User talk:Woodseats44

New messages will appear at the bottom of this page.

February 2012

Please stop adding the same general statement to Lincoln Cathedral about pre-reformation churches. It is so very general and, by continuing your edit warring, you may be infringing Wikipedia policy—GrahamSmith (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you discuss this matter on Lincoln Cathedral's talk page before making any further changes.—GrahamSmith (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lincoln Cathedral shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —GrahamSmith (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule, as you did at Lincoln Cathedral. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Keith D (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Any further personal attacks and you will be blocked again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Woodseats44, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive contributor. Your contributions are recorded. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Prince Andrew, Duke of York, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma was changed by Woodseats44 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.907994 on 2015-01-06T21:43:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Leon Brittan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Leon Brittan was changed by Woodseats44 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900591 on 2015-01-06T21:49:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I be unblocked?

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).

Woodseats44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

as I explained in an earlier request to be unblocked, I had drank two litres of whisky prior to my very recent vandalism outbursts. I apologise and I can reassure the Wikipedia community it won't happen again. Thank you

Decline reason:

In all seriousness, I think the chances of you contributing usefully to Wikipedia are outweighed by the chances of you causing further disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2015 (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).

Woodseats44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

FAO PhilKnight, I have previously apologised and offered the reassurance that I will not transgress again. "In all seriousness", I have a 2:1 degree in History and I am actually fairly closely related to EIGHT people whose biographies are listed on Wikipedia - a couple of whom I have 'contributed usefully' to in the past, something you can actually check for yourself. Also, rather than summarily dismiss my appeal, I would ask you a fairly basic question and one that is frequently aired on matters of justice and 'fair play': ie. don't you believe in giving someone a second chance? Please therefore reconsider your decision or refer it to a selection of other editors if you feel unable or unwilling to do this.

Decline reason:

Even if you are closely related to people who have Wikipedia articles, that isn't a compelling reason to unblock you. So far your edits have been disruptive, and in this context, I think it's likely that, if unblocked, you would continue to edit disruptively. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2015 (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).

Woodseats44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you look at my previous 'disruptive edits' they all took place on one occasion when as I explained, I had drank two litres of whisky and was by no means in full possession of my senses. I should also like to point out that you are mistaken in your assertion that so far (by implication, 'all') my "edits have been disruptive". As I suggested in my previous message, I have a history of making extremely constructive edits. For some reason you seem to have entirely overlooked this fact ( see for example, my previous edits to 'Michael Collins' and extensive edits to 'Cardinal Langley RC High School'.) I must say, for one so seemingly certain of their own moral and intellectual rectitude, this is somewhat disappointing. With this in mind, and since you are essentially acting on one persons' opinion and judgement (ie your own, which, as we have seen, is open to question) I would therefore like my appeal to be referred to other, more respected and more highly regarded editors than yourself (PhilKnight) as, indeed, I have previously suggested. As far as I understand it, Wikipedia is run along democratic lines where fairness and sound judgement are highly valued - I sincerely hope this will be reflected in any future decision. Thank you Woodseats44 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd say this also was disruptive, and this is another case of unhelpful editing on your part. Personally I'd also say that "editing under the influence" is an aggravating factor, not an excuse; who knows what else you'd do the next time you're drunk? Huon (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (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.

{{unblock|I am genuinely perplexed by this response from Huon. I have apologised, offered the assurance that I will not disruptively edit/vandalise again and tried, on three occasions now, to honestly articulate my point of view - only to see it all dismissed with a seemingly casual disregard. If Huon would care to read my previous messages again, they will see that at no point did I offer the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol as an 'excuse', rather I apologised for the unfortunate behaviour that resulted from doing so - not the same thing at all. I also think the statement "who knows what else you'd do the next time you're drunk" as extremely ill-considered, insulting and patronising. I have struggled with severe alcoholism for several years and find a remark such as this, particularly given the fact that I have been very honest about my levels of alcohol consumption, both deeply hurtful and remarkably insensitive. It brings to mind the mentality of the school bully who, seizing on another's self-confessed 'weakness' (eg incontinence) then proceeds to mercilessly and relentlessly use that knowledge as 'ammunition' to humiliate their victim. Huon, I hope you are proud of yourself for that. As I have previously stated, my belief is that Wikipedia is run along democratic lines where fairness is valued. I am genuinely confused and hurt by the response so far ( and Huon's in particular) and would welcome the views of any other admin/editors who feel they could shed some light and bring some much-needed balance to this situation. Many thanks. Woodseats44 (talk)}}

