User talk:D.Prok.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on November 16, 2006 to Michael_Shields

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: your mail. There is nothing I can do re completeness of the block: you're either blocked or not. As to the length of it: part of the reason its 24h (not 8 as a start) is that you seem to do almost nothing other than edit and discuss this article, so we're not losing a lot by having you blocked for a while. However, if you will promise to be good and obey WP:3RR I can unblock you. Please reply here William M. Connolley 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: your mail. Well, you can forget the unblock then... William M. Connolley 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "because I didn't know about the rule and hadn't even been warned"

Decline reason: "Per comment above, please wait for the block expire.--WinHunter (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

I was blocked by William M. Connolley at 0911, on 16 November 2006, for breaking The Three-Revert Rule in relation to the Michael Shields article.

First, I did not know about this rule, being fairly new here.

Second, according to the rules, I should've been warned first, not blocked immediately.

As for why I persisted in reverting this article is because the article I reverted to was an already IMPROVED version where I'd complied with previous complaints by other editors relating to the version of 01:59, 29 October 2006.

More specifically:

1) One complaint was that some of the statements in the article were unreferenced.

I provided all the lacking references for the parts in question in my newer version.

Later editors keep on simply deleting these parts even though they ARE referenced now.

2) Another concerned the POV status of the article.

Several Bulgarian visitors/editors have expressed their displeasure with the article, saying (on the Talk page) that it is too unbalanced in presenting too many (unsupported) claims attempting to discredit the Bulgarian court decision WITHOUT presenting the Bulgarian court evidence against Michael Shields.

In particular, user Goldie was unhappy about the Forgotten Fan documentary claims, which are numerous (and taking up a lot of space) but none are properly referenced, thus making him regard all these claims as unverifiable.

Therefore, I think that the POV tag should stay for the time being until someone comes up with a better version of this article.

3) I've also kept the later grammar editing, as well as making some additional minor factual corrections - like putting a more precise figure for the weight of the stone (attempted murder weapon) in my newest version.

So why all my edits should simply be ignored I don't know

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/2E/p/User_talk%7ED.Prok._0b69.html"