Jump to content

User talk:BeyonderGod: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 31: Line 31:
[[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
[[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
:I didn't ask for your sources, and I didn't ask for a repeat of your content argument. I asked you to provide a link to the '''discussion''' in which your sources were reviewed, where your disputed changes were discussed, and where you obtained a '''consensus''' agreeing with you. Do you have it, or do you not? [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
:I didn't ask for your sources, and I didn't ask for a repeat of your content argument. I asked you to provide a link to the '''discussion''' in which your sources were reviewed, where your disputed changes were discussed, and where you obtained a '''consensus''' agreeing with you. Do you have it, or do you not? [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
David A wont have a civil discussion so you ask him and we can settle this right now and right here without any more trouble. [[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Revision as of 20:40, 5 June 2016

June 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months 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 appeal this block 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.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (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).

BeyonderGod (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked from editing warring because I have completely referenced my sources from the original sources that i got them from and where other fellow editors have not done that they added their own Opinions and not actual information so why am I being banned if I'm proving my citations correctly?? I dont get it here do i need over 13,000+ edits to be on the good side? I am banned for the 2nd because of false information made by other editors. Beyonder (talk) 5:54 pm, Today (UTC+1)BeyonderGod

Decline reason:

Blaming others and not addessing directly the reason for your block gives me no confidence that you will change the behavior that has led to you being blocked twice now in the last three months. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 5 June 2016 (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 is asking that his block be reviewed:

BeyonderGod (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Again lets try this again.....

A Edit warring is by Wikipedia is "A edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."

Now here is the problem.....

  1. I haven't Repeatedly overridden others contributions I have literally stated multiple times I have Fixed/corrected the information made by the said other editor i gave citations and references directly from the source materials.
  2. David A. has not once done a dispute resolution after i won the debate over Beyonder page as for The Living Tribunal and Beyonders pages he hasn't ONCE try to engage with me over a solution the fact He only UNDOS/Rollbacks my edits without stating a reason is a direct given Edit Warring if you can clearly SEE/READ I have given the reasons for my edits while said Editor HASNT once done so he has not once proven me wrong and its only ACCEPTED around many places that he is not a person who can argue he would rather believe/think he is right when he is proven wrong constantly shown and i have made no effect to do so either because of this reason.
  3. I am banned for adding CORRECT/FACTUAL information Doug you can look up this information yourself and see that David A is adding HIS own opinion from his own Wikia at vsbattles I am not causing a war here or anything above.
  4. I can accept when i am wrong when i am shown that i am wrong David A should be banned for 3 months as well for contributing to the Edit Warring just like me because this is the 3rd time he has gone SCOTT FREE.
  5. Now if you Admin can actually ADDRESS my faults with evidence then i will take the 3 months if not this is all biased. Beyonder (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Again lets try this again..... A Edit warring is by Wikipedia is ''"A edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."'' Now here is the problem..... #I haven't Repeatedly ''overridden'' others contributions I have literally stated multiple times I have Fixed/corrected the information made by the said other editor i gave citations and references directly from the source materials. #David A. has not once done a dispute resolution after i won the debate over [[Beyonder]] page as for The [[Living Tribunal]] and [[Beyonders]] pages he hasn't ONCE try to engage with me over a solution the fact He only UNDOS/Rollbacks my edits without stating a reason is a direct given Edit Warring if you can clearly SEE/READ I have given the reasons for my edits while said Editor HASNT once done so he has not once proven me wrong and its only ACCEPTED around many places that he is not a person who can argue he would rather believe/think he is right when he is proven wrong constantly shown and i have made no effect to do so either because of this reason. #I am banned for adding CORRECT/FACTUAL information Doug you can look up this information yourself and see that David A is adding HIS own opinion from his own Wikia at vsbattles I am not causing a war here or anything above. #I can accept when i am wrong when i am shown that i am wrong David A should be banned for 3 months as well for contributing to the Edit Warring just like me because this is the 3rd time he has gone SCOTT FREE. #Now if you Admin can actually ADDRESS my faults with evidence then i will take the 3 months if not this is all biased. [[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Again lets try this again..... A Edit warring is by Wikipedia is ''"A edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."'' Now here is the problem..... #I haven't Repeatedly ''overridden'' others contributions I have literally stated multiple times I have Fixed/corrected the information made by the said other editor i gave citations and references directly from the source materials. #David A. has not once done a dispute resolution after i won the debate over [[Beyonder]] page as for The [[Living Tribunal]] and [[Beyonders]] pages he hasn't ONCE try to engage with me over a solution the fact He only UNDOS/Rollbacks my edits without stating a reason is a direct given Edit Warring if you can clearly SEE/READ I have given the reasons for my edits while said Editor HASNT once done so he has not once proven me wrong and its only ACCEPTED around many places that he is not a person who can argue he would rather believe/think he is right when he is proven wrong constantly shown and i have made no effect to do so either because of this reason. #I am banned for adding CORRECT/FACTUAL information Doug you can look up this information yourself and see that David A is adding HIS own opinion from his own Wikia at vsbattles I am not causing a war here or anything above. #I can accept when i am wrong when i am shown that i am wrong David A should be banned for 3 months as well for contributing to the Edit Warring just like me because this is the 3rd time he has gone SCOTT FREE. #Now if you Admin can actually ADDRESS my faults with evidence then i will take the 3 months if not this is all biased. [[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Again lets try this again..... A Edit warring is by Wikipedia is ''"A edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."'' Now here is the problem..... #I haven't Repeatedly ''overridden'' others contributions I have literally stated multiple times I have Fixed/corrected the information made by the said other editor i gave citations and references directly from the source materials. #David A. has not once done a dispute resolution after i won the debate over [[Beyonder]] page as for The [[Living Tribunal]] and [[Beyonders]] pages he hasn't ONCE try to engage with me over a solution the fact He only UNDOS/Rollbacks my edits without stating a reason is a direct given Edit Warring if you can clearly SEE/READ I have given the reasons for my edits while said Editor HASNT once done so he has not once proven me wrong and its only ACCEPTED around many places that he is not a person who can argue he would rather believe/think he is right when he is proven wrong constantly shown and i have made no effect to do so either because of this reason. #I am banned for adding CORRECT/FACTUAL information Doug you can look up this information yourself and see that David A is adding HIS own opinion from his own Wikia at vsbattles I am not causing a war here or anything above. #I can accept when i am wrong when i am shown that i am wrong David A should be banned for 3 months as well for contributing to the Edit Warring just like me because this is the 3rd time he has gone SCOTT FREE. #Now if you Admin can actually ADDRESS my faults with evidence then i will take the 3 months if not this is all biased. [[User:BeyonderGod|Beyonder]] ([[User talk:BeyonderGod#top|talk]]) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

As you can read on nothing on ANY of these official sources mention anything about 16th-Dimensional information.

As for the Beyonders Page

They aren't mentioned as Hyper or Higher dimensional beings they are point blank describe as The enigmatic All-Powerful Beyonders

All my sources are directly given by the company. Beyonder (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

I didn't ask for your sources, and I didn't ask for a repeat of your content argument. I asked you to provide a link to the discussion in which your sources were reviewed, where your disputed changes were discussed, and where you obtained a consensus agreeing with you. Do you have it, or do you not? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David A wont have a civil discussion so you ask him and we can settle this right now and right here without any more trouble. Beyonder (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]