Jump to content

User talk:Corker1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 6 February 2017 (→‎Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi Corker1, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

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...

SchuminWeb Good luck, and have fun. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Benjamin Banneker

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Benjamin Banneker, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many edits

Your many individual edits via "Save page" overwhelm the history page of an article. See for example the history of Jeffereson Pier. Please use "Show preview" for each individual edit until you are satisfied with the result of all your edits. Only then should you click "Save page". — Joe Kress (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice the work that you've put into articles like History of Washington, D.C., and would like to thank you for your help in improving the page. However, it appears that the article suffers from over linking. I would invite you to take a look at WP:OVERLINK, which describes what words should actually be linked. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

Hi. I would like to discuss with you the reasons that I have reverted your edits to Washington, D.C. I have also left a message on the talk page that outlines my reasoning. Please respond there first before we continue to make and undo each others edits. Best, epicAdam (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As for the edits to image captions, I outlined my reasoning at Talk:Washington, D.C.#The L'Enfant Plan. The Library of Congress credits L'Enfant for the plan. I feel that crediting Ellicott for the engraving is adequate but not for the plan itself, since it wasn't his idea. According to the National Park Service, Ellicott made very superficial changes to the plan. The overall idea of the traffic circles with the National Mall in the center is very much L'Enfant's plan, to say otherwise is certainly misleading. Further, during the article's FA process it was decided by the editors that information about the design of the City of Washington would be placed under the "Cityscape" section, which is where it is mentioned. Ellicott's role in the final design is mentioned in the footnote. I wouldn't really be opposed to moving that information into the main article text, if necessary. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about talk pages: You can just respond on your own talk page, it's not necessary to go back and forth if you don't want to. And superficial was the wrong word choice. You're absolutely correct that L'Enfant bristled at the changes that were being made, it's exactly for that reason that Washington let him go; L'Enfant wanted to micro manage every aspect of the city's construction. Despite the changes made to straighten the roads, in the grand totality of it all, the city's design still is credited to L'Enfant. It is for that reason that I object to the engraving, the "Plan of the City of Washington", being credited to Andrew Ellicott only. It may have been his drawing, but not totally his plan. The Library of Congress' collection does not credit that drawing to Ellicott and I am hesitant to credit him in the caption. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd take a minute to step back a little from the Wikipedia jargon and explain why some of us are so insistent about the caption for the 1792 plan for Washington, DC. The short of it is that everything that's in Wikipedia has to be verifiable information derived from a source deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. One's own opinions and points of view, no matter how sensible or well founded, aren't properly included in the encyclopedia. See WP:OR for more on that. It's your view that the 1792 plan is most fairly described as Ellicott's plan, not L'Enfant's, and you've been captioning it as such in Washington, D.C. and other articles. There are two problems with that. The first - actually not really relevant here - is that it just makes no sense to give full credit to Ellicott when his plan so clearly proceeded from L'Enfant's original conception. The second problem, and the one that matters for the encyclopedia, is that all of the sources that discuss that engraving describe it as "L'Enfant's plan". Some - most? - acknowledge Ellicott's role and adjustments to the plan, but *none* of them call it "Ellicott's plan", to the exclusion of L'Enfant. As best I can tell, that characterization is entirely yours, and is not based on any reliable source at all. In fact it is contradicted by the sources. For those reasons the caption as you'd like to have it really can't stand, and after looking at the discussion, I think almost all editors would agree with me.
Does this help at all? JohnInDC (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore my edits. If you believe that there are too many links, feel free to remove those that you believe to be excessive or redundant.

You stated that Ellicott's changes to L'Enfant's Plan were "very superficial". L'Enfant himself considered them to be far more important. His letters strenuously objected to the changes in his plan that Ellicott had made after L'Enfant had offered his letter of resignation to George Washington.

L'Enfant believed that lines of sight should be limited. His plan therefore offset some streets around plazas and elsewhere so that people would see buildings, creating a neighborhood effect. Ellicott (perhaps because he was a surveyor) preferred distant views. He therefore straightened Massachusetts Avenue and removed some of L'Enfant's plazas.

The books the the History of Washington, D.C. Wikipedia article references describe much of the above. L'Enfant's letters are consitent with this.