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Unblocked

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) has carefully considered your appeal, and has decided to unblock you. However please be advised that your contributions will be closely watched and any return to disruptive behaviour will result in the block being quickly reinstated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'Previous Denomination: Roman Catholic' in the information box on the subject of 'Lincoln Cathedral".

I noticed, despite a lengthy and flawlessly argued case on my part, that the reference to Lincoln Cathedral's 'Previous Denomination' had recently been removed. The comment made by the editor was that they 'don't think' this is 'key information'. Thankfully, the editors of all the wiki articles on pre-Reformation English cathedrals and churches would seem to 'think' otherwise - examples include York Minster, Canterbury and Gloucester Cathedrals. I do not want to get in to an edit war with anyone but, this information has been deemed to be 'key' by the majority of wiki community of contributors and editors - I believe it should therefore be respected and retained as such. Thank you.

Use of 'Previous Denomination: Roman Catholic' in the information box of all churches built prior to the Reformation

That it is an historical fact does not make this tag any less superfluous, as it applies to any church built prior to the Reformation. KJP1 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your block history, it is quite clear your position does not command the level of support that you claim. But I'll leave others to address this - life's too short to waste time with monomaniacal editors. KJP1 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. KJP1 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I have logged an incident regarding your conduct at ANI. KJP1

--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked?

Can someone out there please explain to me why I have been 'permanently blocked' from editing? If you look at my recent discussions on other contributor's talk pages you will see that, at all times, I have behaved courteously and respectfully, hopefully in accord with the spirit of the Wikipedia community. I have also not engaged in any 'disruptive editing' or made further contributions as I am happy for the issue under discussion (i.e. the addition of 'Previous denomination- Roman Catholic' ) to be resolved in collaboration and co-operation with the Wikipedia community. With this in mind, I have not 'reverted' any of the edits made to my contributions, even though I obviously disagree with them. Can someone, somewhere please tell me why my being permanently blocked from editing is in any way fair or reasonable? Thanks (Woodseats44 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You continued the same behavior (adding info about "former denominations") for which you were blocked a year ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Hi, I think you will find that I was not blocked for adding "Previous denominations' but rather for several ill-considered, alcohol-fuelled contributions for which I have previously apologised, which have not been repeated since and, upon later appeal, for which I was subsequently unblocked. Therefore please look into this in more detail and henceforth remove the block you have this very day put in place. Thank you very glad. (Woodseats44 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I am not going to unblock you, and I believe that you were blocked exactly for this activity. You are, however, welcome to post an unblock request. Your talk page demonstrates that you know how it could be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter Hi, I will, as you suggest, post an appeal but I would first respectfully ask that you examine the actuality of my previous conduct in more detail (and the true reasons why I was blocked) rather than relying on an erroneous assumption which I suspect is the case in this instance. All the best (Woodseats44 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For information - To anyone who may review this page as part of a consideration of an appeal against the block imposed, please note that the claim made above, "I have not 'reverted' any of the edits made to my contributions, even though I obviously disagree with them," is untrue. Please reference the article Church of St. Nicholas, Grosmont where, at 15.15 on 27 January, the user did revert an 'Undo', in exactly the circumstances he denies. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the user's edit summary for Lincoln Cathedral at 16.26 on 28 February 2012: "I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED BY THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO BLOT OUT AN HISTORICAL AND UNQUESTIONABLE FACT!!!!" This provides a clear summation of the user's POV agenda and exposes his real view of working "in collaboration and co-operation with the Wikipedia community." KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]