|
Hey Karl.i.biased—thanks for
your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the
video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (
over 250 pieces of Featured content and
over 800
Good articles), but there is plenty more
to do. Come say hello on
our talk page, participate in our
current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. --
ferret (
talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here, WP:RS covers what a reliable source is. What other editors are telling you in this particular instance is that regardless of what Wikileaks may be doing at this point, they have received criticism from reliable secondary sources in the past. That fact doesn't change as time goes by. It can possibly be amended that Wikileaks later did cover Russian topics, but the criticism still existed. Wikilinks itself is a WP:Primary source though and must be used very carefully when discussing itself. -- ferret ( talk) 14:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bennv3771 ( talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 04:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Because it doesn't make any sence so far ----
I wasn't reverted by more than one editor.Yes, you were. Click on this link and check.
And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here?Read WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:BRD, carefully. None of these policies exempt edit-warring due to WP:BURDEN. You edit-war, you get blocked. Simple. Dr. K. 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The rules are clear to me, burden of proof should be upheld. If a user makes an edit and makes the case as to why the edit he made is correct - it's up to other users to disprove the edit if they revert it. Which contradicts with what I did with the article, I am reverting it back now ----
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
WikiLeaks. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Dr.
K. 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:WikiLeaks#Russian coverage. I highly suggest you use it to discuss your changes before re-attempting to add them. I tried to provide some helpful advice above. At this point, you are very close to a block, and a less lenient admin possibly would have already applied one. I think you have some good contributions to offer Wikipedia as an editor, so please, try to heed the warnings you've received and engage in a discussion of the changes you want. -- ferret ( talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi If we remove Al Arabiya we should also remove Masdar. The problem is the both are WP:reliable source despite that there are not neutral sources. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding using Urban Dictionary as a source, please see WP:USERGENERATED as to why it's unreliable. Also, it being used on multiple articles isn't grounds for including it either, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. -- TL22 ( talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baizuo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll actually take two minutes of my times to explain what happened here to you, because you obviously didn't bother to look it up yourself (which btw makes me wonder how you came to posses banning rights here). So the other user decided to remove any mention of urban dictionary in the article because, according to him, there was no mention of the page about this word appearing on urban dictionary in any secondary sources. Apparently, that user didn't bother to read literally the second source that sentence was sourced for, which was the german newspaper I now added as a source for the urban dictionary statement too.
tl;dr The other user was wrong in his reverts, didn't listen to me, and didn't stop until I copied and pasted the same source twice in the article. Check it yourself Karl.i.biased ( talk) 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. This is all important because, basically even though i actually broke the 3 revert rule, If i revert my own edit now it will revert the article to the state it was after toon's edits that were erroneous and based on wrong info. What do i do? Karl.i.biased ( talk) 03:09, 10 December 2017 (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. —
C.Fred (
talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)On 11 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Baizuo. 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:
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.
Additionally, it is not a good idea to continue edit warring after your block has expired. Revert one more time and you're off to
WP:AN3 again. As said previously, please use the talk page.
TL22 (
talk) 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Killiondude (
talk) 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Karl.i.biased ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If you were a good admin and actually checked the article's history, you'd know that I didn't violate the 3-reverts rule. After my first revert, the opposing user reverted my contribution in several parts. Since I don't know how to revert all of his contributions at once I reverted them one by one. Surely that doesn't count as separate reversions, does it? Because he made 3 contributions in the span of 2 minutes, and i reverted two of them (the third one was alright). Karl.i.biased ( talk) 09:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, multiple piecemeal reverts only count as one when there are no intervening edits from other editors. Unfortunately, there was an edit from the person you were reverting in the middle of one of your revert sprees. As Mr. Ranger notes below, it really doesn't matter if this is a marginal 3RR or not; you were again clearly edit warring on the same article you were blocked for edit warring on twice before this month. On a further note, passive-aggressive nonsense like "if you were a good admin" is unlikely to add weight to a persuasive request. Kuru (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2017 (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.
Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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. El_C 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
We do not disagree about WP:RSUW, but your version is not what the article is saying. The article isn't saying khat has exacerbated the famine, it is saying that khat is a major cause of the famine. -- 27.99.54.243 ( talk) 07:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepan Bandera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stateless ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The source is secondary. It is an interview on Dozhd channel, not his video.-- Betakiller ( talk) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've worked a bit on your Wang Zeshan article adding categories. I suggest to add more well-referenced information to the article and some of his publications. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours to the page
Karl.i.biased has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Ukrainian Insurgent Army, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
PM800 (
talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Referring to your update [1] :
Why this addition? Is there an athlete from the team competition I have missed? Or - was there a team event in last summer olympics? To my knowledge the games are open only to athletes who are 16 years old latest at the day of the Olympic closing ceremony? That doesn't leave room for anyone .... TorSch ( talk) 13:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alina Zagitova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are getting dangerously close to 3RR Please take your concerns to talk
TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been doing this a lot longer then you I have asked Admin to review the edits. But I get it you’re Russian so you’re mad that they’re not represented
Ok I don’t mean to come off as a jerk I edited to show bot the OIC flag which it should for 2018 since for 2018 she’s considered a individual no need to be rude to each other TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 07:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)This is your fifth block for edit warring in the last couple months. You're lucky that it isn't for a couple months this time. When are you going to pay attention to "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.? -- NeilN talk to me 07:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your recent edits to Ōkuma, Fukushima. The town still exists, a functioning local government still exists, and official population counts are still maintained. For more information you can read the town's official website: http://www.town.okuma.fukushima.jp/201802/05-2894 purplepumpkins ( talk) 23:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I see you added this book as a source for religion of Cumans in the "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" article. Could you, please, provide exact page number(s) for this statement (conversion to Christianity etc.), so I can return it back to the article? Thanks. Pavlor ( talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate: Talk:Alina Zagitova#Country represented in infobox. I think you should leave OAR in the infobox for now. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Its hard to tell, because you keep reverting me with vague or nonexistent edit summaries, but please be more careful with what you're reverting. If you check the page history, you'd see that I keep on making a variety of changes to the article, which you keep reverting wholesale, where it seems you only object to one or two of my changes.
Please, after 5 blocks for edit warring, it seems like you should be a little more mindful of this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 14:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)I've indefinitely blocked you from this "shitty propaganda-ridden website". I would support an unblock if you agreed to a general WP:1RR restriction. -- NeilN talk to me 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TES 1. Since you had some involvement with the TES 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 90th Academy Award. Since you had some involvement with the 90th Academy Award redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
|
Hey Karl.i.biased—thanks for
your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the
video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (
over 250 pieces of Featured content and
over 800
Good articles), but there is plenty more
to do. Come say hello on
our talk page, participate in our
current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. --
ferret (
talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here, WP:RS covers what a reliable source is. What other editors are telling you in this particular instance is that regardless of what Wikileaks may be doing at this point, they have received criticism from reliable secondary sources in the past. That fact doesn't change as time goes by. It can possibly be amended that Wikileaks later did cover Russian topics, but the criticism still existed. Wikilinks itself is a WP:Primary source though and must be used very carefully when discussing itself. -- ferret ( talk) 14:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bennv3771 ( talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 04:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Because it doesn't make any sence so far ----
I wasn't reverted by more than one editor.Yes, you were. Click on this link and check.
And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here?Read WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:BRD, carefully. None of these policies exempt edit-warring due to WP:BURDEN. You edit-war, you get blocked. Simple. Dr. K. 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The rules are clear to me, burden of proof should be upheld. If a user makes an edit and makes the case as to why the edit he made is correct - it's up to other users to disprove the edit if they revert it. Which contradicts with what I did with the article, I am reverting it back now ----
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
WikiLeaks. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
Dr.
K. 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:WikiLeaks#Russian coverage. I highly suggest you use it to discuss your changes before re-attempting to add them. I tried to provide some helpful advice above. At this point, you are very close to a block, and a less lenient admin possibly would have already applied one. I think you have some good contributions to offer Wikipedia as an editor, so please, try to heed the warnings you've received and engage in a discussion of the changes you want. -- ferret ( talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi If we remove Al Arabiya we should also remove Masdar. The problem is the both are WP:reliable source despite that there are not neutral sources. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding using Urban Dictionary as a source, please see WP:USERGENERATED as to why it's unreliable. Also, it being used on multiple articles isn't grounds for including it either, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. -- TL22 ( talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Baizuo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll actually take two minutes of my times to explain what happened here to you, because you obviously didn't bother to look it up yourself (which btw makes me wonder how you came to posses banning rights here). So the other user decided to remove any mention of urban dictionary in the article because, according to him, there was no mention of the page about this word appearing on urban dictionary in any secondary sources. Apparently, that user didn't bother to read literally the second source that sentence was sourced for, which was the german newspaper I now added as a source for the urban dictionary statement too.
