User talk:50.14.223.132

July 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Israel–United States relations. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I was not given a proper time lapse to assess my block, and blocked without having given my argument. I was not in an edit war as it clearly states in "3rr" three edits must be done, I made two. My edits were previously reversed by a blocked user User:AmirSurfLera (for edit wars). He first stated my article was unsourced. I placed my contribution again, this time with sourced material. Once again User:AmirSurfLera, deleted my contribution alleging something else. This clearly demonstrates that user whom is not a neutral point of view on this issue, is seeking to repress the information and not show it. My contribution is a reference to such issue with the main article being linked, being

Main article: Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal

. After User:AmirSurfLera, was blocked after being in a edit war with another user, I stated he was blocked for edit warring which he was doing to me so I, undid his edit because it made my point of being edited unfairly. At this point user User:Brewcrewer, again a user who's neutral point of view I also question, interupted asseverating, "does not how it works", I dont know what he meant, so I reposted my edition and asked him to forward this edit warring to a NPOV user for conversation, which he did not appeal but instead reported me for edit warring. My blocking, I belief, is to suppress information, and call for user User:Brewcrewer, to be questioned if he is suppressing information belonging to this article because he is too closely related to article. I also ask for a moderate user whom i may ask for help, in making my case in this edit wars, with the needed working in lawyer-ish talk needed in Wikipedia 50.14.223.132 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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=I was not given a proper time lapse to assess my block, and blocked without having given my argument. I was not in an edit war as it clearly states in "3rr" three edits must be done, I made two. My edits were previously reversed by a blocked user [[User:AmirSurfLera]] (for edit wars). He first stated my article was unsourced. I placed my contribution again, this time with sourced material. Once again [[User:AmirSurfLera]], deleted my contribution alleging something else. This clearly demonstrates that user whom is not a neutral point of view on this issue, is seeking to repress the information and not show it. My contribution is a reference to such issue with the main article being linked, being <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal]]</div>. After [[User:AmirSurfLera]], was blocked after being in a edit war with another user, I stated he was blocked for edit warring which he was doing to me so I, undid his edit because it made my point of being edited unfairly. At this point user [[User:Brewcrewer]], again a user who's neutral point of view I also question, interupted asseverating, "does not how it works", I dont know what he meant, so I reposted my edition and asked him to forward this edit warring to a NPOV user for conversation, which he did not appeal but instead reported me for edit warring. My blocking, I belief, is to suppress information, and call for user [[User:Brewcrewer]], to be questioned if he is suppressing information belonging to this article because he is too closely related to article. I also ask for a moderate user whom i may ask for help, in making my case in this edit wars, with the needed working in lawyer-ish talk needed in Wikipedia [[Special:Contributions/50.14.223.132|50.14.223.132]] ([[User talk:50.14.223.132#top|talk]]) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |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=I was not given a proper time lapse to assess my block, and blocked without having given my argument. I was not in an edit war as it clearly states in "3rr" three edits must be done, I made two. My edits were previously reversed by a blocked user [[User:AmirSurfLera]] (for edit wars). He first stated my article was unsourced. I placed my contribution again, this time with sourced material. Once again [[User:AmirSurfLera]], deleted my contribution alleging something else. This clearly demonstrates that user whom is not a neutral point of view on this issue, is seeking to repress the information and not show it. My contribution is a reference to such issue with the main article being linked, being <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal]]</div>. After [[User:AmirSurfLera]], was blocked after being in a edit war with another user, I stated he was blocked for edit warring which he was doing to me so I, undid his edit because it made my point of being edited unfairly. At this point user [[User:Brewcrewer]], again a user who's neutral point of view I also question, interupted asseverating, "does not how it works", I dont know what he meant, so I reposted my edition and asked him to forward this edit warring to a NPOV user for conversation, which he did not appeal but instead reported me for edit warring. My blocking, I belief, is to suppress information, and call for user [[User:Brewcrewer]], to be questioned if he is suppressing information belonging to this article because he is too closely related to article. I also ask for a moderate user whom i may ask for help, in making my case in this edit wars, with the needed working in lawyer-ish talk needed in Wikipedia [[Special:Contributions/50.14.223.132|50.14.223.132]] ([[User talk:50.14.223.132#top|talk]]) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |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=I was not given a proper time lapse to assess my block, and blocked without having given my argument. I was not in an edit war as it clearly states in "3rr" three edits must be done, I made two. My edits were previously reversed by a blocked user [[User:AmirSurfLera]] (for edit wars). He first stated my article was unsourced. I placed my contribution again, this time with sourced material. Once again [[User:AmirSurfLera]], deleted my contribution alleging something else. This clearly demonstrates that user whom is not a neutral point of view on this issue, is seeking to repress the information and not show it. My contribution is a reference to such issue with the main article being linked, being <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal]]</div>. After [[User:AmirSurfLera]], was blocked after being in a edit war with another user, I stated he was blocked for edit warring which he was doing to me so I, undid his edit because it made my point of being edited unfairly. At this point user [[User:Brewcrewer]], again a user who's neutral point of view I also question, interupted asseverating, "does not how it works", I dont know what he meant, so I reposted my edition and asked him to forward this edit warring to a NPOV user for conversation, which he did not appeal but instead reported me for edit warring. My blocking, I belief, is to suppress information, and call for user [[User:Brewcrewer]], to be questioned if he is suppressing information belonging to this article because he is too closely related to article. I also ask for a moderate user whom i may ask for help, in making my case in this edit wars, with the needed working in lawyer-ish talk needed in Wikipedia [[Special:Contributions/50.14.223.132|50.14.223.132]] ([[User talk:50.14.223.132#top|talk]]) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• You are not blocked for 3RR, you are blocked for edit warring. See WP:EW, where it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I understand my wrongdoing,

My editing was not disruptive, or damaging, Finally: I do not seek to reverse unblock I will oblige my suspension

I ask someone experienced directs me to a user whom I may ask for help in making my contribution possible.

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=I understand my wrongdoing, My editing was not disruptive, or damaging, Finally: I do not seek to reverse unblock I will oblige my suspension I ask someone experienced directs me to a user whom I may ask for help in making my contribution possible. |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=I understand my wrongdoing, My editing was not disruptive, or damaging, Finally: I do not seek to reverse unblock I will oblige my suspension I ask someone experienced directs me to a user whom I may ask for help in making my contribution possible. |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=I understand my wrongdoing, My editing was not disruptive, or damaging, Finally: I do not seek to reverse unblock I will oblige my suspension I ask someone experienced directs me to a user whom I may ask for help in making my contribution possible. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

---