User talk:MonsterHunter32

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, MonsterHunter32! Thank you for your contributions. I am Wikih101 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Wikih101 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions

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.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016–present). Feel free to join us and chat with us on the article's talk page :) --Yug (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting‎

Thanks for all your additions to the 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting‎ article and staying on top of the issue!

I know it's a pain, but if you wouldn't mind adding comments to the edit summary, that would help. Otherwise, people watching the page need to look to the history to see what was done. The description of what you're doing doesn't have to be long (e.g., "more about the gun", "about the gun in Alaska", etc.)

Thanks!—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't do it everywhere especially when it's a minor edit or I am merely adding information. I do try to mention summaries when changing or removing and when people might have a problem with my edit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your next edit had a nice, descriptive summary (likely while I was typing this).

You should have a description for each edit. For instance, the confusion that was caused when content was deleted without explanation that resulted in several edits to square it away. If you don't think that's possible, others can catch the news as it comes along. No worries, the major points will get in there.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, which I reverted so we can have a history of the types of edits, you just needed to say "copy edit".—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on Fort Lauderable, but Herald reference judicial watch (the link in question http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/airport-shooter-converted-islam-identified-aashiq-hammad-years-joining-army/ ) and I think it would benefit to have the Primary source (regardless it's position on the subject) as it have key information which is only hinted on Herald and others 5.144.58.225 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As you're not registered, I'll make my statement again here in case your IP address has shifted and if you cannot read it on the talk page of your IP address. Sorry but neither Judicial Watch is needed, nor linking it will make any real difference. The rules however clearly indicate that we cannot use non-neutral and unreliable sources and Judicial Watch doesn't fulfill the portion because it seems exclusively dedicated to just clinging on to one side of the story that too for apparently political ends. We solely go by Wikipedia's rules of neutrality and reliability. Miami Herald however doesn't cling on to any one side of the story and reported from the claims made by some conservative sites as well as stated about the findings of FBI law enforcement aencies. That's why I used it because it fulfilled all the rules. The only reason I added Judicial Watch's name is because its claim received notability and investigators cross-checked whether it was true. And most of all the article and investigation isn't for alleging who did what etc by Judicial Watch or anyone else, we solely consider the details dug up by the police and federal investigators. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Subjects

Hey, you're doing a decent enough job, but I thought I'd give you some friendly advice. You seem to have chosen a pretty difficult string of articles to contribute to, especially as a newer editor. You aren't doing anything wrong, and you seem to be open minded enough to not get stuck on certain points of view, which are good qualities to have.

I am going to suggest to you a could of things:

1. Do your best to reduce your edit counts when making changes. You seem to make an edit, and then several more edits to make minor corrections. This makes it difficult for others to come in and help make changes, as it becomes a bit convoluted. Just take your time and proof read your edit a few times before finalizing your edit. Use the preview button, it is very helpful
2. I was looking through your edit history and noticed you almost exclusively edit on these attacks and terror related incidents. These can be rather difficult subjects to edit on, as there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of people trying to cram information into the articles as fast as possible. Some people have good intentions in mind, others are trying to push an agenda. I would suggest to you, to continue monitoring these types of articles, but do some work on article that are not so contentious. This will help you learn more about Wikipedia policy, while not in such a crazy environment.

Keep up the good work though. If you need anything, just hit me up on my talk page.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it sometimes just gets difficult to figure out how to properly write the article or add the material. Sometimes I overdetail the material. It gets difficult to figure out what to keep and not to keep. Anything that clearly doesn't fulfill the rules should be removed, but if it does fulfill the rules then it gets troublesone especially if the information is long. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Al-Bab

