User talk:Garbagecanyeah

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Bob's Burgers episodes. 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.

There is no consensus on the talk page to re-add the list. You will need to start new discussion and see if a new consensus to add the material can be formed before adding it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just block him, C.Fred. It's the same user with yet another sock... Doc talk 01:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, so I don't have to fill out a report. CTJF83 01:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring—especially since it's a pattern of edits associated with indefinitely blocked user BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 30 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).

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

Request reason:

Added information to a page with consensus in mind. Original edit warring user knownalias no longer feels strongly for issue so information can now remain. Other editors have not checked talk page and are assuming consensus has not been reached due to user "bluemondo" leaving a sour taste on the page. Garbagecanyeah (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You unblock request does not address the reason for your block or provide reviewing admins with any assurances that you intend to edit more productively in the future. Please see WP:NOTTHEM and respond to the concerns over you being BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs) before making any further unblock requestions. If you are BlueMondo131, please use that account's talk page to request to be unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 30 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.

The primary reason for your block was your disregard of 3RR after being warned. You made a total of four reverts: [1] [2] [3] [4] within 24 minutes, much less 24 hours. That's edit warring by definition. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you refuse to acknowledge, sock, that the consensus was already reached; two talk pages and an An/I ban report worth of editors all agree it is non-notable trivia. You're just a sore loser. I repeat from that report what I previously told you; "Consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with you". Don't confuse my silence with not caring anymore; your obtuse stubbornness has just made you not worth arguing with anymore. KnownAlias X 02:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]