User talk:InNeed95

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Serbia. 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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Greetings Vanjagenije,

I have seen that you blocked me due to a claimed "Edit Warring" at Serbia.

I am confused. I did not break the 3RV Rule, since this was my 3rd Revert. I wouldnt have edited again for the next 24 hours. I would actually look forward to message the other User per Talk Page of the Article.

The other User undid my edit with relativly "bad" explainations. 1

The first one being "Not an improvement", which is just wrong. Correcting grammar mistakes is definitly a improvement.

The second one being "That was a grammar mistake, the correct "kosovo declaered the (kosovo independence)" not kosovan/kosovar". To which I replied with: "Grammatically "Kosovan" is the correct Term to use in this case. Kosovo is the name of the Country/Territory. While things associated with it, are "Kosovan". A such, "Kosovan Independence" is correct. /// The link to the Article does not change if this is what you are concerned about. /// Use the Articles Talk Page if you have another concerns."

I wrote a longer edit summary, to explain it to the other user, that he is mistaken and asked him to contact me thru the Articles Talk Page if he has still something to discuss. <--- This clearly shows, that I am not looking forward a "Edit-War", but I was looking forward to discuss the problem thru the talk page of the Article, which is said, that User should look forward to do, if there is a threat of a Edit-War. 3

As such, I am asking for the block to be lifted.

Additionally, the other User started a Noticeboard discussion about me, for which I will surely need my Edit-Ability. 2

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please reread Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Edit warring blocks, including "Three-revert rule" blocks and others and Wikipedia:Edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (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.

InNeed95, this is the thing. Though you're right about the grammar, just continuing to revert while knowing that your opponent is likely to re-revert, that's a problem. You should have brought it elsewhere, but you didn't. In your last revert, you said: "Use the Articles Talk Page if you have another concerns," yet you, yourself, had used that article talk page zero times. Also, you misunderstand the WP:3RR policy, which reads (in part): "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" (bold in the original). As for the ANI complaint, I have closed it seeing as both yourself and Aquinasthomes1 are currently blocked. El_C 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:

Greetings, El_C,

I understand.

Though as you said, it seems to be a misunderstanding.

The reason I didnt use the Articles Talk Page at first, was that in other Articles, where there was a possibility for a Edit-War, the other User refrained for some days from editing those Articles. I thougt, he may have understood the problems and a discussion was not needed.

As for the Article Serbia, I was looking forward to create a new section on its TP, where I may have requested a 3rd Opinion, if the other User would had edited the Article again. Which at first he didnt (now he did). I thought, that he may refrain from editing the Article as he did for some others. I was wrong though.

In the past I had similar problems, about potential "Edit-Warring", I am trying to avoid Edit-Wars. You may remember me from some weeks ago, where I asked you for the protection of some pages, which were threatend by possible Edit-Warring.

In conclusion. It may seem like, I was in the wrong doing, but it wasnt on porpuse. As u said, I misunderstood some things.

As such, I am requesting a unblock or at least a reduction of the time.

In this case, in my opinion, a "Warning" would be the right option to choose from. If the Admin has concerns that that is not enough, than a block of maybe 24 hours or less would be reasonable.

Best Regards and thanks for taking time with my case,

--InNeed95 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.