Galviston
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
January 2015
edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Galviston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The three-revert rule was used to block my edits however I believe the block was punitive. i.e. my comments were blocked in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; or as punishment against users. The article highlights one opinion or a translation of text from the bible and references hand picked literature to change or solidify one interpretation of its meaning. My edit simply added reference to another interpretation of the same text in the Bible which was been published by another author. If one author can be referenced with an interpretation of text why cant another? My addition was not to completely disregard or put down the other referenced text, it was to show that there are other referenced texts available by other authors and other interpretations arrive at different conclusions. It would be completely one sided and viewed as bias for only one interpretation to be permitted on a community publication. There was no intent by me to start a edit war. The article I was editing was titled The Bible and homosexuality. Third party texts were being referenced to bible verses to show one interpretation of the Bible and not make reference to others. One can certainly argue that the references on their own change or limit the meaning of the original text and do not just paraphrase the source which to many would be a wrongful appropriation of the original text. If you allow third party references to sources on this article please allow other third party interpretations to be added as references which show all interpretations to be fair.
Decline reason:
You were warned about our policy on edit warring, and chose to continue the disruptive behavior. Indeed, you are using an unblock request to continue to argue that your reverts were correct. With that, this block is clearly preventative in that it stops you from edit warring. When the block expires, I would strongly suggest that you limit yourself to the article's talk page until you have a clear consensus for your proposed changes. Kuru (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
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.