User talk:Von Restorff

No problem

I just wish I could get the darned userboxen to clump together in a neater array. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Putting them in a table like you did is the best solution we have at the time unfortunatly. Von Restorff (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jon Driver. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I had warned you that if you continued to edit war you'd end up blocked and I had suggested you'd discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead; and what do you do immediately thereafter? Edit war a little more. I must say I'm disappointed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not that stupid; I did not "edit war a little more". Please check the edit and the source, this is a non controversial edit (bna.org does not mention his age and it does not mention his manner of passing, so it could not be used as a source for: "He committed suicide in London on 28 November 2011, aged 49."), and the editwar was about a different subject (whether or not to include the manner of passing, not about wether or not to use bna.org as a fake reference). Von Restorff (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, I would have blocked for the initial 3RR. The fact that you again removed one of the sources you were in debate over is disappointing. I would bring it to Salvio's attention if you committed to leaving the article alone for 48 hours and only participating in trying to establish a new consensus on the article's talk page, but this block is perfectly valid. Kuru (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (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.

In the edit I link to, you remove a source; you were removing that same source, along with other content, in the edit war you were previously engaged in and, therefore, I consider that to be a continuation thereof. However, I'll let an uninvolved admin determine whether I was wrong. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I understand it was a good faithed mistake. I am quite sure that even those who disagree with me about wether to include the cause of death or not do agree with me that we should use references properly. bna.org does not support the statement he was 49 and does not mention the manner of passing. Von Restorff (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Help me|Please ask an uninvolved admin who is online and has some spare time to take a look at my unblock request. Von Restorff (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)}}