User talk:ENLogic

Hello, ENLogic! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! FrostedΔ14 18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Anarchy with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. FrostedΔ14 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy

For complicated stuff like this, it might be better to describe the problem in talk:Anarchy. Perhaps ask and wait for comments then do your edit with a "see talk" (maybe a bit more of a comment) in the edit summary. I noted that anarchy.net is 404 as well. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anarchy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by your edit summary comments at Anarchy in greater detail at Talk:Anarchy? I don't fully understand. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ENLogic, the dictionary definition of Anarchy is already at wiktionary:Anarchy. The Wikipedia, however, is not a dictionary. Please refrain from removing the lead section without explanation or discussion, and also stop edit warring as it may get you blocked! You are free to talk this over at talk:Anarchy, your or my talkpage. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Benzband has mentioned above, your contribution to Anarchy has been removed because you rewrote the article like a dictionary definition. If you weren't aware, Wikimedia Foundation has a dictionary website here. You were also removing sourced content with no explanation. If you have concerns with the accuracy of the article, discuss at the talk page rather than repeatedly removing content. If you wish to improve the article, visit Wikipedia:Writing better articles. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

What article are you referring to? Please respond at my talk page.

SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:ENLogic reported by User:Purplewowies (Result: ). Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and WP:3RR violation on Anarchy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating WP:3RR; as I noted in my edit summary, it has not been determined that your edit is incorrect, but we need to have discussion to warrant such removal of sourced content that is not on its face incorrect. You need to head over to the article's talk page to discuss your proposed edit. Continuous reversion of multiple other users to impose your opaque edit will have the opposite effect. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked for reporting accurate information. The page "ANARCHY" contains untrustworthy inaccurate information, with over 90 ratings to prove it. The page is being moderated by an idiot 25 year old anarchist. ENLogic (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please understand two things: considering oneself right does not give anyone an exemption from 3RR and unblock requests containing insults have no chance of fulfillment. Max Semenik (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please understand. People like you are the reason the page has a 1 out of 5 rating for accuracy and Wikipedia continues to provide false information.

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock provided. Kinu ^t/_c 02:43, 26 July 2012 (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.

Are you actually reading what's been said to you? You'll probably lose your talk page access if you don't.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please understand. You are the reason that the Wikipedia page for "Anarchy" has a 1 out of 5 rating for accuracy and Wikipedia continues the spread of false information.

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.
Talk page access also revoked. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:27, 26 July 2012 (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.