User talk:Reality Maker

3rr

You've violate WP:3RR on Keith Olbermann. I advise you to revert your last edit or you may be blocked. Soxwon (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, plz try to discuss on the ARTICLE'S talkpage Soxwon (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Guettarda (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been been blocked for edit-warring. So you should know better. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the prohibition against edit-warring do you fail to understand here? Guettarda (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you need to read our policy on biographies of living people. Adding negative material that is poorly sourced - or in this case, that has been refuted - is a violation of our policy. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Vsmith (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

the people reverting my editing to the Keith Olbermann page were actively doing so in a partisan manner, refusing to allow substantiated, sourced reference links to be added. They sited one of the links being "gossip" but couldn't dispute the others so they ignored my statements. While some of the original edits I did, they had valid points on, and I conceded this - the final editing they are blatantly being partisan about and should themselves be held accountable to this very measure you've imposed on me. I attempted to do "talk" but that's where I realized the partisan nature of their tirades. Please lift this block and further, help me in stopping these very people from pushing partisan causes in the name of "information".

Decline reason:

You do not appear to have read the policy you have violated. Instead, you seem to intend to continue your edit war. I don't see any reason to unblock you. Kuru (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

That's NOT a valid reason Kuru - nobody is doing anything to stop their partisan manipulation of that page - or is it that you're biased in this regard? My edit was valid and you're telling me that there invalidation of my edit means that it's me that's "war"ing - right? Well tell me - what action has been taken AGAINST THEM??? None - and that shows a significant bias. Now I demand to know how to appeal to a higher authority - because you're defending them. Furthermore I DID read the policy - and I even stated outright that when they had mentioned what they thought weren't good edits, I simply put in the references THEY asked for. After that "Suddenly" those references weren't good enough - and it became just what I stated above. Further - how can anyone add references to the page when ref's are LOCKED???? They did this so they could keep that page biased - now I demand justice in this - the media biased enough - if you think you're going to get away with it here I will fight this until it's fair. That's all I'm asking for - FAIRNESS.

Decline reason:

We are not allowed to edit-war, even when we are certain that we are right. When your block expires, try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE to resolve your content dispute instead. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (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.

Talk page editing access revoked

You continue to insist that they are wrong and you are not, and you continue to not have a clue as to how our editing process works. Instead you try to battle with others and blatantly refuse to work with them, from what I can gather. That being said, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the remainder of your block due to your continued repeating of your previous unblock requests.

You may request a review of your block via email to the unblocking mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Alternatively, you may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee's ban appeals subcommittee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

Regards, –MuZemike 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]