Perhaps one of the most significant changes that Elllicott made to L'Enfant's Plan was to radically change to shape of the present Judiciary Square area. L'Enfant's plan provided for a curved south border of the area, which L'Enfant expected would contain the Supreme Court. Ellicott eliminate the curve to produce plaza with straight sides. The current position of Indiana Avenue NW between Pennsylvania Avenue and Judiciary Square reflects this change. The Judiciary Square area would look very different if Ellicott had not made this change. Corker1 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have recently found a copy of a letter that Ellicott wrote that suggests that Ellicott himself considered that his plan was his own (and that of his brother), rather than a revision to L'Enfant's plan. His letter states:
"Philadelphia, Feby 23, 1792
Gentlemen,
On my arrival at this City, I found that no preparation was made for an engraving of the plan of the City of Washington. Upon this representation being made to the President and Secretary of State, I was directed to furnish one for an engraver, which with the aid of my Brother, was completed last Monday and handed to the President.
In this business we met with difficulties of a very serious nature. Major L'Enfant refused us the use of the original! What his motives were, God knows. - The plan which we have furnished, I believe will be found to answer the ground better than the large one in the Major's hands. … ".
(Reference: Ellicott's letter to the commissioners on engraving the plan of the city … in Bob Arnebeck's Web Pages Accessed February 5, 2009.) Corker1 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Washington, D.C., it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fossett

FYI, I reverted a recent edit you made to the lead section of Steve Fossett. It was accurate and supported by the references, but it didn't seem to follow the guideline for an article lead section (WP:LEAD), specifically regarding conciseness. There is a section further down in the article where such detail would be more appropriate.

I appreciate your contribution and I hope you continue to help keep the quality of this article at its current high standard and help improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Banneker Valued Picture Nomination?

Hi. I noticed you removed the Ben Bannaker nom. First off, thanks for spotting the misinformation. However, if it's so incorrect, why is it still on the article? Just a thought. Also, I restored the text of the nomination and put it back on the VPC page so it can be closed the correct way - that should be done in the next few days. Finally, thanks for all your hard work on the wiki! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The misinformation is in the "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" section of the Wikipedia article about Banneker. The "Mythology" section explains the reasons that some of the text in the Charles Alston cartoon is misinformation. Please also note that the Charles Alston cartoon was a Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidate (FPC) in April and May 2008, but was not promoted to FP (See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Benjamin Banneker). Corker1 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a new section on Silvio Bedini's discussion page regarding your unjustified reversion. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Darrell Greewood: The link that you added to the text duplicated a link that was already in the reference section. Wikipedia articles should not contain redundant links. Additionally, Wikipedia articles should not contain external links within the text. Such external links distract readers, especially those that are not interested in the specific link. For that reason, I removed the external link that you added to the text.Corker1 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VPC

— raekyT 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I'm not going to make a separate disambig when the primary topic is a single line article that's barely more than a dictionary definition. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of the national mall article

I just noticed your submission of the National mall article for peer review. I added some general comments but the article still need quite a lot of work before I can identify specifics. I hope this helps though and please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Stuart

Your improvements to this article look good. My only question is where you got the information that he and his wife had 16 children? The source I found mentioned only "5 daughters and 2 sons". Now, that might very well have been only the ones that survived to be adults, but I couldn't find any other number. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the following reference: Johnson, R. Winder (1905). The Ancestry of Rosalie Morris Johnson: Daughter of George Calvert Morris and Elizabeth Kuhn, his wife. Ferris & Leach. This is presently reference number 1 in David Stuart. The reference states on page 30 that the Stuarts' children were "said to be sixteen in number". Other sources also provide this information. A direct quote from a letter that one of Eleanor Stuart's daughters wrote states that Eleanor Stuart had borne twenty children. The twenty children included the four children that Mrs. Stuart had with her first husband, John Parke Custis. Corker1 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks again for the improvements to the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLK Memorial

Dear Corker1, I admire your work on the page for the Martin Luther King, Jr National Memorial - which I worked on as well - but wanted to mention that unless I am wrong leads do not need references if the information is included and referenced in the text of the page. I see you've added references and referred to the statements as "undocumented," but (again, unless I'm wrong), I don't think that's necessary. (I did make sure all the facts in the lead were included and referenced in the article.) Do you think my understanding is wrong? Best wishes - and by the way, I visited the memorial and it is very, very impressive. NearTheZoo (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the answer to my own question:" The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (Quote from the wikipedia manual of style). Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corker!

