User talk:Swissair123
Swissair123, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Swissair123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC) |
July 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Swissair123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not understand the reason for this block. I am only removing false information from the Birmingham article? Swissair123 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
i was going to say
[edit]I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.
Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Swissair123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have read the content dispute manual and am satisfied that I will not cause an edit war in any article. I will adhere to all editing guidelines and policies as set out by Wikipedia and it's administrators. If there is an edit war, I will not undo or re-edit without consensus and will stick to the talk page Swissair123 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately it is not only a matter of edit-warring. Your editing has been completely unconstructive in many ways, including the following. It is not just a matter of sincere differences in interpretation of facts, it is also about trying to impose a point of view, as shown by (for example, but not restricted to) repeatedly removing the word "major" from the expression "major city" in relation to Birmingham: however Birmingham's population may compare with that of Manchester, nobody can reasonably deny that it is a major city, and that change was clearly about trying to impose your preferred image, not simply on your belief about facts. You have made attacks and on other editors and threatened them, both from this account and from editing without logging in, including absurd accusations of bad faith without substantiation, and threatening two administrators with blocks for reverting your edits. (Incidentally, if you thought one or two reverts warranted a threat of a block then I wonder what you thought would be appropriate for an editor who persistently made large numbers of reverts of edits by numerous editor.) I see no evidence anywhere that you are likely to start making constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia, so unblocking you would not be to the benefit of the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
(teach back) In my line of work,
[edit]we have a tool called "teach back". People sometimes affirm acquiring knowledge without actually acquiring it, so we have them teach the knowledge back to us. Just so we have the same understanding of your knowledge, please tell us what all of that means in your own words. Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, edit wars are unacceptable and may lead to a user being indefinitely blocked. This was the case in this instance. As a precaution to prevent, being blocked again, no edit wars should be purported or initiated. If in disagreement, I must take to the talk page to reach consensus. Swissair123 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is now a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Swissair123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Editors who have blocked me many months ago, has an agenda towards the Birmingham article. For example when I inserted "major" next to city on the Manchester page, I was blocked because that editor has an unfavorable agenda towards Manchester. My edits have been perceived positively by numerous editors in the Manchester article section who will confirm my deliberation. However a few editors from the Birmingham article clearly have bullied me and used unfavorable and distasteful language because they don't agree with my edit wording whilst others do. The issue on Wikipedia is that even if nine editors agree with your edit, if just one doesn't then they have the power to block you to continue their "agenda". I have proved myself many times that I am only here to positively contribute to Wikipedia and specifically the Manchester article, so I do request a chance to prove that stance once more. Thank you. Swissair123 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined.
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.
- Since this is a checkuser block, @Bbb23: will have to comment. Based on the number of declined unblock requests on this page, they may revoke access to this talk page if this request is declined. I don't think that the claims you have made in your unblock request are very likely to be true. ST47 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- NB: Block evasion is ongoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @ST47: I do not consent to the user being unblocked, and I believe TPA should be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)