Its actually not really a matter of who is reporting, but what is being reported. I have no problem with taking into account what the Turkish military states. However, Wikipedia has guidelines on notability and giving something undue weight. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for anything related to Operation Euphrates Shield. That there are no reports of advances for longer periods doesn't mean we need to fill in the blank periods with daily reports of deaths. For example, what encyclopedic purpose does it have to report that one soldier died of wounds on a specific date? Also, for example, the Siege of Homs (Syria war article) does not list how many people were killed on each day of the siege, or how many targets were hit on each day (only the most notable or semi-notable news is listed). We have the infobox where we list overall figures of fatalities claimed by each side. You should review WP policy in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page I have already stated the reasons there. Thank you for talking to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal. How about we use all of those individual reports and give a summarized report in once sentence on how many strikes of ISIL targets were reported by the military during the specific month? I will try and restructure the article with this in mind. EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Palmyra offensive

MonsterHunter32, both LightandDark2000, Vorman and me are clearly in consensus over the issue. First, there are no sources confirming that the sporadic clashes that took place recently near the base were part of an organised ISIL offensive. Second, Al-Masdar News has been deemed reliable or at least semi-reliable by Wikipedia editors after several discussions in the past even though its pro-government. And third, even if Wikipedia editors have deemed Masdar unreliable (which they haven't), numerous other sources have been provided citing the current fighting as part of a new SAA-initiated offensive that has been launched. At least two of which are anti-government. These are pro-opposition SOHR [1], Aranews [2] and IB News [3]. If you want, and if this new offensive becomes notable enough, you can create a new article for this new offensive. PS I have left this same message on the article's talk page. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you talking on the article's talk page instead of messaging me? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read my PS sentence? I left the message as well there first, but left one here as well in case you didn't see the one on the article talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I did, but you don't need to post double comments on my talk page as well. Simply notify me that you have left a message there. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Left reply on talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I just provided yet another source [4] reaffirming that what's taking place right now is an SAA-initiated offensive against IS near the airport. EkoGraf (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

1RR

Actually, I made only one revert (of you) in the last 24 hours, this one here [5]. My previous edit here [6] was an edit based on multiple new sources (that I linked for you) which are not pro-government and confirm a totally new offensive has been launched. I myself could have accused you of breaking 1RR first since these two edits/reverts you made [7][8], even though not within 24 hours, took place within 25 hours. 1RR/3RR can be applied if reverts also take place only a short while after 24 hours (57 minutes in this case). However, I did not want to accuse you of breaking 1RR, because instead I wanted to discuss the issue with you and point out that several sources that are not pro-government (two of which are in fact anti-government) are also confirming a totally new offensive has been launched in the area by the SAA. So, I would recommend to refrain from any accusations and point out that you are able to create a totally new article that who's subject would be this totally new offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I had no intention of blaming you for anything, instead you first started blaming me instead of trying to discuss the issue. Even so, I am still open here for discussing the issue with you. And that you are showing indication that you will edit war is pretty obvious considering you reverted a total of four editors (including me) who made any kinds of edits towards closing the offensive. Also, you seem to have misunderstood something, LightanDark2000's edit is from five-six days ago, my edit is from today, they did not take place in a span of 24 hours. And even if they did I am not responsible for what LightanDark2000 decides to edit. With this edit [9] you reverted Mehmedsons, while with this [10] you reverted me. In any case, I would ask that you refrain from any blame game and continue discussing the issue. I am currently writing a reply on the article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How aren't you blaiming me if you are accusing me of violating 1RR? You say revert is not about how much older edit you have reverted back to. Revert is a revert and you have reverted twice. You don't accept you violated 1RR when you made two reverts in 24 hours and 57 minutes, but you do accuse me of making two reverts when there are five days between my and LightandDark2000's edits. You made three reverts in four days of three different editors (including me) who all attempted to write that the ISIL attack on T4 has been repulsed. In any case, I am only interested in discussing the issue instead of blaiming anyone. PS Still writing my reply on the article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

24 hours is the clear limit. Time between your first and second revert is 24 hours and 57 minutes. Per WP policy - reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. You made the revert just outside 24 hours and you made a few more previous reverts canceling edits that the attack on T4 was repelled. You also reverted, beside LightandDark2000 and me, Mehmedsons who also wrote the ISIL attack on T4 was repelled. Plus, Vorman made and edit and edit summary comment re-affirming the offensive had ended. In any case, can we please stop with the edit warring discussion and focus on the issue of improving the article over at the talk page? EkoGraf (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not say you reverted editors who exclusively closed the offensive, I said you reverted editors who attempted to close the offensive or that the ISIL attack had been repelled. It doesn't matter what other changes you made while changing LightandDark2000's version of the page, per WP policy, even a partial revert of someone elses edit is considered a revert. And in regards to his edits in the infobox, you reverted them all. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Gambia president