Hi Corker1! Just wanted to stop by and say "thanks" for your contributions - I've noticed some of your DC related contributions, and it's really appreciated! On that note, if you are ever interested in meeting up with fellow DC area Wikipedians offline, we do have a DC Meetup Invite List which you can sign and then we'll let you know when we have edit-a-thons, meetups, and other cool events (including museum tours, etc). Just wanted to throw that out there in case you had interest (no pressure, of course). We also have a local chapter, which might interest you also: Wikimedia DC. Feel free to drop by my talk page if I can ever help you out with anything. SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I appreciate what you have done for the Benjamin Banneker page. You are doing a great job keeping the site clean.

Ghhinerm (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and Old Dominion Railway

Please stop. Continuing to revert edits will be considered vandalism as well as WP:own. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. The article is excessive in its WP:LENGTH, resulting in significant Wikipedia:Content forking.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Mall border

I've added a discussion topic on the talk page of the National Mall. If you'd like to discuss it further, feel free. McKay (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on the talk:National Mall page. McKay (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR

Please stop changing citation style at Deep TMS. You have two choices there: go back to the non-citation used by the first editor who created the article, or respect the citation style I established. But you may not change the citation style without consensus, and I do not enjoy working with a flawed citation style (the cite doi template). You can generate citations for the style in the article by entering a PubMed indentifier (PMID) into this template, which generates the style used on most medical articles on Wikipedia. Other than that, thank you so much for the article improvements !! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have for the third time changed citation style without consensus, and without discussing your edits. Please review WP:3RR and understand that you can be blocked for disruptive editing if you persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:SandyGeorgia suggested that I use the pmid template for the citation style in Deep TMS. I did this. Please enter any further comments on this topic into the talk page for Deep TMS to help form a consensus. Corker1 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am user SandyGeorgia, and I did not suggest that. Please stop changing the citation style without consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting to my user page (User:SandyGeorgia); for that, we use talk pages. I have your talk page watchlisted and will respond here. Almost every medical article on Wikipedia uses the citation style that you are altering. Regardless, if you continue changing citation style without consensus, you could be blocked. The options are the original, incomplete, non-citation (manual) style used by the first author, or the style I converted it to when I completed the incomplete citations. Stop introducing the cite doi and cite pmid templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corker1: I came here to help but I don't see how to say it more clearly than SG has. I looked at the Deep TMS page, its talk page, and both of yours, and I see no evidence that SG ever suggested changing the citation style midstream. Just stick with the one that's being used, as long as there is no consensus to change it. -- Scray (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Please stop altering citation templates; that just creates work as a citation bot has to alter them back. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Mall

Please don't "stuff" articles with images which don't add anything. Your addition of the "shutdown" image was worthwhile, but this latest addition was not, and just unnecessarily crowded the article, which has plenty of images already. I have reverted it.BMK (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the new image (National Mall in 1999) to the History section to show a comparison of views of the Mall looking east from the top of the Washington Monument towards the U.S. Capitol in 1901 and 1999. The two images show the changes in the Mall that resulted from implementation of the McMillan Plan (which is between the 1901 and 1999 images. Corker1 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
In appreciation of all the persistent and meticulous work you put into many of our articles on history and transportation. Samsara 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for your improvements to the Monarch butterfly article.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like A (rpa)

Whether you like it or not, you can use all the semantics in the world, it still can't take away from Benjamin Banneker accomplishments. Go and cry to someone who's willing to listen to rant! Uriel Lavi (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting History

Anyone who knew Benjamin Banneker understands his accomplishments! No matter what semantics is used to discredit him, he will always be noted as a man affiliated with the mapping of Washington, D.C. Uriel Lavi (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benjamin Banneker had a number of well-documented accomplishments, including the authorship of a series of almanacs, the creation of mathematical puzzles and the predictions of eclipses. However, historical researchers have been unable to find any verifiable sources that support the idea that Banneker had any involvement in the mapping of Washington, D.C., except for his three-month assistance in Andrew Ellicott's two-year survey of the boundaries of the District of Columbia. (See Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker for information and citations relevant to this point.) Corker1 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg/World Heritage References at Bushrod Washington

Apologies if the edit summary was not self-evident.

