User talk:Triffid3

License tagging for Image:Rembrandt.by.himself.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rembrandt.by.himself.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!-Andrew c 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Jesus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-Andrew c 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is revert, seemingly for other users. This account is blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions prove that to be false. I have reverted because I see several people unreasonably ganging up on one editor. --Triffid3 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no ganging up involved. Wikipedia works by consensus. If there is controversy over an edit, you take it to talk, and work out a compromise with other editors. You don't create sockpuppets to force your edits in. You simply cannot force edits in wikipedia, and unfortunately, you had to learn the hard way. When your 1 week ban is up, I suggest that the next time you get in a content dispute with editors, that you go to talk and build consensus before editing the article again. Edit warring gets you no where (except blocked). The article survived without the controversial edits for years before you came along, so it can survive without for another few weeks while talk page discussion goes on. Again, we work by consensus here. If you don't have support for your edits, then don't think there is any way to slip your edits in without compromising, building consensus, and talking it out on talk pages. I hope this helps, and good luck.-Andrew c 22:26, 30 March 2007 (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).

Triffid3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have seen on the Jesus article several people trying to impose religious bias on the article. They have unreasonably ganged up on one editor. Their reasoning appears based on intolernace of other people's views. I certainly don't see any reason that stands up to scrutiny. I am entitled to revert if I see other people uinreasonbaly reverting. For me to be subjected to 3RR claims when I have not breached the 3RR and also being blocked altogether is entirely unfair. The same standards are not being applied to those on the Jesus article who between them are trying to impose a biased article. My account was open well prior to this dispute and I have edited other articles prior to this, clearly contradicting the false claim that all I have done is solely revert on behalf of someone else. The recent reverts have been on my own behalf as I do not like to see an unreasonable majority impose bias on an article.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Lisboa --Deskana (ya rly) 15:36, 30 March 2007 (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.