See changes made to List of current state leaders by assumption of office, as to why I updated the Gambian president & vice president articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs)

Re: Gambia invasion map

I fixed the map. Thanks! Thommy (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I already knew about it. Relax dude, I just talked and did nothing else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump RfC observations

Hello. Like far too many editors, you lack a clue about the definitions of the words "good faith" and "bad faith". Per the dictionary entry, good faith is about honesty and integrity, not about one's judgment or even competence. This failure to understand the meaning causes many editors to use the words incorrectly, causing WP:AGF to lose a lot of its meaning.

Apart from the one exception that I noted and criticized, nobody on that page has said or implied one word about your honesty or integrity, which, as far as I can tell, are just fine. And you have not said anything about anyone else's honesty or integrity. Therefore the words "bad faith" are out of place and misleading there.

If you didn't mean for those two words to be taken so literally, I submit that most Wikipedia editors will take them literally, so it's worth using them sparingly and carefully.

As for "calm down", I have looked again at the RfC and I have no idea what you're talking about. The participants seem quite calm to me.'

This is just one editor's view, take it to heart or reject it, as always. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battle of Mosul (2016–17) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the content of the Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). Mr.User200 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing 2

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the content of Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). Mr.User200 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: First of all, don't revert something someone removed from their talk page, that's bad form. Second, You are issuing warning templates to a user who is following Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:SELFPUBLISH, which he also indicated to you when he reverted your previous edit. You then gave no justification for reverting his edit, in which he gave you plenty of justification.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Counter attacks (Raqqa offensive)

Stop deleting ISIL counter-attacks in the Raqqa offensive (2016–present) article, just because you think they are not noteworthy - any defensive action of ISIL is notable, and if a military action isn't noteworthy because they do not succeed, then you can delete whole wars here on wikipedia. Furthermore, "just because a website mentioned it" does not mean it is not noteworthy; literally 70% or so of the whole article are single mentions of villages and units from one website. "Especially seeing it is near the same areas" - Most battles consist of attacks and counter-attacks in the same area, does that make them any less notable? "and this article isn't about which areas a side wants." - Erh, the whole offensive is about the SDF wanting to capture territory from ISIL around Raqqa, so attempts by ISIL to retake areas are noteworthy. Applodion (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the tireless work creating, expanding and updating articles on current affairs. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My first barnstar. Thanks. I'll try to keep articles up-to-date in future as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saudi Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Take a look! I hope you don't have any bad feelings with me. We can work things out and let me know if you need any other help!--ZiaLater (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater Too late. Your actions are still questionable and this isn't the first time. Unless you seriously reform there is nothing for anyone to say. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Questionable? Please explain.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater You are still creating unnecessary controversy over the article instead of letting it go and haven't made much of a balanced article. Consensus and RfC should have been taken long ago. Regardless I have made my position about the title clear. There is nothing further needed to explain. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to create controversy, that is why I am discussing things with you. Talking through edits is not the best way to solve problems. Also, since there was an attempt to reach consensus but the proposals were spread over sections, that is why a RfC was made. I hope you don't see me as wanting to keep it as the "coup" title, like I said on the noticeboard, I proposed the "constitutional crisis" option for a title before you were even involved in the article. The only reason I made the moves of the articles was so that a discussion could be help and the redirects wouldn't be confusing. However, I didn't notice that it removed the authors in the article history, so I messed up there. If anything, be mad at me for that mistake since I am not POV. If you've been in the Venezuelan part of Wikipedia long enough you know that the government and the opposition are more alike than anyone likes to mention. That's exactly why I don't have an opinion on who says what, more so to my edits bringing details of the situation occurring in Venezuela. Not trying to turn your talk page into a soapbox but just discussing my view and hope that you can respect it as I respect yours.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater You are again pretending like you are innocent. In your comment was of an article 1992 Peruvian constitutional crisis which is also about a self-coup. Calling this as and comparing it to a self-coup is complete POV when the situation isn't clear. Add to that you clearly don't object to non-neutral statements and edits and only presented one side of the argument. Also you never opposed the "self-coup" title. Your intent doesn't seem right to me. And this is your own OR, POV and biased statement: A possible dialogue is in the works, but knowing how the Venezuelan government is with dialogue, the opposition may not even show up to the table. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

