User talk:DongFen

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DongFen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rojava. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully; it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Does that apply to a single article in 24 hours or all articles? Thanks. DongFen (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR applies to all SCW-related articles, broadly construed. 3RR applies to all other articles. However, please note that 1RR and 3RR are guidelines, and if there is a pattern of edit warring, a user can be blocked even if they didn't cross the line. As such, we recommend that all users attempt to go through dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Sorry to bother again but what I meant was does 1RR mean I can't revert any article under Syrian Civil War under 24 hours twice, or just can't revert a single article twice under 24hrs. DongFen (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a bother, I don't mind questions asked in good faith. 1RR and 3RR apply to single articles. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I opened a talk page discussion at Rojava. No one opposed the revert I suggested. So I've made 1 revert. Was reverted by a user. And I added ((dubious)) tag with a link to talk page discussion to the material in the hope that user who restored comes to talk page. The admin than blocked me for this, saying I was edit warring and not discussing. The admin also blocked me a few hours ago before this telling me I violated 1RR but unblocked 5 mins after saying he made a mistake. DongFen (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have granted your unblock on the grounds that it was not technically a revert. That said, in my opinion, you're treading too close to the line and not giving discussion enough chance. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're investigating enough before giving users blocks and warnings. I've in fact opened a discussion on the topic, and I was reverted by a user who didn't participate in the discussion. Then added dubious tag that links to the talk page to get the user to discuss. This is the right discuss procedure. DongFen (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This is a controversial article, removing AfD templates is disruptive. Propose name changes on the talk page of the article. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Citizenship Amendment Act protests; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.
reverted undiscussed controversial move, please propose name changes on the talk page. see wP:RM for more DBig Xrayᗙ 13:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]