User talk:Enjois

Hello, Enjois, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I have removed edit(s) you made here. Some or all of the content appears to be copy and pasted from here. Please remember that you must write in your own words. We cannot copy and paste from other websites. If you have made any other edits that are copy pasted, please delete them or rewrite them in your own words.

For further information, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you have questions, please ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Men's rights movement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights movement article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--Cailil ^talk 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

minor edits

Hi Enjois - please don't mark all of your edits as minor. Your edits are not minor. This page explains what is considered a minor edit and what isn't. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Enjois, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Enjois! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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.

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.  v/r - TP 16:14, 10 January 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR and am only trying to add legitimate reliably sourced information to the article page which other editors have said should remain and not be reverted. Also the other user who engaged in the edit war was not blocked for some reason. Please unblock me or at least reduce block length to a more reasonable 24 hours. Thank you very much. Enjois (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no mention of 3RR in your block rationale. You were blocked for edit warring at an article under sanctions, were warned to stop on 6 January above, and continued to edit war, repeatedly adding material to the article after it had been removed on multiple occasions. When someone tells you to stop doing something, and then you keep doing it, you should not be surprised when you get blocked. Jayron32 21:22, 10 January 2013 (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.

For the reviewing administrator: This article is under community sanctions, which this user was properly informed of, and cannot be overturned w/o consensus. The block is also logged with the edits that constitute edit warring.--v/r - TP 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be some helpful advice

I'm comenting here due to the block, and I'm hoping this way of thinking will help you in editing articles. First is a comment that I made in a different discussion on the Mens Rights Talk page. A way of looking at Wikipedia is that Wikipedia reflects what is, and what used to be important to humanity. "Balance" is actually not a requirement of Wikipedia's articles. What's important is that Wikipedia reasonably accurately reflect what humanity has, and is, saying.

I believe one of the arguments against what you wish to include is that the sources you cite are not related to the Mens Rights Movement. This requirement is shown in WP: NOR at the end of the first paragraph. From the policy itself, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (Bold Mine). To be specific to add that material you must demonstrate that the source is directly related to the Mens Rights Movement. Otherwise it is considered Original Research.

Also, if any of this is hard to read/understand I'm perfectly willing to elaborate. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

kyohyi what i don't fully understand is why is the information which i added continuosly being removed when if you read it it clearly has to do with men's rights in regard to domestic violence issues. can you elaborate on why people are censoring this information from being added on the men's rights movement wikipedia page? thanks so much.

Enjois (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read the material, but, my underastanding of their argument is that it doesn't link directly in the material to the mens right's movement. While domestic violence is important to the Men's rights movement, any material added to the men's rights movement article would need a source that deals with the men's rights movement. What the people opposing say is that while the sources may have to do with domestic violence, the sources don't say anything about the Men's Rights Movement. Without the explicit tie to the Men's Rights Movement within the source we are synthesizing by making a connection that isn't in the source. Does this help? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, and thanks for getting back to me : )

Enjois (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to request my block length please be reduced from 1 week to 24 hours or a possibly a few days. I am new to Wikipedia (just joined last week) and was not fully aware of what I was doing when "edit warring" and how it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will not make any more edits to the page which I edit-warred on so you don't have to worry about any future edit warring with me. Thank You. Enjois (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like to request my block length please be reduced from 1 week to 24 hours or a possibly a few days. I am new to Wikipedia (just joined last week) and was not fully aware of what I was doing when "edit warring" and how it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will not make any more edits to the page which I edit-warred on so you don't have to worry about any future edit warring with me. Thank You. [[User:Enjois|Enjois]] ([[User talk:Enjois#top|talk]]) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to request my block length please be reduced from 1 week to 24 hours or a possibly a few days. I am new to Wikipedia (just joined last week) and was not fully aware of what I was doing when "edit warring" and how it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will not make any more edits to the page which I edit-warred on so you don't have to worry about any future edit warring with me. Thank You. [[User:Enjois|Enjois]] ([[User talk:Enjois#top|talk]]) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to request my block length please be reduced from 1 week to 24 hours or a possibly a few days. I am new to Wikipedia (just joined last week) and was not fully aware of what I was doing when "edit warring" and how it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will not make any more edits to the page which I edit-warred on so you don't have to worry about any future edit warring with me. Thank You. [[User:Enjois|Enjois]] ([[User talk:Enjois#top|talk]]) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If you agree not to edit that article for a week, I'll unblock you myself per this discussion. This wouldn't extend to the talk page, only the article.--v/r - TP 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree and I will not edit that article page for at least 1 week. I appreciate it, Thanks : ) Enjois (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)