My Talk page
Hey there! I see both Slovenia and Poland suffer from edits by the same editor claiming that apart from their placement in Central Europe, both are also either Eastern (Poland) or Southeastern (Slovenia) European countries. He seems to have completely altered an array of pages in that regard - placing Austria in Western and Czechia and Slovakia in Central/Eastern Europe. Think anything can be done to prevent him from doing that in the future? Cheers! Øksfjord ( talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, a request for a third opinion has been requested regarding the content dispute you participated in over at Donald Tusk. WordSilent ( talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. WordSilent ( talk) 19:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The Electoral system in the 1989 Polish parliamentary election was a Multiple non-transferable vote system; voters had multiple votes, depending on how many seats were there in their constituency. For example, in a constituency which elects two members, a voter had two votes: one for seat A and one for seat B. Glide08 ( talk) 21:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
As you have disregarded the advice to stop edit warring at the 1989 Polish election article, you have been reported here. Number 5 7 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC){{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)FeldmarschallGneisenau ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello. My 7-day block for an edit war over the formatting of the lede of 1989 Polish parliamentary election expired. I conceded that and accepted my block. As Wikipedia says, once a block expires a user is welcome to make useful contributions. Following that advice, I made the useful contribution of removing unsourced material—there was no dispute about it—following WP:V ("Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"). I already conceded the rightful 7-day block, and apologized. And Wikipedia welcomed me to make useful contributions once the block expired. Removing unsourced material may be done at will as per WP:V and is not ground for dispute with the onus being on the bold editor who inserts things without a source. There are 2 discrete and separate issues at hand here and this infobox one is unrelated to the lede-one which earned me that 7-day block. And I swear on the WP. I am a diligent ever-student of Wikipedia Policy and I'm doing my best not to break it, as any good-faith editor should. Considering my concessions where they are due and my earnest following of Wikipedia Policy, I request to be unblocked on these grounds. FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You seem to be saying that your edit warring was okay because your edits were correct. That is not a defense, as every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct. If you believe that your edits are in keeping with policy, and others are incorrectly removing them, that is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out, no matter how correct you may be. 331dot ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2024 (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.
FeldmarschallGneisenau ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did my due diligence. I cannot do a content dispute when blocked from editing. Quite obviously. I would now first request you dear administrators to not punish me with a weird Catch-22 for some reason, as there is no reason to do so, and release a proper Wikipedian who knows his Wikipedia Policy. Thank you very much! FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have 3 blocks this year for edit warring. You clearly have a problem with edit warring, and you don't seem willing to admit it. For an unblock, you would need to convince us that you will not edit war in future. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:31, 6 June 2024 (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.
My Talk page
Hey there! I see both Slovenia and Poland suffer from edits by the same editor claiming that apart from their placement in Central Europe, both are also either Eastern (Poland) or Southeastern (Slovenia) European countries. He seems to have completely altered an array of pages in that regard - placing Austria in Western and Czechia and Slovakia in Central/Eastern Europe. Think anything can be done to prevent him from doing that in the future? Cheers! Øksfjord ( talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, a request for a third opinion has been requested regarding the content dispute you participated in over at Donald Tusk. WordSilent ( talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. WordSilent ( talk) 19:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The Electoral system in the 1989 Polish parliamentary election was a Multiple non-transferable vote system; voters had multiple votes, depending on how many seats were there in their constituency. For example, in a constituency which elects two members, a voter had two votes: one for seat A and one for seat B. Glide08 ( talk) 21:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
As you have disregarded the advice to stop edit warring at the 1989 Polish election article, you have been reported here. Number 5 7 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC){{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)FeldmarschallGneisenau ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello. My 7-day block for an edit war over the formatting of the lede of 1989 Polish parliamentary election expired. I conceded that and accepted my block. As Wikipedia says, once a block expires a user is welcome to make useful contributions. Following that advice, I made the useful contribution of removing unsourced material—there was no dispute about it—following WP:V ("Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"). I already conceded the rightful 7-day block, and apologized. And Wikipedia welcomed me to make useful contributions once the block expired. Removing unsourced material may be done at will as per WP:V and is not ground for dispute with the onus being on the bold editor who inserts things without a source. There are 2 discrete and separate issues at hand here and this infobox one is unrelated to the lede-one which earned me that 7-day block. And I swear on the WP. I am a diligent ever-student of Wikipedia Policy and I'm doing my best not to break it, as any good-faith editor should. Considering my concessions where they are due and my earnest following of Wikipedia Policy, I request to be unblocked on these grounds. FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You seem to be saying that your edit warring was okay because your edits were correct. That is not a defense, as every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct. If you believe that your edits are in keeping with policy, and others are incorrectly removing them, that is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out, no matter how correct you may be. 331dot ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2024 (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.
FeldmarschallGneisenau ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did my due diligence. I cannot do a content dispute when blocked from editing. Quite obviously. I would now first request you dear administrators to not punish me with a weird Catch-22 for some reason, as there is no reason to do so, and release a proper Wikipedian who knows his Wikipedia Policy. Thank you very much! FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have 3 blocks this year for edit warring. You clearly have a problem with edit warring, and you don't seem willing to admit it. For an unblock, you would need to convince us that you will not edit war in future. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:31, 6 June 2024 (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.