Hello, Nbanato! 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! Ald™¬_¬™15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Aldnonymous. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Steve Jobs without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Ald™¬_¬™16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Steve Jobs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
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).
We resolved the first dispute via SubSeven's talk page. The edit that you blocked me for is there for a completely different reason. I am, however, willing to explain my reasoning for my most recent edit with SubSeven on his talk page. This would require myself to be unblocked.Nbanato (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2013 (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 doesn't. What I meant was that SubSeven and I could discuss our reasons for our reverts on the the discussion that I had already started on his or her talk page. This would require an unblock. I don't NEED to provide an explanation for any of my edits other than what I gave on my edit summary.
(ec) You can easily provide an explanation here. I will let Subseven know to watchlist this page. But SubSeven did not get you blocked - that came because you reverted the article at least 4 times in a 24 hour span. You may wish to review WP:3RR before proceeding - even if they're wrong, you don't keep reverting while the matter is under discussion, as you did here. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I had two edits on the 20th of February; both edits were more than 24 hours from my edits on the 19th of February. I never said that SubSeven got me blocked. Reason for editing? I found a source that backed up what I edited (a minor wording change of a sentence): http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391798,00.asp. The next time I edit, I'll be sure to include my references. If I got blocked for "edit warring" then I hope the person that I supposedly was "warring" against also got a warning of some kind. (Nbanato (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Note to Ultraexactzz: I did not block him for reverting 4 times in 24 hours. I blocked him for edit warring. Specifically in this case, he was told to use the article talk page and not to use reverts again. He used reverts again, so the block came. If you're going to tell him why he was blocked, please do not quote a reason that I, as the blocking administrator, never invoked. --Jayron3202:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Jayron: I did attempt to resolve this via the talk page of the person who I was supposedly "edit warring" against. My last revert was a revert of SubSeven's revert, which would mean that he or she is guilty of the same "edit warring". As of right now, the last edit on Steve Jobs' wiki page is SubSeven's reverting of my edit. What kind of action has been taken against this user, and if none was taken, what differentiates his or her actions of reverting edits from my own? This is not an unblock request; I simply want to know why SubSeven's edit reverts were allowed, while mine resulted in me being blocked. Anyone got any ideas? Nbanato (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You've attempted to add the same text, or variations thereof, either by reverting others or typing it anew, 8 times in the past three days. No other single editor has done anything near that many times. --Jayron3202:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Jayron: "No other single editor has done anything near that many times" seems to be an over exaggeration on your part. You have cited "edit warring" not excessive posting as the reason for my blocking by you. Please be more consistent with your explanations. Changing the wording of my own edit, for example, typos or to make what I edited clearer to the reader, is not considered to be "edit warring" according to edit warring. Two of my 8 posts have been edits to my own posts, which therefore don't contribute to the supposed edit war. That puts my total posts that have contributed to the "edit war" (the reason you blocked me) at 6. SubSeven has 5 reverts of my contributions in the last three days, which isn't as far off from my total as you think it is (six minus five is one; that's a one post difference). (Nbanato (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
My mistake here was giving in to your attempts to divert the discussion away from your own behavior. I won't be doing that again. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to be convincing that you will stop editing the text of the Steve Jobs article and will instead only use the talk page until there is widespread consensus for what you wish to do. I will not again discuss the behavior of any other editors with you, whatever they did. --Jayron3203:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor excuse by a moderator. Again, this was not an unblocking request but rather a request for a proper explanation as to why I was blocked, which is what this page is for. At first you cited "edit warring", then you cited something along the lines of excessive posting. This is more about me asking for a real, proper reason that can justify you blocking me. I am yet to hear a proper reason. Just so that you don't misunderstand this comment (again), I'll say it again: this is not an unblocking request. "..attempts to divert the discussion away from your own behavior." That's fine, but I'm not sure what this "behaviour" is, what I've done wrong and how my actions differentiate from those of SubSeven's, who didn't get blocked for essentially doing exactly the same as me. (Nbanato (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You are edit warring. You have a clear point of view your trying to shoehorn into the article, one which multiple other people (at least 3-4 at my count) have disagreed with. When someone disagrees with a change you wish to make, it is incumbent upon you to strike up a discussion on the article talk page to establish consensus or compromise. When, instead, you make 9 attempts in three days to work that point of view into the article, in some form, in the face of widespread opposition, that's edit warring. I have been completely consistent in my rationale. First you said you weren't edit warring. Then I explained what you were doing that was edit warring. I have explained the exact same problem in different terms, because when you didn't seem to understand what edit warring was, I simply restated it in different words. Let me make this simple. Don't try to add the same sort of information into the article again unless you can first establish consensus on the article talk page to do so. If you do, that's edit warring. --Jayron3205:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, you seem to misinterpreting my posts. I'd recommend reading them again, as it's clear you don't seem to understand my main point. No where in any of my previous posts did I oppose the idea that I was being involved in an "edit war", or ask that my unblocking be reverted. I asked for you to explain the differences, if any, in my actions and those of SubSeven's, who essentially did the same thing as me (reverted posts) without any attempt at resolving the dispute via a talk page.
"First you said you weren't edit warring..." I challenge you to find a quote that clearly shows me saying that I wasn't "edit warring". Very poor responses from a "moderator". Also, your explanation wasn't just a paraphrase of "edit warring". In your second explanation, you implied that I got blocked for excessive posting, or posting more than the other editors over a certain period of time. (Nbanato (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I gave my reason for removing the content in the edit summary. If you feel that my edit was unwarranted or disagree with it, then you are welcome to discuss your reasoning for it on either Jobs' talk page or my own (as recommended by moderators). Until then, my edit still stands. You cannot remove or revert edits without giving an actual reason for doing so. (Nbanato (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steve Jobs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
I agree with you that this should be in an article about Steve Jobs, since it corrects the misconception that he created the successful Macintosh. In fact, he screwed up the original and badly. DreamFocus21:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Aldnonymous. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Steve Jobs without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Ald™ ¬_¬™ 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
