User talk:Nickjnowak

Nickjnowak, you are invited to the Teahouse!

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:Nickjnowak reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Lamborghini. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have repeatedly reached out to editors who have questioned my edits. In fact, I personally responded to flighttime after he (or she) emailed me directly. I have provided editors what I believe to be sufficient source material for my deletion: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Lamborghini_Brief_In_Support_of_Personal_Jurisdiction_Over_Defendant_Garcia.pdf Why other editors who have no knowledge of the issue continue to revert my edits seems suspect to me. Nickjnowak (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no requirement to have knowledge of the issue involved to revert an edit, if they have grounds to do so(such as an edit being uncited). You were not blocked for what others did, but for what you did, which was unacceptable even if you are correct. This is because in an edit war, everyone thinks that they are correct. Please address this if you wish to be unblocked before the block expires. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

How do you cite to something that is not true? And did you read the pdf in the link above? "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica" is purportedly owned by a gentleman who is a serial trademark infringer and con-artist. There is ongoing litigation between that gentleman and Lamborghini - spelled out in great detail in this document: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Lamborghini_Brief_In_Support_of_Personal_Jurisdiction_Over_Defendant_Garcia.pdf. The edits I made were to remove reference to licensing between Lamborghini and "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica" because there is no such licensing. Other editors - no matter how much I try to explain this to them and point them to the document, continue to revert my edits.

Decline reason:

This is completely irrelevant. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft a reasonable unblock request. You'll also need to familiarise yourself with WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2019 (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.

You continue to not address the actual reason for the block, edit warring. It does not matter if you are correct or if others are edit warring. How do you resolve a dispute about article content? 331dot (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Yamla, and Favonian: FYI This user is still harassing me via email. I have created a filter to delete them as they come in, but the're still sending, last one was an hour ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Yeah, I got an unpleasant mail myself. Email access revoked. The editor is building a case for their own indefinite block! Favonian (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]