User talk:PromX1

Welcome!

Hello, PromX1, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Guettarda 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Intelligent design

The bit you readded was still in there: It's at the end of the first paragraph. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Must have missed it somehow, sorry. -PromX1 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved around a bit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unexplained revert on that. I hit the wrong tab and it went in with an automated edit summary. ... Kenosis 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

I noticed that you have made repeated reversions on the Icons of Evolution article. Repeatedly reverting an article is bad form - making more than three reversions in 24 hours can get you blocked (as can "gaming" the rule, like making 3 reversions in 25 hours). It doesn't have to be the same reversion. Please read the Three revert rule policy page for a better explanation. Thanks. Guettarda 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only one making the repeated reverts. I made ligitimate changes which were then reverted by other stating only "POV edits" as the reason when the POV is largely that of those editors. I brought the issue up on the talk page but my changes kept on being reverted by the same people for the same "reason" without discussion. This affirms the person(s) doing the reverting can not substantiate their case. Wikipedia gives weight to majority view points and not overcloud pages with them stating the are the only view. -PromX1 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and POV issues

I've noticed over the last 10 + days that you've been insisting on inserting the same biased, non-neutral content into a number of related articles, one of which is a Featured Article. You then edit war when the community rejects your edits. I'm just wondering if anything the community says on the talk pages and settles on there has any influence with you, and if not, how much longer can we expect you to edit war? I ask this because your response to these questions will help the community determine how it will respond to this pattern of editing. Odd nature 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said I have not started an edit war. The content which I added is relevant and substantiated. The content already on in the articles is non-neutral and biased for which there is no consensus on the talk page not to include other views as well. I started a discussion on the talk page but nobody responded to it and simply continued to revert my legitimate edits, I can indeed ask you if anything the community says on talk pages has any influence on YOU and on them. -PromX1 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now I get blocked for making legitimate edits which other people keep on reverting without being willing to discuss the changes after I initiated the discussion. Please keep on alienating your users and contributors. Wikipedia already has a horrible standing in the academic community with several articles by university professors discouraging its use. -PromX1 21:42, 29 May 2007 (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).

PromX1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

got banned for making NPOV balancing edits

Decline reason:

We do not override ARBCOM decisions. Please send them an email. — Yamla 21:48, 29 May 2007 (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.

As far as I'm aware this is a Phil Sandifer decision with no reason given for the block (which should be against policy) and no attempt to come to a resolution. Something smells off here and this looks like an abuse of power situation. -PromX1 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm protecting this page. Please take the matter to the arbcom. They are aware of the reason for the block, and it is something that ought not be discussed on-wiki. Phil Sandifer 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]