Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 2 November 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Request reason:

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= freeknowledgecreator has engaged in edit warring with me. He never commented on any of my several edits, calling every edit NPOV (throwing words around do not make then true). However i believe that through many edits, i have objectively summarized the book Dialectic of sex although am open to reasonable discussion. He has only critiqued the book, not summarized it, finding obscure references to push a POV approach. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and is clearly a sexist approach. I included a synopsis as well as scholarly reception, in addition to his misquoted critique. He deleted every word aggressively stating "NPOV." Many of his additions to wikipedia are of this flavor] (]) 00:31, 2 November 2013 (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= freeknowledgecreator has engaged in edit warring with me. He never commented on any of my several edits, calling every edit NPOV (throwing words around do not make then true). However i believe that through many edits, i have objectively summarized the book Dialectic of sex although am open to reasonable discussion. He has only critiqued the book, not summarized it, finding obscure references to push a POV approach. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and is clearly a sexist approach. I included a synopsis as well as scholarly reception, in addition to his misquoted critique. He deleted every word aggressively stating "NPOV." Many of his additions to wikipedia are of this flavor] (]) 00:31, 2 November 2013 (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= freeknowledgecreator has engaged in edit warring with me. He never commented on any of my several edits, calling every edit NPOV (throwing words around do not make then true). However i believe that through many edits, i have objectively summarized the book Dialectic of sex although am open to reasonable discussion. He has only critiqued the book, not summarized it, finding obscure references to push a POV approach. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and is clearly a sexist approach. I included a synopsis as well as scholarly reception, in addition to his misquoted critique. He deleted every word aggressively stating "NPOV." Many of his additions to wikipedia are of this flavor] (]) 00:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Beauvy, you weren't blocked because of anything that happened at The Dialectic of Sex. You were blocked because of your edit warring at Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, where you insisted on restoring controversial material despite its rejection by three other editors. Haven't you got anything to say about that? I'm afraid you'll find that making complaints about me won't make your unblock request any more convincing: the issue is what you did, not whether I am perfect or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Simone de Beauvoir without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beauvy, that is the way to do it. I'm relatively new here too, but I discovered early on that one has to justify, reference, and talk about subjects of controversy. So, I really appreciate the approach you are taking now. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Dialectic of Sex, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you are the same person, using a different account so that you can revert my edits three times. Are we idiots? Please take it to "higher authorities." They will read my material and realize you have simply vandalized it for personal agenda. It is consistent with all of your other contributed material as well.

Your recent editing history at The Dialectic of Sex shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

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.  Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock