User talk:Validbanks 34

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Validbanks 34! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —-— .: Seth_Nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''Both of you are being warned. Cut it out.'' Terrillja  talk  18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you seem to think you have the right to bypass consensus and force your changes on the article. Just letting you know, the only chance you have of making your point stick is to follow Wikipedia policy and get some agreement from the other editors. Thanks. MFNickster (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, stop edit warring. You will not get your way by brute force, that's not how Wikipedia works. MFNickster (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I would ever get my way. But I won't stand by while readers are given inaccurate information.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
 * This is your final warning, if you either undo, or manually edit the OS Family of Mac OS X, I will be reporting you for edit warring. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」 ¤ • ¢ 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Raysonho (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Thanks for reminding me not to make personal attacks. Just so I'm clear you mean I should stick to statements like the following?

"The only reason you people use Macs is because you don't want to be bothered with how your computer works. And I can see that attitude here. 'I don't want to talk about my operating system. Just show me the button I press to check my e-mail.' You probably can just barely turn on your computer to check your watch list..."

That kind of thing? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. The "But, but, he did it first!" argument. How did you become an administrator, anyway?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Final warning
This is the last warning you will receive for the disruption you're causing at Mac OS X and its talk page. Do not continue to edit in a way that is clearly against the established consensus on the talk page. Further, when interacting with others, please do not resort to personal attacks, nor should you refactor others' talk page comments. Doing these things is disruptive and it only serves to make the situation worse. If you're having trouble sorting this dispute with others, then you are encouraged to review the dispute resolution guidance. Thank you. Nja 247 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really, really hoped that you would be able to contribute constructively to the article, but it appears at this point that you will not be able to do so. Your continued disruptions and edit warring have wasted the time of many editors and administrators. As such, you have been reported to WP:AIV for your reverts against consensus. Hopefully your block will be for a finite period of time, after which you can seek other means to build the encyclopedia, at this time though your actions are not helping to build the encyclopedia. Consider reading up on dispute resolution (linked above) and trying to follow the processes there once your block expires or if your block is lifted.-- Terrillja talk  20:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * As noted in the 1st 24 hour block notice, and in my 1 week notice, you were were blocked for edit warring. Only the 2nd block was for violation of the WP:3RR. There's no allowance for the number of edits until you're blocked for disruption when you're clearly edit warring. You've been told for days to please use discussion or WP:DR rather than edit warring, and I think the editing community here will need to see something more convincing, ie that you actually plan to edit in a non-disruptive way from here on out. Why is it that only now, on the 3rd block within days for the same behaviour do you seem to finally wish to behave? Were the two other blocks and the other various notices not enough? If you can give some answers to these queries, then I would consider an unblock, but I assure you that any further edit warring after an unblock would lead to an extended block. Nja 247 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I will not revert that page, anymore. If I do, then feel free to block me indefinitely.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, but I will hold you to your word. Nja 247 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have something like 18 reverts in the last 10 days with 48 hours of "block time". As it says on WP:3rr, you can be blocked even if you do not exceed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Edit warring is about more than number of reverts in 24 hours, it's also about your behavior. As you showed that you did not wish to stop and look at dispute resolution or seriously talk on the talkpage, action was needed to prevent further damage from occurring.-- Terrillja talk  21:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-blocked
You've been re-blocked for reverting (now the talk page) after our discussion. Nja 247 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note
I'm glad to see you're considering the various methods listed at WP:DR, however be careful not to forum shop, ie bring up the same issue on a number of forums in succession. Discussion can take time, and it's not something to be rushed. I think your initial attempt at an RFC was a good bet, unlike the third opinion, as it's not really a dispute between two editors only, plus again, you need to choose the best forum so as not to forum shop. I think RFC is the best option for now. Cheers, Nja 247 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
Hey! I meant the main article, not the talk page.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, how am I supposed to resolve the dispute if someone else archives my comments?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the good of Wikipedia you weren't to misuse the revert tool anymore, which you did. Nja 247 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that misuse? He tried to remove my comments.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's misuse, read WP:REVERT and WP:TALK. Essentially, if you disagreed with the actions of the admin you should have used their talk page to discuss. You can't just consistently press undo everytime someone does something you don't agree with. That's why you're in this situation. I will alert that admin and they may wish to comment here. Nja 247 22:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block
Your block has been extended to a period of indefinitely due to suspected sockpuppetry and disruption to Wikipedia amongst the multiple accounts. Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)