User talk:Rsoltz

Would you please stop editing comments that, for example, the 2010s run from 2011 through 2020. It's been rejected by a clear consensus. Unless you can provide evidence that it's actually used with that meaning, you are violating Wikipedia policies, regardless of whether it would make sense to define it that way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to 2010s, you will be blocked from editing. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

It does matter what the majority opinion is; see 'Consensus'. If you continue to add material to Wikipedia without listing a reliable source, you will be blocked. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 09:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at 2010s. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 10:27, 6 January 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Actually I can live with the short block. However "Treasury" did not handle this in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I am a new user, he did not follow the guideline "Please do not bite the newcomers". He did not say who he was and he could have more clearly stated that I needed to add references to my edit. I have tried to "talk" with him and the only response I received was that he would not debate it! I was not debating, I was giving him the reasons I am correct. I thought that was what he wanted. I need to know, is the problem with my post simply that I have not cited references or does he personally believe I am wrong? I have numerous references to back up my edit. I sent Treasury a couple. By the way here is another one:http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/millennium. Thank you.Rsoltz (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you can live with a short block, so can I. When you are unblocked, do something different than you did before your block, or it may not be so short next time. Jayron32 20:04, 6 January 2010 (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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2010s, you will be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for continuing to edit war at the 2010s article. Because this is not the first time you have been blocked for edit warring, the duration of the block is now 72 hours. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in considerably longer blocks without further warnings. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:57, 8 January 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't deserve to be blocked now. From the information I previously received it appeared I was blocked for not leaving references. I even contected the original blocking administrator to confirm this was my infraction. I received no reply. I edited the article with references! But the main reason I want to be unblocked is so I can create an editor/dispute form (WP:DRR). If the block is lifted I agree not to edit the 2010 page unless or until the administrators give me permission. I need the block lifted to file my WP:DRR. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You have been warned repeatedly for edit warring, including a short block, and yet have continued this behaviour. As such, a 72 hour block is appropriate. You can use the dispute resolution process once your block expires. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2010 (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.

The previous block message quite clearly stated that you were blocked for edit warring and for failing to discuss controversial changes. Absolutely nobody (except you) said anything about references. If you want to seek dispute resolution, that's fine - you may do so in three days. While you wait, I suggest you take some time to read the policy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Rsoltz's reference ([1]) was bogus. That text says absolutely nothing about decades in general or 2010s in particular; it does not even contain the words "decade" or "2010s". So, citing it as a reference for Rsoltz's claim that "2010s begins in 2011" is a clear violation of WP:Verifiability (The source ... must clearly support the material as presented in the article.). Providing false citations is not much better than providing no citations at all. --Jmk (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]