User talk:Kamujin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rob Enderle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Please don't blindly revert edits - your edit amounts to original research, and your revert is deleting constructive edits by other editors. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Keilana^talk_(recall) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

User --98.204.112.111 was vandalizing the page by deleting my edits. I reverted the vandalism and then edited the page to show both contributions. This is easily verifiable through the history.

Decline reason:

The edits you reverted were not vandalism. — Sandstein (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (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.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Your edits where reversions of unsourced entries into a BLP article, which are exempt from the 3RR policy's provisions. However, I would caution you against such edit warring in future, and advise you to seek Dispute Resolution in similar, future instances.

Request handled by: Anthøny 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While, I am clearly not an experienced editor of wiki, I had tried to show the problems with the entry as it was worded. I added notes to the discussion section. I also added a cited entry to improve the quality of the page. User --98.204.112.111 reverted my edits with not much more then a complaint about my poor choice of the phrase "It should be noted".

I don't have a problem with the block being lifted, but I have issues with Kamujin's characterization of my edits. My problems were hardly just about the wording, and I specifically explained to the user that the reverts were reintroducing typos and vandalism, while erasing good faith edits. And I don't like my good faith attempts to clean up the article is described as "vandalism". 98.204.112.111 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, why is this user, who did not break 3RR, blocked, with the IP, which did break 3RR is unblocked? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will try to discuss the matter in the talk section. Kamujin (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.78.236.2 lifted or expired. Request handled by: — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have recently edited the Rob_Enderle bio page and see that you have been involved in a past critique of the page. I figured you might want to review the edits to ensure conformance with npov and bio policies. I'd rather have _somebody_ look sooner than later.

--kop (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]