User talk:Lunar Goblin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Apollo TV camera. 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.

ANI incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Blocked 24h

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:44, 19 September 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).

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

Request reason:

please read below

Decline reason:

Reverting vandalism is the one and only exception to WP:EDITWAR, but that is not what you were doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 19 September 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.

I did notice attempts by the Moon Hoax Believers (Oleg1000, et al.) to alter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera article thus I have added the section "Disputed" in the article Talk page and tried to explain in the good faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apollo_TV_camera#Disputed Unfortunately, Oleg1000 resorted to the reverts after his introduction of unverified content. Please note that I simply reverted to the stable version existed long before the accident and did not introduce any new content. My mistake was that I let these vandals (oleg1000, et al.) to engage me in reverts; it appears that they use sock puppets (please check the logs for their identical malicious reverts originated from multiple accounts/IP). I also kindly ask revert to and protect the verified version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_TV_camera&oldid=359220621%7CRevision

Thanks! --Lunar Goblin 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a content disagreement with another editor, the correct course of action is to seek consensus via discussion on the relevant Talk page, which means civilly discussing the actual content rather than starting out fighting - and if that fails, to pursue further dispute resolution. You should NOT engage in edit-warring, and should NOT start throwing insults around, like "Moon Hoax Believers" - content disputes are decided on the content itself, and not on your assessment of the people involved, and you should restrict your discussion to that content rather than denigrating those with whom you disagree by using derogatory labels. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]