User talk:Nellie2011

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Nellie2011! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jacobs (journalist)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andrew Jacobs (journalist). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

First, is wp:vandalism or a wp:content dispute? Vandalism is where someone puts blatantly false info, removes content, or defaces the article. A content dispute is where there is a disagreement on what is in the article. I suspect that this is a content dispute. You should discuss the issue in a positive manner. I strongly recommend reading wp:five pillars first. See above on getting dispute resolution. If this is blatant vandalism, use wp:rfpp, but beware, attempting to use it for content dispute often has repercussions. BTW: edit wars are strongly discourage and blocks often occur. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim, I do not know where to reply to you. So I added words to my last message to you. Thanks. Nellie2011 Nellie2011 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:50, 6 December 2013 (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).

Nellie2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism to the page. thanks

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time. See below. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (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.

Nellie2011 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (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).

Nellie2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism to the page made by Swyper. That particular editor Swyper has constantly deleted large sections of the page, adding personal details of the subject and unsubstantiated and biased statement to attack the subject. All the words and contents I wrote and edited are properly sourced and cited. I believe that the vandalism by Swyper is politically motivated targeting and attacking US journalists in China and Jacobs is one such journalist being targeted and attacked. I refer you to the the recent news reports in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/biden-meets-with-journalists-concerned-about-chinas-recent-crackdown-on-foreign-media/2013/12/05/fd3d280e-5d8d-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html and The New York Times and very importantly Vice President J Biden's speech in China this week on behalf of the US government and US journalists in China and the threats to press freedom and to those US journalists in China including this subject. thanks

Decline reason:

You may or may not be right about the political motivation of the editor you refer to. However, "motivated by political views with which I disagree" is not at all the same as "vandalism", and is not exempt from the policy on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (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.

Nellie2011 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning that text you have edit-warred to keep has included gushing praise for a person, of an unambiguously promotional nature. Promotional editing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and if it persists it can lead to being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]