User talk:Numidea
January 2024[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of kings of Numidia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Numidia 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. Skitash (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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:Numidea reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Numidea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have taken information from the wikipedia page and turned it into a readable table that allows for ease of navigation into the article, the user Mr.Bitton for no reason went ahead and undid all the work, I was the first to think rationally and went to the talk chat as I am supposed to in Talk:Numidia article in "Removed table of numidian kings" section and asked why he did what he did, he did not provide a valid reason and refused to cooperate to try to reach a concensus together on how to make a decent table according to what he prefers to improve the page, he doesn't want ANYTHING added at all!. he said "Also, even if sourced, that table is not an improvement" so he wants to decided what should be added to a page or removed, then he called his friend user @Skitash which has nothing to do with what is happening to defend him in the same way they worked together in other pages like in the algeria article in which they had several edit wars, I would like to request to be unblocked because my intentions were to improve wikipedia articles without damaging the articles themselves, I refrained from deleting any information in wikipedia pages and I strive to add instead, please take my words into consideration [[User:{{unblock}} Numidea (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC):Numidea|Numidea]] (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
An unblock request needs to talk about your actions and what you will do to persuade us that the block is no longer necessary. Complaining about other users in an unblock request pretty much never works. See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, "my edits were right, so the block is unjustified" is a stereotypical example of a bad unblock request. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 17 January 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.
... and calling the reviewing admin a "retard" is an excellent way to get your unblock request declined AND your talk page access disabled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- The user double-downed after Ritchie's comment, now attacking them as well as me. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Numidea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
you retard my unblock reason is not "my edits were right, so the block is unjustified", its the last few sentences, the first few sentences are for you to read the talk page of numidia page and do reevaluate your decision in blocking me indefinetly for trying to solve an issue according to wikipedia's terms
Decline reason:
Just one request at a time, please. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 17 January 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.
Numidea (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Numidea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I call retard illeterate admins like @Bbb23 who blocks users without investigating further, and @Ritchie333 for not being able to read one paragraph, cry about it
Decline reason:
Unblock requests with personal attacks are not considered. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 17 January 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.