User talk:Bullet Dropper

Welcome!

Hello, Bullet Dropper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical liberalism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Classical liberalism. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFD (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have continued to edit war you have been reported and may respond here. TFD (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (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).

Bullet Dropper (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 unless the person that reported me is blocked, who also doing multiple edits, but worse by being vandalistic deleting information that was sourced. The person was FourDueces. Take a look: [1]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason to why you were block which was edit warring while abusing a multiple account with FrenchTouchLiberal (talk · contribs). Please also read WP:NOTTHEM. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:04, 27 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

FrenchTouchLiberal is not me! How can you use that against me without any evidence whatsoever???

Decline reason:

Evidence is obvious given the timing and content of edits by both of these accounts. Jayron32 05:58, 27 September 2010 (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.

Classical liberalism

You have now reverted an edit three times within a short period of time and any further reverts will result in your being reported to the edit-warring noticeboard as before. TFD (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so have you. You must know people. I don't know how else you can avoid being blocked for doing the same thing (though worse). Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for partcipating in an edit war at Classical liberalism; returning to the same article to continue to edit war after expiry of prior block. When this block expires, please use the article talk page or dispute resolution methods instead of edit warring.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 05:15, 28 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Only did three reverts. And why does "Four Deuces" not get blocked for doing the same thing? [2] Is this place corrupt or what? Are secret messages being passed behind the scenes to gang up on someone who tries to make a change that someone doesn't like?

Decline reason:

Jayron actually just beat me to the punch in blocking you. 1) WP:EW is quite clear that only 3RR is not a license to edit war up to three times per day; you can be blocked for less; 2) you returned to reverting three minutes after posting on the talk page; you did not give discussion a chance as you were instructed was necessary 3) The Four Deuces wasn't just blocked for 3RR violation, and was reverting per WP:BRD, 4) you were editing against the consensus of several other editors, Four Deuces was only editing against you and 5) your use of personal attacks [3] (edit summary) while calling out other editors for doing the same [4] (edit summary) is entirely unacceptable. I doubt you will read this decline as the constructive criticism it could be; please don't prove me wrong and dig your own hole deeper. At the risk of sounding slightly uncivil myself, I will quote a famous essay of ours, if multiple people keep telling you you're doing something wrong, then they probably have a point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2010 (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.

Just to clarify; you were not blocked for violating the three revert rule. I never mentioned that in the rationale for the block, so it is no good using that as a defense. You were blocked for edit warring. Also, you should read WP:BURDEN. It is enlightening in regards to why you are blocked. --Jayron32 05:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my main issue. My main issue is why FourDeuces is not being blocked for edit warring. Do you deny he is edit warring too? I feel like I'm being singled out because someone has connections. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTHEM and WP:BURDEN. Try again. --Jayron32 05:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That answers my question. Connections. (Or political allegiances) Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with that response, I'm revoking your talk page access for a day. This page is not here for you to soapbox your cabal theories. When you've cooled down a bit, please read my decline, and take it into consideration. It, along with a contrite tone, really will help with you editing in the future and with any unblock requests you make. Keep in mind the only purpose for you editing a talk page while blocked is to request unblock in good faith. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm unlocking the talk page; you can respond to some comments I had at a sockpuppet case about you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII. And you were correct, the case showed you are not FrenchTouchLiberal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELL YES I WAS CORRECT. Thanks so much for letting me know that I was correct in my belief that FrenchTouchLiberal was not me! You guys owe me an apology. You're unqualified to be administrators and should be suspended from you duties. Bullet Dropper (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the question remains why favoritism was given to FourDeuces. Bullet Dropper (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though I did not unlock your talk page for you to continue to soapbox. This is all explained above. The FrenchTouchLiberal connection had nothing to do with your blocking, tbh. Now if you choose to respond to either my comments regarding the deletion of information at the sock case, or to place an unblock request that falls squarely in line with the suggestions of WP:GAB, feel free to do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. That discussion can be found here [5]. Thank you. Dayewalker (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice conspiracy theory you've come up with there. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Classical liberalism. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Adding formal notice as you have not received one yet --Snowded ^TALK 04:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're late to the party. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be reported for 3RR without a warning, so I've put it in place, late or not it had to be done --Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You appear to be edit-warring on Classical liberalism and should note WP:3RR. You should discuss changes and work toward consensus. TFD (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? I think you may be looking in the mirror and confusing me with yourself, because you've done 3 reverts. I haven't done any. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you're the same guy that accused me of being a sockpuppet of another person and caused me to be blocked until I was vindicated. Do you often have delusions? Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]