User talk:Foxsux

Welcome!

Hello, Foxsux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

P.S. Please remember, when editing articles such as Discrimination against atheists, that the threshold for inclusion of material is verifiability in reliable and independent published sources, not truth. Thank you, VanTucky ^(talk) 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule[edit]

Please note that you about to violate the three revert rule which may lead to you being blocked. Try using the talk page, and also, try reading the archives. You may find a number of enlightening things there already. It's not as if these issues haven't already been civilly dicussed many times before. Edhubbard 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: Removing warnings from your talk page will also get you blocked. You really should read some wiki-policies. Edhubbard 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kurt Vonnegut. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Discrimination against atheists. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 22 July 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

ConfuciusOrnis has called names followed me around and reverted more than three times on mltiple articles ad has not yet been blocked

Decline reason:

This is a request for another user to be blocked- you don't need to use an {unblock} template to make such a request. You haven't given any reason for unblocking you, and your contributions show more than three reverts in Kurt Vonnegut, so you should gracefully accept the consequences of your violation of 3RR. — FisherQueen (Talk) 22:40, 22 July 2007 (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.

It's your choice block ConfuciusOrnis or prove that wikipedia is a failed experement. Foxsux 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that ConfuciusOrnis only edited the article three times, so was just under the limit. Moreover, you also engaged in an edit war on his user page that broke the three revert rule. I'll leave the request here so that another admin reviews the situation. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need I thought it was a three strikes rule Foxsux 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a side of wikistalking...[edit]

Foxsux is also trying to argue that ConfuciusOrnis was following him around... If I may, I'd also like to point out that Foxsux is clearly guilty of what he is complaing about, namely wikistalking, here [1], which I originally took as a good faith edit, but now I see is a response to my previous reverts of his edits here [2]. As a quick look at his edit history will show, he has never shown any interest in topics except ones where he is pushing a religious POV, except this one polite edit to the synesthesia page, which is one of my main wikipedia projects. Edhubbard 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke if it had been malicious I would have reverted itFoxsux 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your idea of a joke, I think you better find someplace else to go perform your comedy routine. Additionally, you essentially admit that you checked my edit history, to find an article that you could edit that would make a comment about me, because I disagreed with an edit that you had made. That is the definition of wikistalking. I'm not trying to threaten you... I tried above to be polite, and explain to you wikipedia policies, since it seems that you are new here. You didn't listen, and as you see, the policies have been implemented. Edhubbard 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joke wasn't aimed at you I just saw it and thought it would be funny. and don't worry I don't think you've been anything but polite to me unlike other people who among other things have called me names and made threats. Foxsux 22:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Normally, you should indent replies like this; I took the liberty of editing yours above)... Do spend a little time reading policies. People are here to work together on creating a better wikipedia. They are not here to fight with each other, and they are not here to insult people. As you will see, the person who "insulted" you has struck his comments and apologized, and the threats were warnings that your behavior runs counter to wikipedia policies (see your welcome template above). Even people who come from different viewpoints can work together to create a world-class encyclopedia, but you have to (1) explain your edits, (2) not take things personally, and (3) be prepared to back up your edits with rational, reasoned, evidence on the talk page, and not just reverts, reverts, and edit wars on the main pages. Take the 24 hours, cool off, and then try to work with other editors. Also, read the talk pages and the archives. Much of this is not new. I'm not saying this to threaten you, but your current course of behavior will get you permanent block in a real hurry. Edhubbard 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]