User talk:Master106/Archive 2

June 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors oppose your edit. That means it's time to start a talk page discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand your mistake. You thought I was adding information about the title and the guy was removing it right? In reality, the guy was trying to remove the title entirely when it was already decided to keep it on the page and I was just trying to prevent him from doing so. If he edited one more time, I would have reported him. My guess is your reason for your mistake was that I made an edit previously trying to do that and you reverted it. Once you did, I understood and agreed and did not edit that in again afterwards.

If you look back in the history of the page you will see that the guy's edit was the first edit in the string. He removed the title and added new information. I reverted it and then checked to see if the new info was valid and confirmed it was so, I added the new information back. Then he reverted my edits. Then I reverted it back to fix the page. Then here we are. Master106 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sending this message to the guy who is the one who is actually the one edit warring. Master106 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was trying to remove something that was already on the page. I was just stopping his vandalism. Master106 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 9 June 2023 (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).

Master106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You blocked the wrong person. I was fixing a page that someone else was vandalizing. I wasn't edit warring, he was. I was just fixing vandalism to the page. @Ponyo: Master106 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can edit to remove vandalism- the trouble here is that the edits you were removing were not vandalism. "Vandalism" has a specific meaning here, it is an effort to deface an article. Merely removing content from an article, especially if a reason is provided, is not vandalism. Use this time to learn how to better handle when you edits are challenged, and what you can properly do about it. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2023 (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.

If you believe that 1) the edits you were reverting were vandalism and 2) you were not edit warring, then you haven't been reading the messages left for you, including the previous edit warring warnings that you blanked from your page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: The guy tried to remove a title from the page when there has already been a consensus to keep it on the article's talk page. I was just preventing him from doing so, but he turned it into an edit war. Master106 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred against multiple editors in a content dispute and in doing so violating WP:3RR, a policy you are well aware of given you've been warned on several occasions. Given your history, if you are not bale to resolves disputes without smashing revert, you will likely find yourself in this situation again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: He was the one who violated the Three Revert Rule. He violated it with his revert accusing me of what he was doing. Master106 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the link where an editor other than you reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&oldid=1147693645

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&oldid=1159199881

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&oldid=1159297171

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&oldid=1159362459 Master106 (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is from April and the 2nd link isn't a revert, it's just an edit. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these edits are removing the same exact information. Plus, the rule states "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." So the edit from April counts. Master106 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an edit from April 1 counts as "just outside the 24-hour period" on June 9, then WP:CIR is an issue.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo If it is also against the rules to revert an article back to where it should be multiple times from vandalism. Then I am sorry, I was not aware. I thought the rule only applied to the people who did the vandalism. I will not do this again. Master106 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I guess you are right. But I see the edits he made as harmful and once this block is over, I'm going to make a talk discussion about this. For one, his edits removes a direct link from the main page to the page of the title. It also removes information about an official product to the main franchise. It is also inaccurate since it implies that there was nothing that happened between it's previous title and the next title releasing later this year. It may not be considered vandalism, but I consider his edits as harmful to the article. Master106 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing on talk pages, as you've been asked to do multiple times now, will help prevent misunderstandings like this on your part. That, and learning the definition of vandalism in the first place. When your block expires, please start a discussion on the article talk page if you still want to pursue this, and it'll be discussed there, as is normal process. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ajeeb Prani is the edit warrer. I'm in the middle of reporting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master106 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response genuinely amazes me. I see no hope here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page List_of_Pokémon_anime_characters, I followed the 3 revert rule. Ajeeb Prani violated the rule and did 4 reverts. Master106 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned the three-revert rule anywhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are blocking me for an edit war Ajeeb Prani caused. I already discussed at length in the articles talk page about the edits. I see no reason for me to be blocked. Master106 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You came here and blocked a person that followed the 3 revert rule after a long talk discussion, for someone who broke the rule.

Take a look at this:

Here is the history page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&action=history

Here is the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters

Here are the reverts Ajeeb Prani made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1173738440

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1173746891

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1173755365

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1173756150 Master106 (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned the three-revert rule anywhere. The block is about your behavior, not others'. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to comment here for clarification since I was looking into it more after I commented on the AIV report. You do not need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Also, per WP:3RR: The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. However, in this case you did violate 3RR. The first edit you made at 01:11 is a revert of this August 13 edit. Your second revert was at 04:44, third at 05:50, and fourth at 06:38. That's 4 reverts that are well within 24 hours of each other. - Aoidh (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was not a revert. Master106 (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prevent further edits to this talk page for 24 hours. Take them to read what has already been written in response to your messages, the policy against edit warring and at least some sections (WP:NOTTHEM, for example) of the guide for appealing blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree After reviewing what is considered a revert, I have come to find that my first edit was actually a revert due to it being a partial revert. I was not aware that it was considered a revert when I made the edits. It never even crossed my mind that it was a revert. A staff member from my previous block said that a partial revert was just an edit, so I thought the first edit did not count as a revert. I am very sorry for not being careful enough. I really meant to follow the rules. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

Also, may you please take a look at my latest source from Famitsu to confirm if it is reliable in the "List of Pokémon anime characters" talk page? The staff member overseeing the discussion quit looking over the discussion. I am confident that it is reliable because according to WikiProject Video Games, it is shown to be a reliable source and it is in the green too. It also meets all the criteria presented by that staff member. Thank you. Master106 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making two reverts can still be edit warring. You are correct: These have been four reverts. To me personally, it doesn't matter much. I see an edit war and I prevent it from continuing; I don't count reverts. You probably shouldn't either; it has only led to issues.

Regarding the source, the reliable sources noticeboard may help. I don't judge. There is no "staff" in the way you may expect it to be, no content judgement authority. Administrators prevent disruptive behavior; they do not decide which content is correct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I think you should not have unblocked them unless they say that they won't move Chloe again in Protagonist section as they failed to provide any reliable source and edit-warred. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeeb Prani, if further edit warring occurs, please simply let me know on my talk page and I'll re-block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeeb Prani That is a grave misjudgment. My initial edit contained a source I considered very reliable. Master106 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Master106 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand now that I messed up, accidentally caused an edit war, and was not careful enough to not break the rules. I am very sorry. I will continue on the article's talk page. I think I'll be able to convince the other editor hopefully.Master106 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

To allow you to continue on the article's talk page, I'll change the block settings. You still won't be able to edit articles directly for a week, but you can already discuss changes with others on talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. Although I would like to edit other articles, and I will not continue the reverts. I think that decision makes sense.Master106 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from ToBeFree[edit]

Hello, Master106. You have new messages at ToBeFree's talk page.
Message added 07:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]