User talk:HoppingHare

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, HoppingHare, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Western Pines (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!!--HoppingHare (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Loren Legarda

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Loren Legarda. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. If the two of you continue to edit war over the article, I will personally see to it that both of you are sent to WP:AIV and WP:AN3RR. From there, you might see yourself blocked if you do not agree to stop fighting and take the issue to the talk page. Although I am an uninvolved editor, the war going on here is ridiculous. Stop edit warring. This is your only warning. —LedgendGamer 08:12, 13 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was reverting blanked information, which is NOT edit warring, but I'm sorry it came out that way. If I don't get unblocked, may I request the restoration of my edits in the Loren Legarda talk page. Thanks!

(Also, as much as I would prefer to seek a dispute resolution process regarding the article, I believe that that is futile because the other party is unwilling to discuss as proven by her constant blanking of the talk page.)

Decline reason:

No, you reverted the removal of information that appears to be contrary to WP:BLP. The removal by any editor of that type of information is valid. You continued to re-add it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 13 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You might say that the issue falls under BLP 2.2 and that the reasoning in BLP 3.2 may be used to delete it. I, however, disagree with that and state that the reasoning in BLP 4.2 may justify its inclusion with the following arguments:

1. The issue is nothing new. Anyone who have heard of her has probably heard of that issue given that it has been used against her in a rather notable amount of times.

2.The sources of the label include ABS-CBN, the largest television station in the Philippines; and The Philippine Star, a newspaper that is as respectable as the New York Times (used as an example in BLP 4.2).

3.The time discrepancy between the published articles (2004 & 2009) shows that the issue is relevant because it is able to span for almost a decade.

With those arguments, I rest my case, the removal of the information is unwarranted and it should be kept until a stronger argument warrants its removal. Therefore, effectively turning my blocking unjustifiable.

Decline reason:

You need to read the bold, revert, discuss cycle carefully, and stop wikilawyering. Once it was deleted once, you discuss and not add it until consensus is reached. As such, edit-warring is not permitted whatsoever. Future unblock requests should address this, and not what you believe to be valid edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 13 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I did try starting a discussion at the talk page but with a person like that who keeps deleting content (even talk pages; see exhibits A ([[1]]) and B ([[2]])), there is no way I'll get very far, so I did what I did thinking it was correct.

Decline reason:

Perhaps, but you were not correct to be doing so, you were informed to stop doing so, you continued to edit war, you were blocked for edit warring. This is consistent with both the letter and the intent of Wikipedia policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:07, 13 February 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.

You're completely missing the point: you were doing wrong, were warned to stop, and continued. You can no longer claim that you thought you were doing the right thing when you were told clearly to stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know that it's probably pointless now, since the block is going to expire real soon but I would just like to say this, for the record, to prove that I am not on the wrong. I.m not expecting to be unblocked but I still insist that I did not edit war, I was reverting vandalism. Two other users had reverted ([[3]], [[4]]) the other users edits prior to my involvement so I am not the one POV-pushing here. Besides, had my request for page protection [[5]] been granted earlier, there wouldn't have been any mess.

Decline reason:

Consider yourself lucky that I haven't extended your block for abusing the unblock template to make a statement and wasting more people's time. Mr.Z-man 19:11, 13 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you Nick-D & User:Elockid (also known as GiannaManiego) for catching me. Grabe nahuli ninyo ako. Congratulations! Hehe. Bahala kayo sa buhay ninyo. Kung akala ninyo ito na ang huli, nagkakamali kayo. Ang ipis kahit ilang beses mong tapakan ay buhay pa rin kaya kung iniisip ninyong mapapatigil ninyo ako, eh, tingnan na lang natin. Hindi pa ito ang huli. Kung si Squee nga ay ilang beses kinawawa nina Crovax at Ertai, paano pa kaya ako? Basta kung ako sa inyo, titigil na ako ngayon pa lang. Nakakaloka!!!

Decline reason:

I have received your request for the disabling of your talk page access; your request is granted. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 15 February 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.

{unblock|Ilalantad ko na ang lahat!!! iyan tingan ninyo, Kung sino-sinong fictional characters na andyan sa simula (gaya nina Nick-D, Elockid, at JL 09), sila-sila pa rin ang bumabatikos sa akin. Ano ba ang kinakatawan nila, the Wikipedia community? Paano naging isang community iyan, eh tatatlong (3) tao lang iyan eh. I highly doubt that those three represent the Wikipedia community or any community for that matter. I highly contest this ban and I believe that the reason why they attack me is because my edits make sense and they disagree with it. Elockid even spent time creating a sockpuppet ("GiannaManiego") to defame and inflame me. Nice try!!! :)}}

{{Unblock|Alam ko naman na walang pagkakataong ma-ununblock ako kaya't gagamitin ko na lamang ang panahong ito para ilantad ang saloobin ko. Nick-D, nakakadiri na ginagamit mo ang mga kapangyarihan mo bilang isang administrador para maimpluwensyahan ang mga galamay mong maaaring administrador. Grabe, akala ko ba na pantay ang Wikipedia, e bakit nagagamit ang mga Administrator tools para maimpluwensyahan ang direksyon nito. Hindi dapat na-bloblock ang mga user sa mga edit war. Kasi kung may isang kinikilingan ang isang administrador, o kaya may kinakalaban siya, maari niyang i-block yung hindi niya gusto. Nick-D, nakakasuka na kahit ngayon hinahabol mo pa rin ako. Puwes, maghanda kayong tumakbo kasi di ako pahuhuli.}