User talk:BerkeleyHeights

Berkeley Heights, New Jersey

Thank you for your edits to Berkeley Heights. Please take a moment to reflect on the encyclopedic value of your edits, and note that Wikipedia is not a blog or newspaper. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. No item I have included is either news or blogging. Regarding the photo link as a source, please review both the title and the caption closely. It appears that you had not done so. As far as citations go, if you make any further deletions of my contributions, I will be happy to assist you in removing every sentence currently on the BH page that does not have a citation in order to support and advance your other chosen basis of editing. As a gentle reminder, your removing Wiki content due to it being unflattering is not a permitted basis for making deletions.BerkeleyHeights (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if my contributions continue to be removed based merely on their being considering unflattering, I presume you would welcome an escalation to Wiki for them to decide. Unfortunately, that could prove embarrassing for the Mayor and Town Council and I would certainly prefer to avoid that. I am hopeful we can avoid any need for dispute resolution by your foregoing any additional erroneous deletions of my contributions. Thank you.BerkeleyHeights (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discuss the issue here, I have centralized the discussion at Talk:Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Please feel free to participate there. Alansohn (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing this warning: both the edit-warring and the removal of other editors' comments on the talkpage [1] are unacceptable. Your combative attitude toward other editors is troubling. If this continues you may expect to have your editing privileges suspended. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the Resolution, I, as contributor, have removed the patch.com reference as requested by the moderator. Therefore, my contributions are now in compliance with the closed Resolution. If you would prefer to open a Dispute Resolution matter, please do so since the last one is closed and the objectionable reference to patch.com has been removed accordingly. Thank you. BerkeleyHeights (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "resolution" are you talking about? My warning had nothing to do with a reference, but with your conduct. Since you added substantially the same content in after being warned for edit-warring, this account is blocked for 48 hours for straightforward edit-warring. The DRN closure simply rejected the patch.com reference, it does not give you absolution to continue your edit war to insert the same material derived from that source minus the actual reference. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the terms of the resolution and it stated that these contributions were not acceptable since patch.com permitted user generated input (just as Wikipedia does incidentally; that is particularly puzzling). If I have misread another editor's comments instead of the Resolution comments, that was in error. Can you please repost the resolution statement here for clarity? As far as conduct, I am not aware that a contributor reverting to a contribution where the information is correct, cited, and does not fall within the examples of nonencyclopedic material is prohibited merely because others have indicated that they disagree for subjective reasons without any factual basis. Are you looking at the numbers of individuals or the merit of their statements? I would have thought the latter is what should be the guide. One last question:: are appeals of being blocked decided by the person who blocked them? Thanks. BerkeleyHeights (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material derived from that source is not admissible per the DRN discussion. All you did was remove that reference. Further, you are still required to obtain consensus for your edits, and in no case may you edit-war to reinsert the same content, questionable or not. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, and edit-warring and insisting that experienced editors who disagree with you are harming the encyclopedia are not credible. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors and whether the material you insist on including is appropriate for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Another admin will be along eventually to review your block appeal. I suggest that you amend your request to indicate an understanding of the circumstances that led to your block. Please read WP:EW and WP:GAB for more. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for Acroterion and BerkeleyHeights: BerkeleyHeights did NOT remove the patch.com citation at all, see his restoration of the material with the citation and false claim that he did: [2]. None of his statements above, below, or in that edit summary make sense. Softlavender (talk)

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Pursuant to the Resolution, I, as contributor, have removed the patch.com reference as requested by the moderator. Therefore, my contributions are now in compliance with the closed Resolution.BerkeleyHeights (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring. After your block expires, you should use the talk page to establish consensus, instead of edit warring. If you can't reach consensus then you should pursue dispute resolution. You shouldn't edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 11 July 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.

See my comment above: edit-warring to insert the same material derived from a questionable source without actually mentioning the questionable source is even less acceptable. You did not receive permission to either use that material or to edit-war. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page etiquette

Just a note, it is not appropriate to delete or change other editors' talk page comments. The only exceptions are vandalism or WP:BLP violations. In the future please don't delete talk page comments. It is considered disruptive editing and can lead to being banned. Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been warned about that, above: [3]. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Sorry for the duplication. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]