Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Liberal Catholic Church, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Eol Gurgwathren! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Liberal Catholic Church several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Liberal Catholic Church, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Liberal Catholic Church, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Eol Gurgwathren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Veverve animosity Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have no idea what "Veverve animosity" means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
Some animosity and frustration has developed with the editing patterns on Liberal Catholic Church page. Complete reversions were made to content I introduced without flagging the content.
After some back and forth, User TSP became helpful and pointed out a better starting point for the article, however, I went through the process of addressing their concerns. If it is required that I apologise to Veverve for mt assumptions of bad faith I will do so.
I am new to editing on Wikipedia and it seems I didn't quite understand the norms and stringency on the topic. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Eol Gurgwathren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Animosity with user named Veverve Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
Some animosity and frustration has developed with the editing patterns on Liberal Catholic Church page. Complete reversions were made to content I introduced without flagging the content.
After some back and forth, User TSP became helpful and pointed out a better starting point for the article, however, I went through the process of addressing their concerns. If it is required that I apologise to Veverve for mt assumptions of bad faith I will do so.
I am new to editing on Wikipedia and it seems I didn't quite understand the norms and stringency on the topic. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Eol Gurgwathren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Animosity with User Veverve is resolved. We can move forward civilly. Veverve has raise an used on the Liberal Catholic Church page which I can help with and they seem to have accepted some of my sources. So we can move forward co-operatively. No-one else seems to be contributing to the page. And I can help Veverve find more sources and details. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That does not address your violation of WP:EW, your violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, your violation of WP:SPA, or your violation of WP:NPA. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
See above Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Eol Gurgwathren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
With regards to WP:EW, and WP: Battleground, Veverve has added some of my sources so we can continue civilly now that I can see where they are coming from. WP:SPA editors are allowed. Scrutiny is understandable. So I'll be more conscious of neutrality. WP:NPA is me calling Veverve an ultratraditionalist Catholic based on the bans on their own talk page. I am happy to rescind that accusation in spirit of co-operation now that I see they have accepted some of my sources and thanked me for my input on the Liberal Catholic Church talk page. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per the discussion below and your unblock request, it appears that a stop in disruptive behavior is conditional upon other people's cooperation. You need to stop making comments relating to other editors or making comments like I see that I should have reported them for biting the newbies instead
. I don't have confidence that the disruptive behavior will not continue if you are unblocked, so please take some time to directly address WP:EW, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, and WP:NPA in context. (that is, to show us that you understand your violation instead of summarizing what is on those pages) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
See above. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to rescind that accusation [..] now that [..] they have accepted some of my sources, are you suggesting that the personal attack is completely justified if Veverve doesn't do that?
Veverve complained about my behavioir and I was banned: yes, complaining against your behaviour is something normal. And since you have been blocked, it appears my complaint was legitimate; you have only your own behaviour to blame.
I see that I should have reported them [Veverve] for biting the newbies instead).
Veverve has already added my sources in and added some more neutral ones of their own so I am less inclined to hold to my suspicion of malice: the user implies my previous behaviour of asking them to use RSs to add information (refusing blogs, etc.) can legitimately be seen as malicious, that unless I concede to them I can be considered as a POV-pusher or as a disruptive user.
[Veverve] ha[s] been banned for this kind of behaviour before: I have never had any block for POV-pushing. And I do not
only edit Catholic pages, as can clearly be seen in my user page. Veverve (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Eol Gurgwathren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WP:BATTLEGROUND I see that the infringements results in a battleground and have read the article and will not do this in future. Edit-warring: read the policy now and intend work co-operatively on the talk page rather than confrontationally. WP:SPA special interest: I have read this too and intend on adding content in other topics, such as chemical pages etc. Personal attacks: I have read this and intend on not imputing bad faith motives etc on other editors. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as I see it as a worthy endeavour.Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
per discussion with consultation with blocking admin at Special:permalink/1195461432#Unblock discussion. I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks
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.
@Bbb23: Is this adequate to unblock? Do we need a wp:TOPICBAN for Liberal Catholic Church? Or do we punt downfield six months? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)