User talk:Bizpat72
February 2010
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page No Agenda has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page No Agenda. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to No Agenda. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to No Agenda. FASTILYsock(TALK) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC){{Unblock on hold|Fastily|Hello, I am trying to edit a page with my user ID and I get inappropriate warnings saying that I am vandalizing the page, but it's not the case at all, I am now even blocked from editing. My edits were NOT vandals, they refer to quotes frequently used in the No Agenda podcast and the wiki article has a section to post these recurring expressions, so I am not vandalizing anything but adding valuable information for people interested by the No Agenda show. I also added Edit Summaries to my edits to make sure there was a justification to my edits. Could you please revert the permanent block and tell me why someone is thinking I am vandalizing a page while all I am doing is adding content that's valuable and related to this specific article ???| Sandstein 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)}}
Reviewer comment: I am very concerned about this block. The sole reason for it seems to be the edit war at No Agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) between this user and the blocking admin's sock Fastilysock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not only is none of the edits by this account vandalism, but he was also blocked by an admin who was a party to the edit war, which amounts to a misuse of admin tools. I recommend that this block be lifted as soon as possible. Sandstein 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not an isolated incident either. I've gone ahead and lifted the block. –xenotalk 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for recommending to unblock my account. For the record, I was not aware I was taking part in an edit war on No Agenda, I was totally confused by what was going on. Of course now I know the warnings are not robotized processes. I'm very disappointed though by Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reaction in all this because at one point I was even using Edit Summary to justifying my contribution. I don't understand why this was not taken into consideration by Fastily before blocking my account. Thanks again. --Bizpat72 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- As you did not know I suggest you look at this page Wikipedia:Edit warring to familiarzie yourself with edit warring so to not get into this mess again and next time try to discuss this with the opposing user on the talk page further continuation of this and you could BOTH get blocked as I said before The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)