User talk:Erehwon37

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Ugg boots worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Ugg boots has been reverted, as it appears to intentionally introduce incorrect information. Please do not continue to do this; such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Be careful -- if you revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period, you can be temporarily blocked from editing. You can read up on the policy here. — e. ripley\^talk 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ugg boots. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to disambiguate, please only put, in italics, at the top of the page something like this: For the brand, see Ugg Australia Your edits were not only reverted by myself, but other editors as well because you seem to have removed content from the article without valid reason. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Airstream. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thank you for responding calmly to my queries, it is greatly appreciated. I now see your intentions; but, in hindsight, your edits were reverted simply for removal of content without discussion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg boots

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ugg boots. 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

account blocked -- vandalism

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. 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 our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Erehwon37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for what has been viewed as "vandalism." this appears to relate to edits made to the Ugg boots page. My edits were made in an honest attempt to correct what I view as a fundamental error in the article - the Australian verse the rest of the world perspective. This is discussed at some length in the Discussion page of the Ugg boots article where I posted (both under this user name and "erehwon36" which is also now blocked. The "vandalism" tag also appears to relate to my inexperience in editing - I did not appreciate that large deletions without comment were considered "vandalism". I will be more thoughtful on edits going forward and only make them after getting some consensus on the Discussion page. I note it also appears that I got tagged with a "vandalism" label based on an edit to Airstream RV's. this absolutely perplexes me - I simply added to the article that the 1980's class A airstreams are widely sought after by collectors - I find this to be an interesting and worthwhile comment - these were largely commercially unsuccessful when made and yet years later are sought after. How is adding this statement to the article vandalism? Again, perhaps I could have avoided this by first posting on the Discussion section to get consensus / thoughts. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to comments.

Decline reason:

Stick with your original account, which appears to be User:Factchk; this one will stay blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 26 July 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.

First of all, having multiple accounts is usually a violation of WP:SOCK - if you created one of them after an existing one was already blocked, that's called WP:EVADE. Second, your edit about being sought out by collectors sounds like original research, and was not ascribed to any 3rd party reliable source. You see, we're not allowed to use opinion in an encyclopedia. We have what's known as the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You would be doing well to understand it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I better understand the point on the Airstream edit issue. But how do you cite to this - There isn't any reference per se that states support for my edit, but it is indeed a fact. You need to go to eBay and search to see what is being purchased and sold every month. Perhaps this is simply the sort of "fact" that is outside the scope of a Wiki article? If so I believe this is unfortunate - this is the sort of data that I believe is useful to the article but very "subtle" to cite support for. Again, though, I better understand the issue now and perhaps it could be introduced into the article after discussion on the corresponding discussion page. With regard to the second account, I created it to carry on the discussion occurring on the Ugg Boots discussion board that had been initiated by my earlier comments and post. I did it using a name that was obviously related (only changed one digit) and admitted to it being "me" - there was clearly no intent to deceive. Erehwon37 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]