User talk:Citizen150

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ted Nugent. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Gaba ^(talk) 17:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Citizen150 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: ). Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately several other users are removing appropriately cited material from the page, along with reverting to content in violation of Wikipedia's rules. They have received warnings that they should stop reverting to past content, but it seems to no avail. They are reminded that this could result in a ban from the page. Citizen150 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "content in violation of Wikipedia's rules" and what rules are being violated? I have restored the stable version. Please use the article's talk page to explain your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have. My apologies. Please now wait for further discussion before making your changes again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ted Nugent. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. slakr^\ talk / 12:26, 12 March 2014 (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).

Citizen150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My contributions include properly cited expansions of the notable instruments section and the standing on a ranking of highest grossing concert artists. Some users continue to revert my material, despite it being properly sourced.Citizen150 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not the contents of your edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:58, 12 March 2014 (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.

Hello and thank you for the comments. This ban on editing is invalid, as all edits were approved in the talk page. Therefore, corrective action will be taken with Wikipedia to remove the ban and inform those reverting page content that they must cease. In the future, the removal of cited content will not be tolerated. ThanksCitizen150 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All edits were not approved on the talk page as anyone can see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of edit war

Your first action after coming off a block is to resume the edit war? [1] Seriously? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one warring. I am providing accurate information about guitars this artist is notable for. Others continue to revert multiple times, surely beyond the revert rule. Will continue until their warring ceases. Citizen150 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are multiple editors who have expressed concerns with your edits and sources (outlined on the talk page), continuing without gaining consensus is not really the way to go if you don't want to get blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nugent edits

I've looked at some of your other edits and the common thing they all have is that no sources are provided. Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and living persons. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources will also be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ted_Nugent#Ted_Nugent_2. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Citizen150 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for resuming edit war at Ted Nugent‎ after being previously warned and blocked for the same behaviour. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I hoped you'd not revert again, and you did. Providing accurate information is not an exemption to the three-revert rule, and you knew this because you were already blocked because of that. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes before they are implemented. Edit warring is not productive and should not be done no matter the substance of your edits. I expect you understand it this time. → Call me Hahc21 20:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citizen150, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]