User talk:BRG~itwiki

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the infos, but I am a Wikipedia veteran. BRG~itwiki (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghouta chemical attack. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Ghouta chemical attack. 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 appeal this block 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.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I don't care if I'm blocked or not, after 7 and a half years[1] I'm done with this mess and this is the good time to quit editing for a den of care-takers of pet theories. I simply was reading those pages (Ghouta attack, Khan al Assal attack, UN investigation) back and forth when suddenly the Motivation section that I was sure, I read 5 minutes before was completely missing. Looking at the history, I saw a big rollback, and since this is usually not the correct behaviour and a "motivation" section is customary in articles about crimes, I rolled it back and explained why in the talk page. Instead of discussing it, I was flooded by accusations and insults: no good faith assumptions, no willingness to elaborate the reasons behind it (like "why motivations shouldn't be important in this case"), just plain insults and accusations, like that my account was an alt-account, a sockpuppet, a throw-away account, even when my account was older than many of theirs, with hundreds of edits in its history. I even pointed that out to one of the implicated account, as everybody can see in this very talk page, but that did not prevent the repeated war-mongering bad postings of the others. Since it was told me that there was a mediation I bothered to read through the mediation and through the history of the article, so I noticed that very section was there since the beginning and that it has been there until June, when an edit war for its removal started: an edit war that prompted the subsequent mediation. I explained, then in the talk page, that if that section has been there for two years, that if it is common for other similar articles (I even gave examples) having it, that if it was there before the edit war, that if it got through a vote for removal, perhaps there were enough merits to leave it there until the end of the mediation. I got the same rabid answers, not even touching the reasons of the its removal as a block, not even discussing if it was a problem of contents or what, just "you have 27 edits since last May, every opinion of yours is automagically invalid". It's not my fault if the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever decided to unify their account system in April[2] and so in the English section of Wikipedia I have edits that go back only to May. I thought it was common knowledge, I did not even bothered to change my bot generated nickname (the ~itwiki part was generated by a bot because there was already a BRG account in some other Wiki project), so it should have been clear that I was not a sockpuppet, throwaway etc. But none cared. And so do I, now. Thanks, it wasn't a pleasure. BRG~itwiki (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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=I don't care if I'm blocked or not, after 7 and a half years[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Contributi/BRG~itwiki&dir=prev&target=BRG~itwiki] I'm done with this mess and this is the good time to quit editing for a den of care-takers of pet theories. I simply was reading those pages (Ghouta attack, Khan al Assal attack, UN investigation) back and forth when suddenly the Motivation section that I was sure, I read 5 minutes before was completely missing. Looking at the history, I saw a big rollback, and since this is usually not the correct behaviour and a "motivation" section is customary in articles about crimes, I rolled it back and explained why in the talk page. Instead of discussing it, I was flooded by accusations and insults: no good faith assumptions, no willingness to elaborate the reasons behind it (like "why motivations shouldn't be important in this case"), just plain insults and accusations, like that my account was an alt-account, a sockpuppet, a throw-away account, even when my account was older than many of theirs, with hundreds of edits in its history. I even pointed that out to one of the implicated account, as everybody can see in this very talk page, but that did not prevent the repeated war-mongering bad postings of the others. Since it was told me that there was a mediation I bothered to read through the mediation and through the history of the article, so I noticed that very section was there since the beginning and that it has been there until June, when an edit war for its removal started: an edit war that prompted the subsequent mediation. I explained, then in the talk page, that if that section has been there for two years, that if it is common for other similar articles (I even gave examples) having it, that if it was there before the edit war, that if it got through a vote for removal, perhaps there were enough merits to leave it there until the end of the mediation. I got the same rabid answers, not even touching the reasons of the its removal as a block, not even discussing if it was a problem of contents or what, just "you have 27 edits since last May, every opinion of yours is automagically invalid". It's not my fault if the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever decided to unify their account system in April[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#History] and so in the English section of Wikipedia I have edits that go back only to May. I thought it was common knowledge, I did not even bothered to change my bot generated nickname (the ~itwiki part was generated by a bot because there was already a BRG account in some other Wiki project), so it should have been clear that I was not a sockpuppet, throwaway etc. But none cared. And so do I, now. Thanks, it wasn't a pleasure. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki#top|talk]]) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |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=I don't care if I'm blocked or not, after 7 and a half years[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Contributi/BRG~itwiki&dir=prev&target=BRG~itwiki] I'm done with this mess and this is the good time to quit editing for a den of care-takers of pet theories. I simply was reading those pages (Ghouta attack, Khan al Assal attack, UN investigation) back and forth when suddenly the Motivation section that I was sure, I read 5 minutes before was completely missing. Looking at the history, I saw a big rollback, and since this is usually not the correct behaviour and a "motivation" section is customary in articles about crimes, I rolled it back and explained why in the talk page. Instead of discussing it, I was flooded by accusations and insults: no good faith assumptions, no willingness to elaborate the reasons behind it (like "why motivations shouldn't be important in this case"), just plain insults and accusations, like that my account was an alt-account, a sockpuppet, a throw-away account, even when my account was older than many of theirs, with hundreds of edits in its history. I even pointed that out to one of the implicated account, as everybody can see in this very talk page, but that did not prevent the repeated war-mongering bad postings of the others. