User talk:76.224.68.237: Difference between revisions

Re: I'm a PC

It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with WP:BRD, your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits and seek a consensus before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to I'm a PC has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and discuss your edits. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see WP:BRD and learn that after your Bold edits are Reverted, your only option is to Discuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as this; where the article claimed that

• "and Longoria Parker personally uses a MacBook Pro", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
• "Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
• As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
• Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. Bjelleklang - talk 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be very anti-Mac and very pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are at your third revert for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Risker (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

76.224.68.237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[1]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.