tl;dr The other user was wrong in his reverts, didn't listen to me, and didn't stop until I copied and pasted the same source twice in the article. Check it yourself Karl.i.biased ( talk) 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. This is all important because, basically even though i actually broke the 3 revert rule, If i revert my own edit now it will revert the article to the state it was after toon's edits that were erroneous and based on wrong info. What do i do? Karl.i.biased ( talk) 03:09, 10 December 2017 (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. —
C.Fred (
talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)On 11 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Baizuo. 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:
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.
Additionally, it is not a good idea to continue edit warring after your block has expired. Revert one more time and you're off to
WP:AN3 again. As said previously, please use the talk page.
TL22 (
talk) 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Killiondude (
talk) 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Karl.i.biased ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If you were a good admin and actually checked the article's history, you'd know that I didn't violate the 3-reverts rule. After my first revert, the opposing user reverted my contribution in several parts. Since I don't know how to revert all of his contributions at once I reverted them one by one. Surely that doesn't count as separate reversions, does it? Because he made 3 contributions in the span of 2 minutes, and i reverted two of them (the third one was alright). Karl.i.biased ( talk) 09:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, multiple piecemeal reverts only count as one when there are no intervening edits from other editors. Unfortunately, there was an edit from the person you were reverting in the middle of one of your revert sprees. As Mr. Ranger notes below, it really doesn't matter if this is a marginal 3RR or not; you were again clearly edit warring on the same article you were blocked for edit warring on twice before this month. On a further note, passive-aggressive nonsense like "if you were a good admin" is unlikely to add weight to a persuasive request. Kuru (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2017 (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.
Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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. El_C 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
We do not disagree about WP:RSUW, but your version is not what the article is saying. The article isn't saying khat has exacerbated the famine, it is saying that khat is a major cause of the famine. -- 27.99.54.243 ( talk) 07:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepan Bandera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stateless ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The source is secondary. It is an interview on Dozhd channel, not his video.-- Betakiller ( talk) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've worked a bit on your Wang Zeshan article adding categories. I suggest to add more well-referenced information to the article and some of his publications. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours to the page
Karl.i.biased has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Ukrainian Insurgent Army, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
PM800 (
talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Referring to your update [1] :
Why this addition? Is there an athlete from the team competition I have missed? Or - was there a team event in last summer olympics? To my knowledge the games are open only to athletes who are 16 years old latest at the day of the Olympic closing ceremony? That doesn't leave room for anyone .... TorSch ( talk) 13:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alina Zagitova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are getting dangerously close to 3RR Please take your concerns to talk
TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been doing this a lot longer then you I have asked Admin to review the edits. But I get it you’re Russian so you’re mad that they’re not represented
Ok I don’t mean to come off as a jerk I edited to show bot the OIC flag which it should for 2018 since for 2018 she’s considered a individual no need to be rude to each other TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 07:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)This is your fifth block for edit warring in the last couple months. You're lucky that it isn't for a couple months this time. When are you going to pay attention to "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.? -- NeilN talk to me 07:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your recent edits to Ōkuma, Fukushima. The town still exists, a functioning local government still exists, and official population counts are still maintained. For more information you can read the town's official website: http://www.town.okuma.fukushima.jp/201802/05-2894 purplepumpkins ( talk) 23:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I see you added this book as a source for religion of Cumans in the "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" article. Could you, please, provide exact page number(s) for this statement (conversion to Christianity etc.), so I can return it back to the article? Thanks. Pavlor ( talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate: Talk:Alina Zagitova#Country represented in infobox. I think you should leave OAR in the infobox for now. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Its hard to tell, because you keep reverting me with vague or nonexistent edit summaries, but please be more careful with what you're reverting. If you check the page history, you'd see that I keep on making a variety of changes to the article, which you keep reverting wholesale, where it seems you only object to one or two of my changes.
Please, after 5 blocks for edit warring, it seems like you should be a little more mindful of this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 14:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)I've indefinitely blocked you from this "shitty propaganda-ridden website". I would support an unblock if you agreed to a general WP:1RR restriction. -- NeilN talk to me 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TES 1. Since you had some involvement with the TES 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 90th Academy Award. Since you had some involvement with the 90th Academy Award redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)