1: I was suggesting a title of "constitutional crisis" instead of "coup". Assuming that I didn't oppose the title makes it seem like you are looking for a fight, but I did oppose the title (why else would I make a suggestion). 2: What did I imply in what I said? What I meant is that the government usually draws out a lengthy dialogue to buy time and the opposition wants it under their terms and immediately. In my eyes, that's not valuable dialogue from either side. You assume that my vague actions are POV, yet you don't assume good faith, lecturing me on policies and such when you fail to recognize WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". So, please don't judge me and assume good faith the way I do with you.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No here's the truth:

1. You were suggesting an article about a self-coupin Peru. This seems completely deliberate as an attempt to classify Venezuelan matter as a "self-coup". Although you might be forced to change the title, the body of the article is another thing.

2. "What I meant is that the government usually draws out a lengthy dialogue to buy time and the opposition wants it under their terms and immediately. In my eyes, that's not valuable dialogue from either side." You are basing your conclusion kn an uncertainity even by your comment. Your statement is a complete admission of POV and non-objectivity. Who are you to judge what or what doesn't the government do or how long will it take? You seem to have anti-government bias. And your edit history seems to prove that enough. You are always adding the government deliberately in a negative manner and use sources to bypass direct scrutiny. However this won't work. Please note that this website is not meant for any one POV nor criticize or portray someone as guilty. We should be as neutral as possible and present case of all sides. We are not "truth-seekers". I am not here for any side, solely for a proper article where all sides are presented in a fair manner. You however don't seem to care and your comment seems to indicate that well enough.

You talk to me about WP:AGF, but what I am talking about is you going against the rules and telling you to improve. When you do and it is pointed out, that doesn't mean it is against good faith. Wikipedia policies and guidelines and rules shouldn't be violated as you have done. I have given you a chance for showing improvement. It is not that I distrust you, but you must show improvement and follow the rules. If you don't then everyhthing is useless and you should leave this website. Everyone is welcome to contribute, provided they go by the rules and be cooperative and to actually contribute instead of doing what they want. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your experience on Wikipedia, especially in Venezuelan articles, but there are many single-purpose or hired users that attempt to edit pages to push a POV. Seeing that you were new and making the edits without discussion, I assumed you were one of those users and I apologize for that. You brought up Tellectualin (previously Riothero) on the ANI, they were in charge of a pro-Chávez blog and would attempt to censor much of the information developing in Venezuela (you can see in "Potential Conflict of interest"). Though he made some good points on occasion, most edits were censorship. Other users that I have sparred with were not as blatant as Riothero, and eventually we grew to work together. That is why there were many reverts, I was one of the only users maintaining and updating Venezuelan articles at the time so I had to make those contentious edits (yes, I did violate the 3RR a couple times, but not intentionally, sometimes the edits happen so fast that you can't keep track). Recently, I've had to deal with paid users from the Philippines manipulating articles to defend a company that has a strong presence there. So again, I apologize for not assuming good faith as well.

