User talk:UnjustNation

Your user page and query as to whether you have another account

We often borrow material from other editors' pages. We should always ask first where possible. But borrowed or not user pages should not misrepresent the editor. As this account was created 19:01, 22 November 2016, why does your page say it's much older or that you are a Veteran Editor? It also says you are a member of a Wikiproject, but you haven't joined one. Please fix this, make sure the userboxes are accurate. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I only need to make sure they're accurate?UnjustNation (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to do two things. If you copy from another page, say that in your edit summary with a link to the page you copied from (took me a while to learn that and I was confused when I was first told about it as I didn't understand the copyright issues). And make sure it is accurate, don't misrepresent yourself, among other things people won't trust you. You're having a bad start, I can see that, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn how to work in this environment. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for being so kind and understanding. UnjustNation (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ax vs axe

Have you read WP:ENGVAR? I'd also suggest you read this. I was taught to spell it axe and my 2 volume Readers Digest dictionary spells it axe. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word editor underlined it as red so I assumed wikipedia did not accept that spelling as correct.UnjustNation (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Service (The Walking Dead). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit-warring, repeated personal attacks, stalking and harassing another editor, editing from a non-neutral point of view, vandalising another editor's user page, and generally taking a battleground approach to disagreements with other editors. A short block has failed to deter you from continuing in the same way, and you were warned during that block that returning to the same kind of thing would lead to being blocked for longer. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

What gives why have I been blocked? Everything I'm accused of also applies to User:AffeL, he's the one who started all this in the first place. He is obviously extremely biased (regarding The Walking Dead) and has had a beef with multiple people about it including me. As for violating pages, I didn't realize that User pages were different from talk pages (I didn't even see the tab), so I ended up with multiple warnings as I tried to reach a consensus with AffeL, I was just as dumbfounded when I realized my mistake. I was also not aware of several rules like 3RR, so that ended up costing me as well. I think it's really unfair to ban me and not do the same to him as well. I request that you unblock me or at the very least apply the same treatment to AffeL as well. UnjustNation (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the reasons for your block. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Also, the fact that most of your editing has indeed been disruptive, and you have also almost certainly been editing through a previous block as User:114.130.38.130, means that this request is declined. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (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.

@JamesBWatson

(Non-administrator comment) When asking for an unblock, please only talk about yourself, and not the actions of other users. Please see: WP:NOTTHEM. 73.96.113.43 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking us to believe that [1] this edit] was an honest attempt to communicate, and that the only problem with it was that you put it on the wrong page through an innocent misunderstanding, then you have got a lot of persuading to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]