User talk:Stedman262182

July 2018

Hello, I'm Danski454. I noticed that you recently removed content from Stoke Gifford without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Danski454 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stoke Gifford, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Danski454 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content

Please do not remove the content I have added to notable people. It’s very annoying. Stedman262182 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:GNG for guidelines on notability for this encyclopedia. Also note that editing about yourself is strongly discouraged, please see below regarding conflict of interest here. Ifnord (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Stedman262182. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Stoke Gifford, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I don’t believe it is a COI. The information is factual and truthful. Stedman262182 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Stedman or related to him? Ifnord (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Stoke Gifford shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ifnord (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

No I am not. Stedman262182 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add individual names that have not been shown to be notable to Wikipedia, as you did at Stoke Gifford. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedman262182 (talk • contribs)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Stoke Gifford, you may be blocked from editing. Newslinger (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start it isn’t soapboaxing, promotional or advertising you fucking nerd. I am adding vital content to the page. So get off your computer and enjoy the sun, you cretin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedman262182 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Stoke Gifford. Newslinger (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines, as you did at Stoke Gifford. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 14:17, 9 July 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Stedman262182 reported by User:Newslinger (Result: ). Thank you. Newslinger (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2018 (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).

Stedman262182 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The section ‘notable people’ that I was originally blocked for has now been removed from the Stoke Gifford page

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2018 (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).

Stedman262182 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that I should be unblocked as I understand that the reason I was initially blocked was for going into an edit war with another user. I promise to no longer disrupt or cause damage to the page and I will make useful contributions instead. The page that I wrote on is no longer in operation either, so I don’t think that I should have to wait 6 days to be unblocked, thank you

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 10 July 2018 (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.

If you make an edit that is reverted again, or have some other disagreement about an edit, how will you handle it? Are there any specific constructive contributions that you want to make? Alexf, is there anything additional you would need to see for an early unblock here? 331dot (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: It seems we have an issue of communication here. The user is talking about a block for edit warring. That was a previous block. The current block as it is clearly stated in the blocking notice, is for self-advertising, i.e. adding the name of Alex Stedman to the list, more than once. Seems to me the user has not read the blocking notice, or has not understood the issue, as the user's request for unblock does not address the blocking issue. So, obviously I would not unblock until that is made clear, or the block expires (which is happening soon anyway). -- Alexf^(talk) 20:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; thank you for the clarification. Stedman262182, please address the current issue for the block. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]