  • The article at Gutenberg here is a mirror of content at World Heritage, including the license and link to the source at Wikipedia (the line labeled "make contributions at the Citational Source" at the top of the page).
  • The article at World Heritage here is a mirror of content here as noted in the same link and credit at the bottom of the page.
  • Both versions are identical to the Wikipedia article before you began improving it in November.

If you feel there is some mistake, please let me know. This has been covered many times before, and World Heritage is a known mirror - they've just done a very poor job of making that clear and abiding by the CC license. Kuru (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments on my edits to Bushrod Washington. Before reading your comments, I had not recognized that the citational source for the Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press article on Bushrod Washington is actually the Wikipedia article on that subject. As you stated, the Gutenberg article's original source is quite obscure. I have therefore removed the information in the Wikipedia article that the Gutenberg article contains except where I was able to find one or more sources that I consider to be reliable. Corker1 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Washington Redskins name controversy

While I appreciate any edits to this article, the recent effort to bring it to Good Article status mainly involved the reduction of detail that had made it almost 300k, difficult to read and edit. Since I had added most of that detail, it was only during the collaboration on the Good Article review that I came to appreciate the validity of Wikipedia:Summary style and splitting off of sub-topics into their own articles and only including essential content in the main article. It remains a large article at 100k, and the Arlington County and DC resolutions were part of the previous content that was moved to List of Washington Redskins name change advocates. Therefore I have removed the content from the main article again. I have also removed the detail added to the Controversy section regarding the Oneida Nation of New York. The wikilink to the Oneida article provides even more detail regarding the tribe's demographics and sources of income. If such additions continued, the article would soon return to its previous bloated state. FriendlyFred (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please don't unnecessarily rewrite article's references, it erodes the utility of diffs

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite article's references, as you did at Libby Garvey. Doing so erodes the utility of diffs.

There is a principle, in engineering, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I like putting every field of a {{cite}} template on a line of its own. But, when I see something to be fixed in a {{cite}} template someone else wrote, I fix the template without converting it to my preferred form, if that is possible, so I don't erode the utility of diffs. Please follow my example. Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Corker1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from L'Enfant Plan into History of Washington, D.C.. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2017 (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).

Corker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not engaged in edit-warring. I restored a section in Groundhog Day that two editors had separately removed. Each of the two editors stated that the sections were trivial, with which I do not concur. There was no edit war, as I did not undo an edit by either of these two editors more than once.

The comments that I made when I restored these sections stated that editors should try to achieve consensus by using the Talk page before removing entire sections from WP articles. However, a third editor removed the section, despite my advice to the first two editors. Because of the edit block, I am now unable to restore the section that the third editor removed and provide my advice to the third editor.

The two editors that initially removed the section have entered their comments of the Talk page for Groundhog Day. The third editor has not done this, perhaps because nobody has undone the third editor's improper removal of the section.

Hopefully, the discussion on the article's Talk page and a potential request for a third-party opinion will lead to a resolution of the dispute. However, an edit block will achieve nothing of benefit to Wikipedia users in this instance.

Decline reason:

So it's you on one side and three other editors on the other side? That *is* edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2017 (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.

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).

Corker1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Zebedee apparently did not read what I wrote. Zebedee stated that there is one editor (me) on one side and three on the other side. However, Zebedee did not recognize that I did not "edit war" with any of the editors. I reversed the edits of two editors one time each, stating that the issue needed resolution on the Talk page of Groundhog Day. I did not reverse the edit of the third editor.

The third editor's removal of the section is still in place. In my opinion, the removal of the section is seriously diminishing the utility of Groundhog Day. (The section removed has been edited many times by many editors, has been in place for many years, and has never before been removed.) As a result of the edit block, I am unable to edit the article's Talk page to help reach consensus on the removal in a timely manner. Reaching consensus in this instance is time-sensitive, as Grounhog Day has many more readers and editors at this time than it will have several days from now. (Groundhog Day occurs on Feb. 2 each year.)

Please note that I am an experienced editor. I have a long history of edits. I have never engaging in edit warring. Not even this time.Corker1 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were exactly edit warring. You did not violate 3RR, but that's not relevant. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:10, 6 February 2017 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Corker1&oldid=763930893"