User talk:SivaGoth
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
March 2023
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with James Desborough (game designer). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Geoff | Who, me? 21:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not mark articles for deletion about significant individuals who have already been through this process. SivaGoth (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are very welcome to express your view as to why the article should be kept on the deletion page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at James Desborough (game designer) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SivaGoth reported by User:Giraffer (Result: ). Thank you. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyobons mots 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)- You've also removed the bot deletion notification regarding Commons as well. At this time you still have access to all of Wikipedia save for one article; if the disruption spreads elsewhere the block will be adjusted accordingly. This comment is especially concerning.-- Ponyobons mots 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
SivaGoth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am trying to improve and update the article, which is being repeatedly vandalised by other users. I had it updated and less biased, but they keep reverting. The abuse is not on my part. I have also tried to open discussion for compromise on the talk page, but no response.)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if you think your edits were correct; everyone engaged in an edit war thinks their edits are correct. You were most certainly not reverting simple vandalism. Yamla (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (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.
SivaGoth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yet the original vandals are free to continue vandalising the page, despite also doing an equal or greater number of rollbacks - obviously. I was most certainly reverting vandalism. Wikipedia is going to be rendered useless if this kind of behaviour continues on multiple articles. SivaGoth (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:40, 16 March 2023 (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.
March 2023
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)