User talk:Ga-david.b

The following message was written by Digitalradiotech:

Do not revert information I've edited. Do not respond to anything I've written. Do not remove links to my website. That is all, just stay out of my way and I will stay out of your way.

3RR

This is getting absurd, so I've reported both yourself and User:Digitalradiotech for 3RR; see WP:AN/3RR. It's nothing personal, but this is the easiest way to stop this stupidity. Oli Filth 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for engaging in an edit war at Digital Audio Broadcasting. Please discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than repeatedly undoing the edits of other editors. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, please email me or post {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to DAB page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Digital Audio Broadcasting. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Digitalradiotech (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly invited you to discuss on how to improve the Digital Audio Bradcasting article. Here are two of the invitations, the first one you never replied to. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Digitalradiotech&diff=171779354&oldid=171224876 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Digitalradiotech&diff=172458220&oldid=171779354

I replied to ALL of your posts on the Talk page within 50 minutes of you posting anything on there yesterday. See:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] Digitalradiotech (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you have stated that you never want to talk with me, it is necesarry for you to discuss your edits with both me and others who might question your ability to write an article about DAB without a bias.

Here is also the link to the relevant discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#Changes_to_lead_.28and_others.21.29

Also, be aware that your first (and second) revert were a revert of a good fait edit. The second revert you did of a version were i tried to compromise in order to make clear your view about DAB+ being a major revision, wich counts as two reverts of good faith edits. Ga-david.b (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by unjustifiably deleting content from the DAB article, as you did to Digital Audio Broadcasting, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Digitalradiotech (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Digitalradiotech, I am very sorry, but i am not the one edit warring. Have a look at the history, and read the guidelines about reverting.

Note to administrators - DigitalRadioTech is consequently reverting my good faith edits (se talkpages on Digital Audio Broadcasting for more).

*1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172456581&oldid=172397580

*2nd revert: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172465376&oldid=172464002

*3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172558291&oldid=172548181

You are the person edit warring, because myself and Oli Filth produced an agreed upon introduction over the weekend, and since then you have reverted back to the introduction you favour 4 times in less than 24 hours, which breaks the 3RR rule - which is that a user shouldn't do more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. Digitalradiotech (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

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 at Digital Audio Broadcasting. 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.

Stifle (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2007 (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).

Ga-david.b (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only made three (not four) reverts to the mentioned article. One edit, the first, wich has been counted as a revert were made in good faith based on a proposal from user Oli faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=171950142&oldid=171947379), and some of the dialogue on the talk pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=next&oldid=171950142). This is the edit wich is being counted as a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172397580&oldid=172295029

Secondly, the problem is that me and the complaining editor DigitalRadioTech have not succeded on finding a compromise version, and what we really need is some input from other editors. Here is some of my efforts to find a solution for a compromise, but as you see I have clearly not been able to constructiove enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#DAB.2B_in_the_intro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Digitalradiotech#You_need_to_participate_on_the_talk_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Digitalradiotech#More_on_DAB.2B_in_the_intro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#RfC:_Is_this_article_biased.3F

Decline reason:

Revert warring is always disruptive. It does not only become so after the third revert.— Mr.Z-man 22:26, 20 November 2007 (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.