Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Three Kingdoms has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
You're recent edits on Three Kingdoms are a bit disruptive. Underbar dk was lenient enough on you to not go to the extremes and edit war with you. You keep claiming that sourced statements are subjective. That makes little sense so reverting them is disruptive. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Three Kingdoms. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:41, 8 February 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. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Almaz89 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
you are blocking me and not blocking the other user who is editing the page based on false and unverified sources??? Are you even fair? He provide nothing but a subjective list from another wiki page to make his assertion, by fairness you must revert his edit to the original one and since you block me you must block him for initiating, subjective edits with no original sources.
Decline reason:
I suggest you have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. In your next unblock request, you should focus on your own conduct. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:50, 9 February 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.
Almaz89 ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)You seem to ignore his infringement which were far larger than mine, 1st: he cited sources that could not be backed up by original sources, while all my edits are accurate and backed up by original sources, 2nd: he said this "take it to the damn talk page!!'!!" - which I did but when I brought it up in his talk page he refused to reply because he know he got nothing to back up his assertions. 3rd: he said "read the 5th source smart ass" and apparently you took no exception to that. 4th: that 5th source, which he did not realized was a source that I provided and I told him categorically that in no way did that source stated an actual number for war related death toll, only an estimation, yet he refuse to answer me on this knowing he have been caught out but still persist to insert his own conclusion, only this time without providing anymore reasoning. 5th: The original edit in no way stated that this was the second bloodiest conflict after WW2, while that may or may not be true, I believe it should be left out altogether and reverted back to actual numbers and figures that could be proven and in no way can depopulation be attributed solely to conflicts, and the other factors which I presented were also in the article. He is the one that initiated this edit based on another Wiki page that have accuracy and consistency issues throughout, not from any original sources. In all fairness you should revert this back to my edit and be blocking him instead.
If you're not willing to address your conduct issue, there's nothing I can do to help you. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above, can you as a good moderator be reasonable and see my side of things?
I will resume my editing tomorrow, and I hope this time you will side with me after seeing all the facts, and his avoidance of discussing this with me on the talk page. If I can't resolve this with you I will bring this up with other mods who is just and fair.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Three Kingdoms has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
You're recent edits on Three Kingdoms are a bit disruptive. Underbar dk was lenient enough on you to not go to the extremes and edit war with you. You keep claiming that sourced statements are subjective. That makes little sense so reverting them is disruptive. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Three Kingdoms. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:41, 8 February 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. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Almaz89 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
you are blocking me and not blocking the other user who is editing the page based on false and unverified sources??? Are you even fair? He provide nothing but a subjective list from another wiki page to make his assertion, by fairness you must revert his edit to the original one and since you block me you must block him for initiating, subjective edits with no original sources.
Decline reason:
I suggest you have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. In your next unblock request, you should focus on your own conduct. PhilKnight ( talk) 10:50, 9 February 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.
Almaz89 ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)You seem to ignore his infringement which were far larger than mine, 1st: he cited sources that could not be backed up by original sources, while all my edits are accurate and backed up by original sources, 2nd: he said this "take it to the damn talk page!!'!!" - which I did but when I brought it up in his talk page he refused to reply because he know he got nothing to back up his assertions. 3rd: he said "read the 5th source smart ass" and apparently you took no exception to that. 4th: that 5th source, which he did not realized was a source that I provided and I told him categorically that in no way did that source stated an actual number for war related death toll, only an estimation, yet he refuse to answer me on this knowing he have been caught out but still persist to insert his own conclusion, only this time without providing anymore reasoning. 5th: The original edit in no way stated that this was the second bloodiest conflict after WW2, while that may or may not be true, I believe it should be left out altogether and reverted back to actual numbers and figures that could be proven and in no way can depopulation be attributed solely to conflicts, and the other factors which I presented were also in the article. He is the one that initiated this edit based on another Wiki page that have accuracy and consistency issues throughout, not from any original sources. In all fairness you should revert this back to my edit and be blocking him instead.
If you're not willing to address your conduct issue, there's nothing I can do to help you. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above, can you as a good moderator be reasonable and see my side of things?
I will resume my editing tomorrow, and I hope this time you will side with me after seeing all the facts, and his avoidance of discussing this with me on the talk page. If I can't resolve this with you I will bring this up with other mods who is just and fair.