User talk:Gdandsnahb

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for repeating the same behavior (inserting unsourced information) that got you blocked last time. Now, I see that you tried to make an unblock request then, but you formatted it improperly, which is why no one saw it. But your rationale there is not sufficient: Wikpedia requires that the information be verifiable. If it's verifiable on the BA website, then provide a link to that website. If you can't, then the info can't be included. Otherwise, how can a reader know that it's accurate? We have to provide sources, it's the only way that WP works. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I stopped editing the page after your block and warning. UNBLOCK ME. --Gdandsnahb (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Gdandsnahb (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You stopped editing because of the block, not because of the warning, and your unblock request does not address the reason for your block. Are you prepared to follow wikipedia policy in the future in relation to adding valid references, even if your personal opinion is that you need not do so?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:22, 14 November 2012 (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 is an explicit guideline that the block notice and declined unblock request remain here for the duration of the block. If you edit-war and cannot even follow this simple behavioral requirement here in a discussion area, that is not a promising sign for your future activity when you are again allowed to edit articles. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly something isn't computing. We need to assure that ALL information is verifiable. If you fail to provide a source for your information as you and your friends did over the blanking of my page then your edits will most certainly be reverted. Let's be sensible and accurate at all times or I will report you based on the guidelines outlined in WP:Verifiability. I think I'll be just fine in the future, thank you for your concern. --Gdandsnahb (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]