User talk:GenuineArt: Difference between revisions

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tipu Sultan— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tipu Sultan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted this same warning on page on Maestro2016, he is just trying to present his own opinion by using an unpopular Marxist book. Geunineart (talk)

Your recent editing history 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. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Religious violence in India. 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 ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I had made only 2 reverts and then I went to report Maestro2016, I was the one to open the discussion as well. I was not edit warring or reverting anymore, while edit warring block requires at least 3 or 4 reverts in 24. Also the "Dec 3" warning that you have referred, concerned Tipu Sultan article, where my edits got consensus. Geunineart (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you knew of our edit-warring policy. Administrators do not only block 3RR violations, as you can discover by reading WP:EW. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:07, 20 December 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had made only 2 reverts and didn't reverted anymore only discussed the edits on talk page by starting the discussion myself.[1] The block is unwarranted because there is only one editor who edit warred 3 other editors[2][3][4] except me. Geunineart (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

<sigh /> You need not have made 3 reverts in 24 hours to receive a block for edit warring. That is a common misconception. Trying to blame others, and saying "why me and not them", are not valid unblock reasons. You must own the behavior and affirm that you will not repeat the behavior. Thanks -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (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.

@Dlohcierekim: In any case I was not the one edit warring, only one user was. That's something you haven't pointed out. Geunineart (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to increase your block time until you read WP:EW? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have but what is next? Since this is my first offense in years, you can propose me how the block can be commuted and what I will need to do. Geunineart (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still believe you weren't edit-warring? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was, shouldn't have reverted 2nd time. Geunineart (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect answer, I will lift the block from your account now. Please note, if you edit-war in the future administrators will be less likely to have any lenience on you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your last edit at Margot Kidder because you removed the single quote (') after 'Baghdad Betty', but not the one before that phrase. I know that '" looks awkward, but there is a point in having "Baghdad Betty" in quotes. Maybe the sentence can be rephrased to avoid the '". - Donald Albury 12:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You emailed me today with

I saw you had reverted on NadirAli (talk · contribs)
What are your actual views about him?
Thanks

This was a bizarre message to get from someone with whom, as far as I can tell, I've never had any kind of content or talkpage overlap. I've reverted NadirAli's edit a few dozen times across a handful of pages -- which one caught your attention? (My most recent NadirAli-related reversion was on his user page but had nothing to do with him: I didn't think it appropriate for an editor to blank its content when putting up a sockpuppeteer tag. But, some other admin swept by and restored it, and I'm semi-retired and wasn't sure what the actual policies or guidelines are and let it go. But those decisions have little to do with my view of NadirAli and more my general sense of how to treat other editors.)

As to my actual views on him: Well, my views are 1) stale since we haven't overlapped much in about a year and I don't follow his edits outside Star Wars articles and 2) abundantly clear to anyone who's been in the orbit of the various article and user talk pages where we did overlap. If you want to discern my out-of-date views of him, go check out edits to The Force and its talkpage (+involved editors' talk pages) a year or two or three ago.

It appears, based on current talkpage warnings, you've engaged in some of the same tendentious editing that NadirAli's done, and on topics that overlap geographically with where he's gotten in trouble. Perhaps you're better acquainted with him than I am. NadirAli's been through ArbCom, enforcement, ANI complaints, is currently out on a block ... there are plenty of current forums to discuss him, and my email inbox doesn't need to be one of them. If you're interested in my or a canvassed collection of perspectives on him, take it to a more public forum -- perhaps a request for comment. That might not be appropriate for dimensions of his editing that have gone to ArbCom, but if he were e.g. to become active again in the Star Wars articlespace, an RFC might be helpful. I dunno; the RFC talk page might offer guidance.

Anyhow, there are plenty of other editors with more helpful and recent actual views about him than me, so I'll go drop a pin on his talkpage -- surely monitored by plenty of folks -- and point them here to offer input. Happy to help. --EEMIV (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]