User talk:Mac22203

Welcome!

Hello, Mac22203, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac22203, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mac22203! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on living persons

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We take edit-warring in general seriously, and combined with a clear violation of our policy on living persons, any continuation of your behaviour at the Centerplate article is likely to result in you being blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and nor is it a platform for putting the world to rights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mac22203 AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for violations of Wikipedia's edit war policy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Centerplate. 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.

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. Jayron32 04:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When this block expires, you should discuss the matter and build consensus on the article talk page rather than repeatedly trying to force a particular version of the article through. Wikipedia is built on collaborative editing and consensus building, not on who is more willing to force their will on others. If you agree to stop editing the article in question until after a consensus is built on the article talk page for your version of it, I (or another admin) can unblock you early. Use the unblock template as described above and explain that you are willing to discuss the changes you want to make rather than add them unilaterally. --Jayron32 04:07, 1 September 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).

Mac22203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a new user and find this experience very troubling - I've basically been ganged up on by two users who clearly have their own biases as to what should be included in the Centerplate wiki article. I made a good faith effort on the Centerplate talk page to explain why I included factually accurate and relevant statements, supported by reputable news sources. I also explained my rationale for including information. The other two users who repeatedly deleted my contributions made no effort whatsoever to find a middle ground or to understand why the controversy surrounding the Centerplate CEO is relevant. In fact, one user - the one who had me blocked - deleted entire references to relevant information without any attempt to resolve the disagreement in a constructive manner. He even deleted an entire section identifying venue partners of Centerplate - and that section had nothing to do with the controversy that he claims doesn't belong on the page. Please review the talk page for further details. Thanks. Mac22203 (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Mac22203[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the contents of your edits. You'll need to address that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:44, 1 September 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).

Mac22203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Administrators on this site are useless - you don't have an effective policy in place for dealing with users like "AndyTheGrump." You let him delete factual and relevant information from the Centerplate page without first requiring him to offer any constructive edits or feedback. I didn't initiate the "edit" wars - but was reposting relevant and factually correct information that was being entirely deleted by him and one other person on the site. I was a new user acting in good faith - and your policies completely failed to protect my participation on your site. I'm not asking you to unblock me: I am *done* with Wikipedia. But it's nonetheless nice to know the issue that you've failed to deal with in a constructive way isn't going away - https://twitter.com/DanKimRedMango/status/506308734620938240/photo/1. Mac22203 (talk) 8:20 am, Today (UTC+1)Mac22203

Decline reason:

Since your unblock request specifically states that you no longer intend to edit Wikipedia, there is no reason to lift the block on your account. You will still be able to read Wikipedia while blocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:55, 1 September 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.