User talk:Rangeview

Welcome!

Hello, Rangeview, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to an article do not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 11 September 2008 (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. Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock-ip|1=219.101.41.247|2=[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]]|3=Gogo Dodo}

You appear to be blocked directly; please explain why you feel you should be unblocked (WP:GAB may be a helpful read). – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think that this may the correct way to petition a block. I apologize for giving the impression of edit warring. It seems a number of users too issue with edits posted. As a result, I attempted to repost edits that were more point of view neutral. Perhaps because of the politically sensitive nature of the edits, users continued to feel that the posts were not point of view neutral - what is the correct forum to ensure a consensus is reached? Thank you for your help

Decline reason:

No reason given for why the block should be lifted; see WP:GAB. With respect to your questions, see WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS. — Sandstein 12:14, 11 September 2008 (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.

Welcome!

Discussion of editions to entries "impulsive", "careless", and "redneck". This is probably the appropriate forum to discuss any posts on the foregoing entries rather than engaging in edit warring. Thank you.

Notice of Arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.

Your edit here seems to be an example of POV-pushing, since it makes no reference to any grounds based in Wikipedia policy. Our job is to create a neutral article that reflects the facts as they are reported by reliable sources. If you have concerns about the current wording of the article, I recommend that you explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. So far, you have posted nothing on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi. Just a few things to remember. The Israel-Arab topic area is subject to new rules. Please keep your reverts in this topic area limited to one in a 24 hour period. Second, I voiced my support for your recent edit in the 2006 Lebanon war on that article's Talk page[1] Third, I suggest you make use of the Talk page rather than relying exclusively on edit summaries to explain your edits. Please accept this friendly advice and happy editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at 2006 Lebanon War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangeview for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again

I've reset your block to two weeks for creating another account to avoid the block here. TN X Man 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]