User talk:69.116.44.219/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

hi
Hi, there's some controversy about your block because the admin who blocked you was editing the same article, a procedural no-no; and also, you're new here, so you might not be aware of how inappropriate your editing was (we traditionally try to give newcomers a bit more slack while they get used to things). You really have to base any disputed edits on what the cited sources say, and discuss content issues on the article talk pages, rather than reverting or re-reverting. There's a rather firm rule that reverting more than 3 times in 1 day is forbidden and blockable, so you were blocked for that. But in practice, almost all the time, reverting more than once is not a good editing practice (use the talk page instead). Note that the person who blocked you also broke the 3-revert rule (agaisnt you), and as result he or she is also blocked. That is a pretty uncommon situation (admins usually know better than to edit war like that), but it happens.

If you're around to read this before your block expires tomorrow, you can use the unblock template to request an early unblock. The purpose of blocking is simply to make a problem stop; it's not like a jail sentence, so you're normally not required to serve the full duration (31 hours in this case) as long as you indicate that you won't continue the disputed conduct. It's always good when a potentially constructive contributor arrives and it's pretty normal for newcomers to make all kinds of bad mistakes that sometimes need intervention, so don't get too upset about this. You can still edit your talk page (just not other pages), so feel free to post a reply here.

Regards,

69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing all of that. I admit I made a poor edit the first time. I am no longer observant, but was brought up very religiously and developed a profound respect for all religions, "right" or not. Seeing something like the passage that was being debated, to me, was shameful. Homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in Judaism and while civilly I support gay rights, I am very much against mixing oil and water. I digress, though. After the first edit, I wanted to come to an agreement with the other editor because the passage made it seem as if the orange was a common custom, which in fact it is not and this is the first I have EVER heard of it. I kept trying to tone down what I was saying, but the other editor was unresponsive and refused to meet me halfway or work on the wording with me. I understand the first edit may have set a bad tone, but we all make mistakes; I hope in the future he (she?) will evaluate each edit more independently rather than rely too much on first impressions.
 * I'll admit that your first edit summary left me somewhat biased, but your subsequent edits seemed more like they were trying to modify the text in such a way that wasn't supported by the sources cited. My mistake was not trying to make that more clear to you. For what it's worth, I don't have a horse in this race; I don't belong to a particular denomination, but try to be respectful and open-minded regarding all-faiths, as well as the various degrees of orthodoxy or liberalness of faiths.  I apologize for what was too hasty of a block. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 05:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 69.116, thanks for responding, and I think I see where you're coming from. We're required in all cases to write neutrally rather than from (or against) any particular viewpoint.  It takes some getting used to and I'd guess most of us had problems when we got started.  You might want to enroll an account, as the site encourages new users to do.  (I know I don't follow that advice myself, but I've been around for a long time and my situation is different from that of a new user).  69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)