits, I was asked to discuss my research on a talk page and then I was ignore. It seems there is an agenda here to not have credible research just opinions and self-sources matter to the "regulars". Bananasasas (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not tolerated here; see WP:NPA. Your block expires later this week, please don't make us extend it. You were topic-banned and violated the topic-ban. As indicated, I declined the unblock request on that basis. Once your block expires, you are free to contest your topic ban but until it is lifted, you are required to abide by it. --Yamla ([[User

talk:Yamla|talk]]) 17:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yamla You came back and STILL REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T EDIT ANY PAGE, you simply pretend like you have the ability to ban someone that calls you out for being incompetent. You should consider that you are wrong here and not double down again. Bananasasas (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you were notified of your topic ban. You subsequently proceeded to violate that topic ban five times, by editing the page, Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist), as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Note also that I didn't ban you or even block you; you can see your block log here. --Yamla (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Do you know what editing is? Did you think editing is the same as a discussion on a Talk Page? Did you notice the time stamps? You really shouldn't be playing mall cop here when you are aren't catching anything. That account is not related to Michael Jackson and the 6 month ban is RIDICULOUS. Bananasasas (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Is there a neutral party that can rule on this? Bananasasas (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really simple. Every time you save a change, any change, to any Wikipedia page, you are editing. If you do this again, you'll be blocked, if not indefinitely for defying the ban probably at least for the period of the ban. If you insult anyone again, you'll likely be blocked. You've only made 72 edits in all and you think you can tell editors who have made over 100,000 they are wrong? Doug Weller talk 13:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bananasasas. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. qedk (t 愛 c) 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]