User talk:Almaz89

January 2015[edit]

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.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Three Kingdoms was changed by Almaz89 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.932204 on 2015-01-29T23:40:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're recent edits[edit]

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)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Three Kingdoms. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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)[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).

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)[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.

The block came down to a couple of things:

The other editor appeared to being restoring to a status quo situation, so your edit initiated the change.
The other editor indicated willingness to discuss and was generally remaining civil.
Your edit summaries included personal attacks such as calling another editor a "silly kid".
You showed evidence that if you weren't blocked, you would continue to edit war.

So, I've blocked your account and put the other editor on notice that he was perilously close to getting blocked. Blocks are preventative, not punitive—so if you will declare that you won't return to the edit warring behaviour, I'll unblock your account.

Put simply, I'm willing to unblock you if you agree, for the next 31 hours, to not revert at all on the Three Kingdoms article or any article on a related subject, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Administrators very specifically do NOT take sides in content disputes as administrators. If they do so, they cannot then sanction other editors involved in same. And for what it's worth, Kamek has been trying to discuss things with you ([1]). You've refused to engage him other than to revert him ad nauseum, which is why he got testy with you. In short, the entire issue is on your head alone. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea when, the first edit back from your block, is to return right to removing content from Three Kingdoms that ties out to other Wikipedia articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]