If you want to help with Venezuelan articles, it would be a great help. Sometimes what I may put may seem POV and I need a second pair of eyes, especially since I don't try to make negative paintings since the whole situation in Venezuela is negative itself (see the sources). Also, try not to be scold me, hopefully we're both adults and don't need to be demeaning to each other (plus your whole "breaking the rules" comments had me reminisce of childhood tattletales haha). I know the rules of Wikipedia so you don't have to remind me, it just seems that we both made some mistakes when moving those articles :) Finally, when you speak of me, you can regard to me as a "she" (just please don't call me a "facsist", "mccarthyist", etc., don't want to go back to those dark times). Anyways, it seems like we mostly got it figured out. I'd recommend making a user page too so you make a more permanent place on Wikipedia since you seem pretty involved, it doesn't hurt to have a little fun.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater How do you assume that I am a hired or POV pusher? You seem to be making it up and even if you do think so it is assuming bad faith without any evidence. You never said such a thing when I ws editing. Where have I made any non-neutral edit or comment? There is nothing in my edits or comments to assume so? Is it my simple chnaging of the title as it didn't look neutral or my opposition to non-neutral comments or edits? That isn't my fault. I didn't assume anything about you. Only judged you based on your history of negative editing. But I never judged as you some hired or completely biased POV pusher out to only attack someone, only what your edits seem to be, complete unbalanced and POV negative portrayal which aren't showing all sides, isn't totally neutral and doesn't include all viewpoints in a fair manner. Even when we think something might seem negative, we sometimes try to show as what others say.

Why should I make a user article? You could check my contributions and it's not like I only joined a few days ago. I never made any biased edits or any comments, I plainly said the problem was with balance the viewpoint of the article and manu users had concern with title's neutrality. There is no rationality in your claims.

As for User:Riothero or User:Tellectualin, even if he is someone from a website called Riothero.com, that doesn't disallow him to edit as long as he stays within the rules. He hasn't been blocked for it. But this isn't about him. This seems like a selective witch-hunt. And seeing as you have been engaged in a long edit war with him before that conflict of interest, your claims about him seems to stem from this. Bobrayner too has been involved in conflict.

Your blatant admission of breaking 3RR and callously ignoring breaking it shows callous nature towards rules. There is no such thing that you cannot keep track, it is very easy. Everyone knows the timing and regardless even if somehiw you thought the 24 hour limit was over, you still should avoid reverting again and again. You should cool off for a while as you seem to not let go of my complain. Had it just been restricted to your welcome to help editing, I didn't mean any harm, then I would think you have let it go. But your insistence on defending yourself shows otherwise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not defending myself, I am comfortable with my edits and have nothing to hide, I'm just discussing things with you since you seem new. With Venezuelan articles you will get the occasional new users that come from nowhere that appears to have dubious motives with few edits. This wasn't you in this case, however, but it raised alarms when you arbitrarily moved the article when further discussion was needed (as you saw, it happened pretty quickly). Like Mandruss said, "you lack a clue about the definitions of the words 'good faith' and 'bad faith'" when he tried to explain to you to just relax when it comes to other users. In our case, I needed to relax too. I can admit my own failures and acknowledge some of your shortcomings as well (not trying to be mean). Instead of being so snappy, saying things like "you're breaking the rules", "editors seem clearly politically motivated" [1] and "punish ... Zialater", try to talk with them instead of setting your mind on something. Discussion is an integral part of Wikipedia, and simply making declarations through edits can seem brash. WP:EW even states that "If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out", so in our case discussion would have been better instead of going nuclear and attempting to get admins involved (which they didn't, though one contacted me and we had a constructive conversation). And when you accuse others of being in conflict and bring User:bobrayner into this conversation, you have to recognize that it takes two to edit war, you're just as responsible as my POV pushing self :) I can just as easily say that you partake in conflict too, but it's something you just have to learn through editing. Some learn the hard way like I did, but anyways...

