User talk:EarlySquid

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Aspen Education Group. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CARETY is not a reliable source. Also, note that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view, but the tone of your additions was defamatory. Orlady (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Ridge Academy

I've readded the material on the page you've reverted, it seems to be directly quoted from a source. If you disagree with the sources, please go to the article's talk page and start a discussion. From your edit summaries, I can't understand what point you're trying to make. Talking it out on the article's talk page will help us understand. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a warning for the future, you should read Wikipedia's policy on the three-revert rule and edit warring. You're doing so on the West Ridge Academy article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, I was unaware of the rule. Not trying to edit war, just trying to get things right. Thanks for your help. --EarlySquid (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Ridge Academy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

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.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Please continue to discuss your change from the original wording on the article talk page and discontinue reverting the change until it has been resolved. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After being warned about 3RR at 03:52, you have again reverted the additions of another editor. If you're confused about this policy, please ask for clarification, but continuing to undo or partially undo the actions of others is not acceptable. Kuru (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have not reverted any of the additions made by another editor. Please cite which changes you are referring to. Thanks. --EarlySquid (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was mindful of the 3R rule, and none of my subsequent edits after being warned were reverts. I've added new material to West Ridge Academy that is not in dispute by any of the other editors, and I have been participating on the Discussion Page. I respectfully request that this ban be reconsidered. I'm not here to edit war or be disruptive at all.

Accept reason:

I feel compelled to unblock you. Not because you haven't reverted again, as Ronhjones has demonstrated. But the purpose of blocking for 3RR is to stop an edit war from continuing. Looking at your behavior at the article, and the subsequent talk page discussion, I believe that the earlier warning had its intended effect and you correctly brought the matter to the talk page, where it was discussed civilly. While you technically violated 3RR, blocks are meant to stop disruption, not to punish people, and I think that the disruption has ended. -- Atama頭 23:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your four removals of others work can be seen at

Remember Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Utahboysranchnetwork (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)</su> 13:15, 14 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Um... Not a sockpuppet. Feel free to check my ip address EarlySquid (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (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.

...there's a lot more to being found as a WP:SOCK than just IP address (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]