User talk:Blacksmith101

Wikipedia is for everyone. It’s place where we can express our freedom of speech. Share knowledge. And most of all learn to respect each other.

August 2016

Your recent editing history at User talk:JJMC89 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 are 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.
Your continued disruption is not welcome. If you cannot stop being disruptive, then do not post on my talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:JJMC89, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Both Body (Dreezy song) and We Gon Ride fail Wikipedia's notability policy. Specifically, Body was redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body (Dreezy song) and We Gon Ride has been a redirect to We Gon' Ride since 2006. The versions you restored don't indicate notability per WP:NSONGS. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clpo13:I suggest you check all edits and reverts by JJMC89. So you would understand what it’s all about.

I believe what JJMC89 does is vandalism. Being in the scene for longer time doesn’t make it right! Does it???

First, you haven't given any examples as to how JJMC89's actions qualify as WP:VANDALISM beyond simply not agreeing with them. Second, if you stand any hope of being unblocked, you need to address the concerns brought up by the administrators below. Are you actually here to improve the encyclopedia? Or are you just here to harass JJMC89 and accuse them of vandalism without evidence (see WP:NOTHERE)? clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2016 (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).

Blacksmith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m trying to make point regarding the actions of certain wikipedians’ unacceptable behaviors. Now I have become the victim!

Decline reason:

The point you have made is that you are not here to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia articles. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (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.

By harassing them? Please read WP:NOTTHEM. GAB^gab 19:35, 9 August 2016 (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).

Blacksmith101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The contributions should be productive. Not disruptive. Contributions of some users are not making Wikipedia better. I was just trying to point it out.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2016 (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.