User talk:Lagoonaville

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Lagoonaville! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Barelvi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Barelvi. 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.  Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione brought to my attention the fact that you were discussing after being warned, so I've removed the block. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Disputed template on Barelvi[edit]

As I explained, Lagoonaville, there was no major dispute on the Barelvi page until YOU began upsetting an editor consensus. Please stop being stubborn and adversarial. You can't claim there's a neutrality dispute just because you don't like the fact that many other editors disagree with your edits and style of interaction. Try working with them, not against them. I always find the advice of other editors to be highly useful, even when sometimes they edit things I feel strongly about. Don't get into edit warring. Don't violate the three revert rule. You'll get banned if you do. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i am going through the dispute resolution process and tags are one of them. Lagoonaville (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Barelvi. 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I stopped editing after the report and the editor continues to revert war on the page he is at 4 reverts Lagoonaville (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, actually, you didn't. You made two edits, continuing the edit war, after you'd responded to the 3RR report. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

so this editor can get away with breaking 3rr? Any advice on how to deal with the gang over there? How do I include more neutral editors on that page? Lagoonaville (talk) 22:25, 2 December

You're the only one who broke the three revert rule. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Gorge's 4th revert isnt a break? Its even noted by an administrator [1]. Im not surprised at your comment here. I will be editing other articles from now on inorder to avoid the types of editors like yourself. Lagoonaville (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin is wrong. Per WP:NOT3RR, a further revert is allowed because you were (and still are) a blocked user, thus a revert beyond the third to what your actions which lead to your banning falls under the exemptions.
By the way, you're still banned. You still have not only multiple editors against you on that article, but your attempt to open an ANI case was also rejected by the community at large as well as your appeal to the block. It isn't too late to turn things around and learn how to get along with other members of the community, but at this rate that is seeming less likely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo: The admin (that's me) is not wrong. The exemption applies to only two kinds of editors, banned editors and sock puppets. Lagoonaville is neither. Even in your statement you mix up your terminology, first saying "blocked user" and then "your bannning" and "still banned".--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bbb23, I hope you are well. Please let me clarify my position: in perfectly good faith I believed my edit complied with this 3RR exception: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." I try very hard to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I will continue to do so in future Insha'Allah. Thank you for your help and guidance. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GorgeCustersSabre, thanks for chiming in. My experience with your edits generally has always been a positive one. Now that I've explained the exemption, do you understand now why it doesn't apply? I don't plan on taking any action against you because I believe you reverted in good faith, but I'd like the reassurance for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bbb23, yes, thanks, your clarification is clear and I'll comply. Thanks for everything. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im still learning and I appreciate your concern but I will not be editing that article anymore. I was worried many issues would arise when westerners edit an Asian subject. Lagoonaville (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lagoonaville, you are wrong to assume that the editors who disagreed with your edits and interactions are all Westerners. I'm not. Please try to work with other editors in future; not against them. The editing community is actually a wonderful place and you will learn a lot from others if you are collegial. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Adding references can be easy[edit]

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
  2. Then click on "Templates".
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
  4. Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
  5. Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
  6. Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
  • Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header   ==References==   is near the end of the article.
  • And check that   {{Reflist}}    is directly underneath that header.
7.  Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lagoonaville&oldid=1089972135"