User talk:Eris Lover

March 2013

 * There was an investigation done here. You were found to be a suspected sockpuppet of User:Belchfire.  I've asked Black Kite to take a look at this and respond further if necessary.  ‑Scottywong | comment _  19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is mine. I posted under that originally and created my account later.  However, I never broke any policy under either account that I know of.-Eris Lover (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Black Kite means when he says "obviously a sock" (and I'd like to so that I, at least, can put together a counter-argument). I'm not even clear how he could have even less obviously reached that conclusion since he blocked me after my one and only edit.  I assure you that I have no other accounts on Wikipedia.-Eris Lover (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is very unusual for a new editor, as their first contribution her, to revert a contentious edit to a previous version, as you did. Comment, please?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the discussion above, the IP address which had done previous edits on that article is mine. I hadn't created an account yet.  This was discussed here.-Eris Lover (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that this was a particularly obvious DUCK block. If another admin wishes to unblock, that's up to them, though I would suggest a close eye. Black Kite (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you've blocked me from editing for well over a week while giving no evidence to support your block and given that you couldn't identify who I'm supposed to be a sock of and given that you blocked me minutes after my one and only post from my one and only account and given that you blocked me from participating in the SPI on Belchfire where you accused me (where I might have been able to defend myself) and given that at least two different admins stated that they saw no wrongdoing on my part, I believe that I should at least be given the reasons you think this is, in your words, 'a particularly obvious DUCK block'.-Eris Lover (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Junior Andrade
Ima beus. Feel free to add more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.122.247 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Your recent editing history at Christianity and homosexuality shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Christianity and homosexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page, and get consensus there. Of ALL the editors here on WP, I consider MannJess the most patient, considerate and diplomatic, and you would gain a lot in making a friend of him. You will get a LOT more accomplished if you get consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of WP policies is incorrect. Please read WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and [WP:3rr]]. If an edit you make is challenged, it's a good idea to take it to the talk page, especially if you have been advised to by several experienced editors. There's no hurry. Give others time to respond, and listen to what they have to say as you expect them to listen to you. Personally, I think you have the potential to be a productive editor here on WP, but that chance will be wasted if you keep getting blocked for edit-warring. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be a good idea to remove your last message from the article talk page. You're not going to accomplish anything by antagonizing anyone. Remain calm, cool and collected, and have a pleasant and productive discussion with your fellow editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. As you can see, I left a message on MannJess's page explaining that you have initiated discussion on the talk page. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mann_jess#Eris_Lover. Please stop accusing people of breaking policy and bad faith. Be civil, and assume good faith. Those are WP policies, too. See WP:CIVILITY, WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice, I told MannJess that you had a point, and reminded him to discuss your proposed changes with you on the article talk page. The editors you are dealing with are far more experienced and familiar with WP policies than you, and are policy sticklers to a man. You'll do yourself a great big favor by listening and learning. As I said, you can get A LOT accomplished here if you work together with the more experienced editors than against them, and that's will be A LOT easier to do if you watch your temper. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Apr 26, bible and homosexuality
He Eris Lover, Don't worry about reverting my edit there; I'm cool w/ the changes. Appreciate you trying, though. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)