User talk:GreenManXY

Welcome![edit]

Hello, GreenManXY, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutrality^talk 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, edit-warring[edit]

When you make a substantial edit (such as adding new material or removing existing material) - and other editors object to it and explain the basis for the objection in policy - you must not revert unless you gain consensus. See Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Please also read and review Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Every statement in an article must be clearly and directly supported by a cited source. Read and policies for more. Neutrality^talk 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tino Sanandaji[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain what sources that I provided are not legitimate and aren't supporting every statement? All of my sources are from mainstream media. Also, the rules state that non-neutral text shouldn't be outright removed but instead salvaged, which I did. Those who completely reverted my edit should've instead contributed to it. Or are you saying that "whoever writes something first = truth"? Remove the block, please. GreenManXY (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not the place to discuss your content disagreement, only your edit warring (which is not acceptable whether you are right or not). Please read WP:EW and WP:Consensus and try again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

"Exemptions: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: 7. Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." There is no "controversy", only a heavily biased article trying to create smoke. I rewrote the section and one user started reverting without any adjustments. Please remove block. GreenManXY (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see that the exemptions apply here. This is a content dispute. You may not like the content, but they appear well-sourced. If you believe the sources do not fit WP:RS, that'd be a different matter. If all the sources you removed failed WP:RS, you may have grounds for an unblock. But that's not the claim you are making here. You are saying you rewrote a section and then engaged in edit warring. That edit warring would be grounds for a block, and that's what happened here. Yamla (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2017 (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.

I've fixed your unblock request - you needed to follow the block message instructions as you did the first time, not copy the reviewed one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is an article about a researcher and an author, i.e a living person. The person has NO controversies and having a section called "controversy" where there is none, is libel and biased framing of an article. If the person who first wrote this section has a negative opinion on this author's book, then they can write an article regarding the book and present both critics and supporters in that article. I'm asking again, are the Wikipedia rules "whoever writes something first = truth"? Remove the block, please. GreenManXY (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block for edit warring will expire soon. This is a simple content disagreement; if you continue to edit war, you will continue to be blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:38, 14 June 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I've yet to get a legitimate reason for my block. I've rewritten a biased section, salvaging what wasn't framed in a biased way, and someone removed my whole edit, instead of improving it. When I reverted my edit back, saying I had legitimate sources, it was again completely removed. Also, I've given reasons why I continued to correct my edit, based on exemption 7 from the edit-warring policy. Please explain why I was blocked trying to correct a biased article. Do I need to seek consensus when trying to correct phi=5 too? Please remove the block, I don't care that it expires soon, it is not a legitimate block. GreenManXY (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As others said, this is a content dispute, not a BLP violation. Which in turn means that the BLP exception to edit warring does not apply. So yes, you need to seek consensus for that change. Huon (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2017 (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.

You are blocked for edit warring. That's all. Not the contents of your edit, not that your edits are incorrect, none of that. You are blocked solely for edit warring. That's sufficient. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you expect me to do about the biased article, when someone else keeps completely removing my edits? I have no choice but to continue until someone else starts improving my contribution instead of just deleting it. GreenManXY (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read past the first sentence of WP:EW then? And you didn't bother with the section Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars? And WP:Consensus wasn't worth your time? I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for what remains of the block, as you are refusing to cooperate with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and are just wasting volunteer time. As Jpgordon says, if you continue with the same approach when this block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Massutmaning. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]