User talk:Remote peace
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Used. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. mynameinc 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The Used
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Used. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
January 2009
[edit]
- Blogs and YouTube videos are not reliable sources, as you have indicated here and here. Further reversions will result in a lengthier block. Take this to the discussion page to discuss the merits of the sources. seicer | talk | contribs 13:36, 3
January 2009 (UTC)
Remote peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been falsy block. The user Landon1980 has been removing every update that I made on The Used page. I sourced the material with a magazine and kyte page. We reported each other here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Statement_against_User:USEDfan and the responses are stronly in my favor. The admin Seicer blocked me thinking I was using a source of a blog and video which I told them I was not. I corrected the page and then Landon1980 vadalized it by removing a bunch of sourced information. Then I changed it back and Seicer blocked me indefinitly. They toldme I'd be blocked if I used the blog/video source again. So when I reverted the page, I guess they thought I used the sources again. But they don't realize that I used a magazine and text source (from the kyte page. not the video on the kyte page). I also think these two users may be friends because last time I was blocked, I was told I had an edit war with Landon1980 but Seicer only blocked me and not Landon1980 who I was in the edit war with. Any edit I made on here that I source is removed be Landon1980 becaue they are mistaken me for another user. And Seicer has acted like a very unprofessional admin and has sided with Land1980 who is a vandal and removes anything that they didn't write on the page (Once again, See the link I wrote about earlier when we reported each other and theres much agreement that Landon1980 removes much information that they didn't add. Overall Seicer blocked me for updating a page with lots of properly sourced information (that they didn't bother to read or listen to me about the sources) and that where the confussion was made. Also Landon1980 who is a vandal and only wants everything their way continues to remove information from many pages and gets away with it and is smart enough to manage to get an inosent user (like me) banned for no reason other than inproving pages. Please look into this. Thanks. Remote peace (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
Remote peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin Seicer blocked me. I think it is false. They told me this: "Blogs and YouTube videos are not reliable sources, as you have indicated here and here. Further reversions will result in a lengthier block. Take this to the discussion page to discuss the merits of the sources." I edited a page and used a magazine and kyte page as a source, the kyte page had a video and the admin thought that I was using the video as a source but I was using the pages of text next to the video as a source. Therefore when I edited The Used page with the magazine and kyte page, he blocked me indefinitely with ignoring that I told him what I was using as a source (on his talk page I told him). The block is a redicoulous length and a false block since I have not done anything wrong. I have improved the page with updated and correctly sourced information and due to a miscommunication he blocked me forever. Now the page is currently reverted to how it was before I edited it lacking updated and valuable sourced information. Please realize the miscommunication and my good faith edits. thanks. Remote peace (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See above block reason. You appear to have been told numerous times your sources were not valid. You clearly do not intend to edit collaboratively. — Smashvilletalk 02:06, 4 January 2009 (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.
Remote peace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
^^^They are valid, the problem was the link that i posted, there were to things on the link, a video and a few pages of text. They looked at the video and igored my explanation to what the source was. And an indefinite ban for that? And this here: "Blogs and YouTube videos are not reliable sources, as you have indicated here and here. Further reversions will result in a lengthier block. Take this to the discussion page to discuss the merits of the sources." is the only time I was told they weren't good...and the thing is I didnt use either one of them, it was a miscommuncation of what I was linking as the source.
Decline reason:
You're not even addressing the actual reason for the block, which is being a sockpuppet of a bannned user. If you want to be unblocked, make a request from your main account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:18, 4 January 2009 (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.
Note: to reviewing admin. This user was not blocked for the reason stated in the unblock request. He was blocked for being a sock puppet of User:USEDfan Landon1980 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)