| Revision as of 18:37, 4 February 2010 editPeterSymonds (talk | contribs)29,055 edits →Blocked: edit-warring at Same-sex marriage: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:44, 4 February 2010 edit undoJstanierm (talk | contribs)301 edits →Blocked: edit-warring at Same-sex marriageNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> | <div class="user-block"> | ||
| ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ]{{#if:Same-sex marriage| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|<font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)}}</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> | ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ]{{#if:Same-sex marriage| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|<font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)}}</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> | ||
| {{unblock|This is stemming from the addition of the following sentence in the lead to the article on ]: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage." | |||
| There was discussion on the talk page. Ultimately one person disagreed, but did not discuss any further even when his issue was addressed (however, he did not stop editting the page). One other person at first disagreed, and then later agreed to include the material if more citations were found. Six citations were offered and the material was included. After this, several editors simply reverted without discussing or explaining why they felt the material should not be included. I reverted their vandalism and left comments on their talk page directing them to discuss whatever they felt might be at issue on the talk page. None did. The article, without the addition of this sentence, currently does not meet the NPOV standards. (There is a sentence one paragraph beneath it which states: "Supporters of same-sex marriage often... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. (This is the same slippery-slope argument above only presented from one side. The article ought to include both or neither.] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 18:44, 4 February 2010
BUNNIES RULE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pardiana (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Socialist
How can you be a socialist and a Christian at the same time? I myself am a socialist, but I believe that one of the best things about socialism is our refusal to accept ill-conceived bullcrap like religion. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is trolling? MagicBullet5 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA
We are the promoters of the Misplaced Pages in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.
Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages meetup in New Orleans
(This is being cross-posted to everyone listed in Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana)
Infrogmation and I are organizating a Misplaced Pages meetup in New Orleans on Saturday, August 23. Everyone is invited. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history at same-sex marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CTJF83 chat 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not edit warring. There has been deletion of cited material with no discussion on the talk page for what it should not be there. Jstanierm (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked: edit-warring at Same-sex marriage
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Jstanierm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is stemming from the addition of the following sentence in the lead to the article on same-sex marriage: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage." There was discussion on the talk page. Ultimately one person disagreed, but did not discuss any further even when his issue was addressed (however, he did not stop editting the page). One other person at first disagreed, and then later agreed to include the material if more citations were found. Six citations were offered and the material was included. After this, several editors simply reverted without discussing or explaining why they felt the material should not be included. I reverted their vandalism and left comments on their talk page directing them to discuss whatever they felt might be at issue on the talk page. None did. The article, without the addition of this sentence, currently does not meet the NPOV standards. (There is a sentence one paragraph beneath it which states: "Supporters of same-sex marriage often... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. (This is the same slippery-slope argument above only presented from one side. The article ought to include both or neither.Jstanierm (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is stemming from the addition of the following sentence in the lead to the article on ]: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage." There was discussion on the talk page. Ultimately one person disagreed, but did not discuss any further even when his issue was addressed (however, he did not stop editting the page). One other person at first disagreed, and then later agreed to include the material if more citations were found. Six citations were offered and the material was included. After this, several editors simply reverted without discussing or explaining why they felt the material should not be included. I reverted their vandalism and left comments on their talk page directing them to discuss whatever they felt might be at issue on the talk page. None did. The article, without the addition of this sentence, currently does not meet the NPOV standards. (There is a sentence one paragraph beneath it which states: "Supporters of same-sex marriage often... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. (This is the same slippery-slope argument above only presented from one side. The article ought to include both or neither.] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is stemming from the addition of the following sentence in the lead to the article on ]: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage." There was discussion on the talk page. Ultimately one person disagreed, but did not discuss any further even when his issue was addressed (however, he did not stop editting the page). One other person at first disagreed, and then later agreed to include the material if more citations were found. Six citations were offered and the material was included. After this, several editors simply reverted without discussing or explaining why they felt the material should not be included. I reverted their vandalism and left comments on their talk page directing them to discuss whatever they felt might be at issue on the talk page. None did. The article, without the addition of this sentence, currently does not meet the NPOV standards. (There is a sentence one paragraph beneath it which states: "Supporters of same-sex marriage often... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. (This is the same slippery-slope argument above only presented from one side. The article ought to include both or neither.] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is stemming from the addition of the following sentence in the lead to the article on ]: "Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage." There was discussion on the talk page. Ultimately one person disagreed, but did not discuss any further even when his issue was addressed (however, he did not stop editting the page). One other person at first disagreed, and then later agreed to include the material if more citations were found. Six citations were offered and the material was included. After this, several editors simply reverted without discussing or explaining why they felt the material should not be included. I reverted their vandalism and left comments on their talk page directing them to discuss whatever they felt might be at issue on the talk page. None did. The article, without the addition of this sentence, currently does not meet the NPOV standards. (There is a sentence one paragraph beneath it which states: "Supporters of same-sex marriage often... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. (This is the same slippery-slope argument above only presented from one side. The article ought to include both or neither.] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}