User talk:Etrata93

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Unconditionally, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Gloss • talk 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not insert biased claims such as calling a charting "disappointing". While fans might be disappointed that it didn't reach the top 10 in Billboard Hot 100, it doesn't really belong in the article as it is a personal opinion. Wikipedia's policies oppose including bias in articles. You could possibly quote a reviewer of the song who felt its charting was disappointing, which would require a source. Please do not just simply call it "disappointing" unless perhaps it is contained within a quote and cited. Thank you. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unconditionally. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Unconditionally, you may be blocked from editing. Gloss • talk 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The block is for disruptive editing. Please work with your fellow editors rather than edit warring to your preferred content. Also please read WP:3rr. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (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).

Etrata93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not given a warning ahead of time.

Decline reason:

If you think you needed to be warned not to do what you did, then you're not likely to be a benefit to this project. Sandstein 22:24, 27 January 2014 (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).

Etrata93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So you're just going to be blocking people without warning? Well in this case, you should be the one banned. Etrata93 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've had plenty of warnings, the last of them clearly stating that a block might be applied. Max Semenik (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (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).

Etrata93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There's no final warning.

Decline reason:

If your only defence is to repeatedly insist "I didn't get a final warning", then I see no point in allowing you to continue wasting our time explaining that warnings are not mandatory prior to blocking. I'm removing your talkpage access for the remainder of this block. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 28 January 2014 (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 were warned plenty. Look up on your talk page. Gloss • talk 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stay out of this. It's between me and the abusive admin. Etrata93 (talk) 17:40, January 27, 2014

There is no abusive admin. You engaged in an edit war and continued to do the wrong thing after multiple editors reverted you and told you to stop. The block was warranted and you will not be receiving an unblock. Gloss • talk 22:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you will say there's no abusive admin. After all, you're either one of them or a puppet. Yes anyone can ediot, they shouldn't be banned just because they are trying to help a site.

To echo what my colleague stated above, I suggest you refrain from telling other editors to "Unconditionally: It's a disappointment. Quit editing on the page.", as you did here, or to tell other editors to "stay out of this", as you did above. Wikipedia allows any editor in good standing to edit any page they wish, or to participate in whatever discussion they wish. No one editor has the authority to dictate otherwise, and such behavior will only result in more and longer blocks if it persists. Please see Wikipedia:Clean start. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2014 (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).

Etrata93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please apply the ban only to my username, not to the ip address. Others use it. Etrata93 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Others may request unblock if they are affected. As yet, none have. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 29 January 2014 (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.