User talk:Mjay931979
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Xploration Nation. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
Even if you feel you are definitely right, it is still important to cooperate with other editors to find the version that is most accurate. If you need help or anything else, please let me know! Thanks!—LucasThoms 15:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
[edit]Stop changing the name "Xploration Nation" to "Xploration Station" right now. I mean it. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
{{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. Alexf(talk) 17:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Mjay931979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Mjay931979 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Lucas Thoms sums it up nicely below. Being right does not give you the right to ignore Wikipedia policies and other editors. Max Semenik (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
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 don't understand what the problem is with your editors? I work for the given company Steve Rotfeld Productions. our website was just updated www.rotfeldproductions.com. The given 2 hour block which will be on many Fox stations was originally titled Xploration Nation, but was changed 4 months ago to Xploration Station. A recent article about one of the shows is listed below where it references Xploration Station as the 2 hour block on FOX. Adam Dean Hall is mistaken and needs to do better research before editing a page and telling others they are wrong. I can't explain more that I am right with the name change! You can call the company if you don't believe it! 610-520-0671 Ask for Steve Rotfeld! I am not trying to be a problem!
- The problem isn't that you're wrong, the problem is that you weren't willing to discuss it with the other editors, and instead just kept undoing their changes.—LucasThoms 18:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
[1]
Mjay931979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Mjay931979 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline, block has expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
honestly I don't know what I am doing I just wanted to update the page for the company. I barely have figured out how to respond to people on wikipedia. I didnt understand all this talking it out with editors? I wish i understood this better and you had real person to chat with to understand it for a person who doesn't understand all this lingo. I am very computer literate but all this stuff escapes me. I am just trying to make sure when people look for our shows they get the right information. Now I see why people always say you can't always count what you see on Wikipedia,it shouldn't be this hard to show an editor that a change needs to be made so your site is accurate. You guys can block me or whatever I never planned to edit anything else. I know now that you can't trust your site and when you see a mistake just let them keep making it, instead of trying to help correct it.
Thanks, Matt
- Hey Matt, I know this is frustrating for you. I also know how confusing Wikipedia can be. If I were you, I wouldn't make any more requests to be unblocked; they probably won't help. Your block will expire sometime in the next day or so (depending on your time zone), and then you should discuss what you want to change on the article's talk page. When you, Adam, and whoever else is involved can calmly come to an agreement about what should be changed, and what it should be changed to, then you can change it. The problem isn't that we think you're wrong; the problem is that you were edit warring. That means that, instead of calmly discussing what you wanted changed, you repeatedly undid the other edits, saying things like "STOP CHANGING IT BACK TO NATION!!!!!" That's not welcome here. Does this clear things up a bit?—LucasThoms 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I get it, but I wasn't even given a chance from the time I suggested and made the change I was told how wrong I was by adam whoever and I tried to make a case, I tried adding a reference and all. All he had to do was look it up and see if I was right or wrong and he wouldn't even do it. This shouldnt be difficult but it is and maybe not worth all this aggravation. My boss wants to right!
- On Wikipedia, if someone undoes your edit, it's polite to try to discuss it on the talk page before you try to re-add it. I understand that it's upsetting having your edit undone, but you shouldn't try to re-add it before you understand why it was removed.—LucasThoms 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of notes. One, please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig on with the datestamp (and please make sure you are signed in too.). Second, please read WP:COI about conflict of interest - you sre involved with the company and so you have a conflict of interest, instead of being a totally unopinionated neutral encyclopaedia person like me... 8-). Three (who's counting?, please read WP:RS. We like reliable independent sources, although we do accept reliable non-independent ones on indisputable matters of fact. OK? Wikipedia is free to edit - but it has rules. In the case of a name change, both names should be used, depending on when one is referring to. It may be BloggsCo today, but in 2008 it was Bohring and Serrmon Inc. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is already under discussion at Talk:Xploration Nation#Requested move with the main two source including Rotfeld Production PR indicated Nation. Spshu (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of notes. One, please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig on with the datestamp (and please make sure you are signed in too.). Second, please read WP:COI about conflict of interest - you sre involved with the company and so you have a conflict of interest, instead of being a totally unopinionated neutral encyclopaedia person like me... 8-). Three (who's counting?, please read WP:RS. We like reliable independent sources, although we do accept reliable non-independent ones on indisputable matters of fact. OK? Wikipedia is free to edit - but it has rules. In the case of a name change, both names should be used, depending on when one is referring to. It may be BloggsCo today, but in 2008 it was Bohring and Serrmon Inc. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, if someone undoes your edit, it's polite to try to discuss it on the talk page before you try to re-add it. I understand that it's upsetting having your edit undone, but you shouldn't try to re-add it before you understand why it was removed.—LucasThoms 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I get it, but I wasn't even given a chance from the time I suggested and made the change I was told how wrong I was by adam whoever and I tried to make a case, I tried adding a reference and all. All he had to do was look it up and see if I was right or wrong and he wouldn't even do it. This shouldnt be difficult but it is and maybe not worth all this aggravation. My boss wants to right!
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page Draft:Willakenzie River Soapery LLC has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SpencerT•C 09:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)