User talk:YesOn8

Indefblocked

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Tcncv (talk) 04:29, 1 February 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Irn (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've failed to notify the other party(s) to what you term a 'war'. Why would that be? Aversion to fairness is the obvious answer. And there's no "war". I've enjoined talk and explained rational at every step. Next time attempt to impress me with the same. See particularly WP:GA about encouragement for the placement of images]].YesOn8 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind WP:Original research and WP:Undue weight. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A notice has been placed on the edit warring notice board concerning your behavior. -- Irn (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the admin reverting you shouldn't have blocked you. But that's no excuse for reverting the article six times    , against a consensus of four users (everyone else editing the article). Suggest reblocking in the name of an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' --Irn (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me make my response as another reviewer. YesOn8: What you did was you added barely relevant bondage pics to an article about a mainstream subject.  When others objected to your edits, reverted you, and explained themselves, you basically just persisted in trying to force the change you wanted.  I hesitate to call your action vandalism because I prefer to assume the best of your motivations but frankly I can imagine a vandal taking this approach.  You were fairly warned about your repeated reverts, and when you were reported for them and then blocked your response was to accuse everyone else of incompetence/maliciousness/whatever, when in fact you were the one causing the problem.  You are the one trying to game the system here, not C.Fred, and calling this an "editing disagreement" is pushing the bounds of credulity.. but even if I concede that he shouldn't have blocked you himself the fact remains that you should be blocked, so you should not be unblocked.  Mango juice talk 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And as for your block being extended, it was extended due to incivility, per your "unsubtle troglodyte reactionary actions" comment. Mango juice talk 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Username block
I have indefinitely blocked this username for violation of WP:USERNAME. Whether or not the intention, this name could be interpreted as a reference to the highly contentious California Proposition 8. Therefore, it seems to be a promotional name related to a political stance (not a group or company, per se). Because of how this proposition, and politics in general, are polarizing, it seems like, while maybe not strictly "offensive", it would fall under "making harmonious editing difficult" or disruptive. (therefore there are 2 independent lines of reasoning related to the spirit of WP:IU). I will try my best to remove the account creation block once the last 48h block expires (17:38, 3 February 2009). Because of software limitations, this will not be automatic. Below is the username block default message:

This account, , has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.


 * This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it&mdash;see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:
 * Add  This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far more easily allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Changing username.
 * In the alternative, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text  or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Block adjusted
I have adjusted your block to prevent you from abusing the unblock process and I have put a protection style notice on your page to let other know of that situation. Quite frankly the community has had enough now because your unblock requests are becoming far too disruptive and continue to be extremely unhelpful as well as uncivil. For administrators reviewing this please note that I have left the last unblock request related to the username up for consideration, but YesOn8 will not be able to make edits until that review has been completed.-- VS talk 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has ✅ the following users match each other:

Have blocked all of the above, and the underlying IP address. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)