User talk:Allsqawk

Please stop adding speculation to the Peter Roebuck‎ article[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Peter Roebuck‎, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign and date your contributions on talk pages[edit]

... by adding 4 tildes (~) at the end. Thanks,. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Roebuck. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need a consensus on the Talk page to add that material, and you currently do not have one. If you continue the edit war once unblocked, you will be blocked for longer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I contributed to the talk discussion, as desired, before amending. And I've enforced the same for others. Where's my hypocrisy? The heart of the matter is that there's unfounded speculation alleging a person's heterosexuality which it behooves us to correct. Spreading that speculation is the defamation of declaring his lover to be a liar. That lover is also a living person and, moreover, the biographical subject himself is not. Hence, WP:BLP requires us not to confound or impugn the accuracy of the testimony of that living person without compelling contrary evidence.Allsqawk (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavior which led to your block (edit warring) has not been addressed, so I must decline your request. You may wish to read the guide linked directly below before making another unblock request. —DoRD (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (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 are not blocked for hypocrisy, you are blocked for edit-warring. Just presenting your personal reasoning on the Talk page is not sufficient. You must get a consensus supporting you - and the current consensus is clearly against you. You must not edit-war to try to force your version in. Please read WP:EW and abide by it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to blocking nobody had responded to the point-by-point and reasoned refutation I had supplied into the talk heading.Allsqawk (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for anyone to refute your points to your satisfaction - once your addition is removed, it is *you* who needs to get a consensus on the Talk page to put it back, and you clearly do not have one. Did you read WP:EW as I suggested?

PS: I've just read the whole article, and I see no "speculation alleging [his] heterosexuality". There is also no mention of any lover, and so there are no lover-based BLP issues here at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His lover was the man who complained to the police about the aggressiveness of Peter's courtship. They had a rendezvous behind closed doors.Allsqawk (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such unsupported claims are not relevant - there is no lover identified, or even mentioned, in the article, and so there is clearly no defamation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]