User talk:MikeFromCanmore

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lesbian sexual practices. 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: 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

POV
Your current editing and harassment of an editor is quickly showing you are here to push a particular point of view. If you are not able to contribute in a civil and neutral fashion, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continuing to edit war, removing sourcing to push a POV and other issues after being warned multiple times.. 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. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your block has been extended to an indefinite period of time since you decided socking was a good idea. See block log for details. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You claimed to be a different user on at least one occasion. Deceit in an unblock request won't get you very far. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 21:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here too. That one's a lie of commission, too. Incidentally, I didn't notice this. Sigh. Such a great reference. The Gregory Brothers would be ashamed of you, Mike. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but I was referring to times when I made it obvious who it was and was banned for the sockpuppet aspect just as much. Sorry for not making that clear.


 * Several of us have already blocked a half dozen of your socks in the last 24 hours. I don't see this happening.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it still socks if you don't claim to be someone else? And hey, it was all out of good intentions. Not once did I do something to be disruptive MikeFromCanmore (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While you may sincerely think that you did nothing disruptive, it's not the case: you edit-warred and socked. And now you're pretty close to the point of no return. This unblock request is not convincing. To put it bluntly, it lies: your socks are still following your original ways of disruption. We must be sure that unblocking you would be for the good of Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I said I didn't do anything to be disruptive, meaning it wasn't my intention. However, the disruption was a result. And yes, I undid reverts on that account by the ip 220.225.2.xxx, because I didn't feel it was up to her to delete my notes on talk pages, I felt it was an admin's job and she was playing a role that was not hers. That user has a vendetta on me because after our edit war, I proved her wrong with evidence which she denies, and ever since then has been repeatedly harassing me. If someone could get her to stop harassing me because I provided results and she didn't, I would appreciate it. A prior admin had told me to take it to talk, so I felt it was okay for me to do so, hence undoing the revert. Unblocking me is good for wikipedia because I try to improve articles that show bias, etc.. If I'm unblocked it will be shown very clearly. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I should have known who this was. Alison has tagged the user page.  Mike, you aren't getting unblocked.  You have dozens and dozens of socks around here, and assuming User:Flyer22 is your "sister", you just screwed her so bad that I can't fix it even if I wanted to.  There is no unblock that can or will happen.  As such, I'm revoking talk page access to stop this trolling.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Result of your BASC appeal
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) has considered your appeal, and declines to unblock you at this time. You may submit another appeal in six months (that is, after 23 June 2013). Your next appeal may be either to the BASC (again) or to the community (using the Standard offer). Your appeal would be declined if you edit Wikipedia at any stage in the next six months. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK  [•] 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)