User talk:Stalkford

Silence is the home of awakened mindStalkford (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you.

Advice

Hello, I have a few pieces of advice to give you as a Wikipedia editor.

Don't get too attached to an article or a particular edit.
If you are reverted, don't just re-revert, but try to explain your position on the article's Talk page. (See WP:BRD)
Don't add material without reliable sources to back it up. (See WP:RS)
Avoid WP:Primary sources and excessive quoting.

Editor2020 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalkford, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Stalkford! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating WP:3RR at Gautama Buddha in Hinduism and God in Buddhism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to make contribution in the best possible manner I could. However this is quite insulting and depressing to me. I gave the sources from the websites and they were verifiable. The same Article contained the sources from the same website. If another user reported me, it fine . The more evil comes from someone the more more good goes from me. Please check my editions again. I never did any unconstructive editing and moreover the article contained the sources from the same website. I just added the same source and I am blocked for this. So I request you to kindly unblock me please. You can check my contribution on God in Buddhism and Buddha in Hinduism. I asked the other person to kindly have a discussion but he didn't have. I request you to kindly unblock me. With faithfulness.

Stalkford

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:3RR; you'll need to address that if you request unblock again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:13, 26 May 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Now -Ok thanks for informing me I am new to wikipedia. According to rule I can't make the 4th change on the same day. But I have a questions regarding that. There are many other users who even revert the changes more than 3 times. However , my apology for that. I asked my opponent to disccuss on talkpage. If someone can guide me to rules or any software which I can use on wikipedia would be grateful. So thanks in advance for that. Now please unblock me as I was ignorant. This is my last time I am requesting from you. Stalkford (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are not "many other users" who revert more than three times. The only exceptions are for vandalism and egrerious BLP issues. Regardless, your blatant evading of your block means that an unblock is not going to be granted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 26 May 2014 (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.

Comment Block evasion] is not likely to help your case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your blocks to two weeks, since you appear to be unclear on the concept of block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your latest block evasion and retaliatory disruption at WP:AN3, I've made your block indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]