User talk:New-Cobbler

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Noomi Rapace has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Noomi Rapace was changed by New-Cobbler (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952556 on 2018-03-14T12:36:46+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hawaii (island). Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hawaii (island) was changed by New-Cobbler (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.8911 on 2018-03-14T13:05:00+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alex Jones. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. General Ization ^Talk 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 15 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock. This must be a mistake as I did nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

Vandalism, edit-warring, and now apparently violations of WP:SOCK? Doesn't look to be a mistake to me. Yamla (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2018 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BoxRox. —DoRD (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not vandilize anything. Please provide examples of me providing incorrect information to any page. This ban was not for edit warring. (I got a 24 hour ban for that once in the past, but that punishment had long been over and I have not “edit warred” since and not broken the three revert rule. I am NOT a sock. I swear on my life. This is factually incorrect. And an indefinitely? That’s insane. Also the so called sockpuppet evidence is nonsense. Editing on a page as a banned user is not evidence of being that user. The edit was not even the same as the so called referred to edit war.New-Cobbler (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have seen totally convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. Fortunately not all of it is mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2018 (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.

Your violations of WP:SOCK is confirmed. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BoxRox. --Yamla (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is not confirmed as it’s not true. Simply posting on the same page is not evidence and not accurate. You seriously think two people can not post on the same page? This is a conspiracy and a faulty attempt at stalking as I am a different person. You have also provided zero evidence of vandalism.

Decline reason:

Please don't waste our time by having multiple unblock requests open at the same time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2018 (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.

UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Convincing evidence? It’s not accurate. A slick lawyer can prove an innocent man guilty. That doesn’t mean it’s true. I have asked time and time again to state where I have Vandilized, which is the initial claim. No one has been able to do this. I have provided only meaningful contributions. I was then accused of being a sock because I posted on the same page as a banned user. That is kangaroo court level evidence and innacurate. Does it not exist in your mind the possibility I am innocent when in fact in reality I am? Zero of the edits were disruptive and all were accurate and sourced providing greater clarification. To roll back my highly researched edits to incorrect data is outrageous and false.

Decline reason:

Talkpage access revoked for timewasting. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:51, 19 March 2018 (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.