I'm not helping myself, I'm trying to help you because I've been in the same place before. Since I saw that you have been advised before by Mandruss about your interactions with users and nothing appeared to change, I'm taking the time to talk to you. Just remember, it takes two, for there to be a conflict (unless you have internal conflict, I can't help you there). So, just remember to keep calm and discuss like we're doing instead of making brazen remarks and accusations. No one likes those and can only add more fuel to the conflict.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: That weird edit was me copying sections :)--ZiaLater (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater You are not defending yourself yet you don't want to admit what you did was a clear deliberate violation which you know wasn't correct and are are telling me various reason comtinuously for it. You are making accusations based on some old comment by another user without investigation of what it was about. The commment "you lack a clue about the definitions of the words 'good faith' and 'bad faith'", you should have investigated the issue. His comment was in response to my comment at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 46#RfC: How to mention Donald's children in the infobox. My comment was made after Twistbookspacetibe stated I might be trying to game the system. In response I stated "Hey people, it's ok if you do not agree with the proposal. But stop throwing bad faith allegations at me. I didn't even edit the article once. I only came here to talk." My comment was only asking for calming down. However Mandruss mistook it as me blamimg everyone of assuming bad faith. I never blamed everyone, nor did I want to blame Twiybookspacetube. I should have been more specific insteas of using "people", which might have caused the confusion. There was no malice intended or stated in my comment. There was a whole argument for it and you can read it at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_46#Threaded discussion.

And what is the smiley face for? You are clearly mocking. I don't say I might not have edit warred nor I am defending myself. Shouldn't have done that nor I'll make excuses for it even though I didn't intend to cross the 3RR on one article. It was wrong. But I am not saying I made multiple reverts unintentionally. And you have been edit-warring with others for long and have done so many times, including on the same article for months. I asked you to desist from creating an unnecessary edit-war. As there wasn't a 3RR breach and not a full-blown article war, I was okay with a simple lock of the article instead of your block which I believe should have been done. I am not trying to find what I can blame you for without checking fully. But your long-term behavior is indeed worrying. I didn't blame you for my mistakes.

You are here arguing instead of just focusing on contribution. This is a worrying factor. Also I saw your edit, it made a space. A simple copying doesn't require editing and saving a material. Either you committed multiple mistakes - spaced sections and then saved without knowing at all or you are bringing it up to publishing standards. I don't think it can be the first one. Regardless, I was only informing you of the rule as a precaution and it seemed unnecessary. Neither of us meant any malice so no harm done. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean when I say you need to relax. What I did was hit "Edit source" on the section and hit "Save changes" so I could copy the url of the section for a link, but an unintentional space was placed. There's no need to start throwing out "rules" and assuming more bad faith when an accidental edit of a single character was made. I'm smiling because your usage of "breaking the rules" is 0-100. I'm not trying to mock you, but at least find a little bit of humor in it. For instance, if a murderer was chasing you and you were trapped between them and some turf that had a sign saying "No walking on grass" placed on it, would you follow that rule? I'm not justifying breaking rules, it's just your brashness is humorous. I'm not arguing, like I said, I'm just trying to help and help make future contributions go more smoothly. I'm glad that there was "no harm done". So relax dude, we're all in this together. :)--ZiaLater (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater When did I say anything bad or offensive or assuming bad faith? I thanked you for the correction but as kt was unneeded, I informed you of the rules as a precaution here. Why will you copy the source of an edit page and why will you hit "Edit source" which will make copying unnecessary longer, I don't assume you were pasting your comment, because the edit of yours clearly shows you edited this section and not the whole article. No "accidental edit" for sure, but you are arguing a lot over it even though you state you were only copying. As for smiley face, do you think that I don't notice how is it after comments where you try to prove me wrong and portray my shortcomings. Is anyone murdering you or out to do that on Wikipedia? What kind of statement and comparison are you making? And these statements like "brashness is humorous" is a deliberate comment meant at demeaning me. And another comment "I'm not trying to mock you, but at least find a little bit of humor in it" is clearly stating that you are doing the same thing which you are trying to appear to deny about. You are not here to help anyone, nor you are helping yourselves. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Paraguayan protest

Hi Could you add information for the page 2017 Paraguay protests ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014 I don't have time. Can't you do it? I'll see if I can add something but if turns out to take a long time to find and add material, then I might not add much. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

You seem to be confused about what you're reading, [11], the reports are not contradictory. Kazakhstan is in Central Asia, and there was only one attacker. Also we always state attacker not suspect as one can't place a criminal charge against a dead person. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:Juliancolton has blocked me for edit-warring. However other users like Coffee were edit-warring as well. But I didn't breach the 3RR rule. I reverted only thrice: here, here and here. I had no intention to breach it or edit-war. If my other edits constitute as breach, I'm sorry since I didn't think they could. I apologize. I won't edit-war and revert again I promise. Please give me just one chance to prove myself. I request you. I am discussing the situation currently at the talk page and will continue doing so until a settlememt is reached and this will impede me. Please I request you. I'm sorry for edit-warring.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Juliancolton]] has blocked me for edit-warring. However other users like Coffee were edit-warring as well. But I didn't breach the 3RR rule. I reverted only thrice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773719714&oldid=773719538 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773725914&oldid=773725706 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773726185&oldid=773726122 here]. I had no intention to breach it or edit-war. If my other edits constitute as breach, I'm sorry since I didn't think they could. I apologize. I won't edit-war and revert again I promise. Please give me just one chance to prove myself. I request you. I am discussing the situation currently at the talk page and will continue doing so until a settlememt is reached and this will impede me. Please I request you. I'm sorry for edit-warring. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Juliancolton]] has blocked me for edit-warring. However other users like Coffee were edit-warring as well. But I didn't breach the 3RR rule. I reverted only thrice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773719714&oldid=773719538 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773725914&oldid=773725706 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773726185&oldid=773726122 here]. I had no intention to breach it or edit-war. If my other edits constitute as breach, I'm sorry since I didn't think they could. I apologize. I won't edit-war and revert again I promise. Please give me just one chance to prove myself. I request you. I am discussing the situation currently at the talk page and will continue doing so until a settlememt is reached and this will impede me. Please I request you. I'm sorry for edit-warring. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Juliancolton]] has blocked me for edit-warring. However other users like Coffee were edit-warring as well. But I didn't breach the 3RR rule. I reverted only thrice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773719714&oldid=773719538 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773725914&oldid=773725706 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Saint_Petersburg_Metro_bombing&diff=773726185&oldid=773726122 here]. I had no intention to breach it or edit-war. If my other edits constitute as breach, I'm sorry since I didn't think they could. I apologize. I won't edit-war and revert again I promise. Please give me just one chance to prove myself. I request you. I am discussing the situation currently at the talk page and will continue doing so until a settlememt is reached and this will impede me. Please I request you. I'm sorry for edit-warring. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

User:Juliancolton Why are you just blocking me? User:Coffee has far exceed 3RR. He's reverted again. Just look at his recent edits. Please be fair and block him as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I count at least five or six reverts (where a "revert" includes any reinstatement of a previous change, even if not in total or done without the use of the "undo" button). In your unblock request rationale, you claim "I reverted only twice" and then proceed to list three diffs. I suggest taking another close look at your contributions from tonight – perhaps in the heat of the disagreement, you lost track of your revert count. Regardless, your behavior clearly constitutes disruptive edit warring on a high-visibility page, and the specific number of reverts is unimportant. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Juliancolton Sorry, I earlier thought it was two, later found it was three. But I forgot to change my comment. However I was editing others as I have already stated, not undoing. I didn't mean them as revert and didn't realize they will be. I will not do it again I promise. I am already talking at the article's talk page and will refrain from further controversial edits and edits that will still count as revert. I didn't mean them. I am really sorry. I request you please unblock me so I can continue contributing and talking the subject through. I realize it was my mistake. I don't intend to edit-war and won't from now on. I won't do it again. Please forgive me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

In reading through earlier discussions on your talk page, it seems you have a history of edit warring on current-event articles, so I don't believe this was the result of a momentary lapse in judgement. Another admin may see fit to unblock you, but it won't be me, unfortunately. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Juliancolton I didn't breach the 3RR rule in the past EVER. And my reverts didn't happen again and again day after day after day. These reverts were brief. Also many of the accusations are motivated because I contradicted others. You can see the long arguments by others and unnecessary mud-slinging of disruptive edits. It is irresponsible to decide edit-warring based on discussions and especially to judge someone based on them. Why don't you believe me? You are allowing others to go scot-free but are keeping a block on me based on some discussions without properly checking for evidence of 3RR breach or edit-warring. You are assuming bad faith on my part by not accepting my apology and thinking I will edit-war again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)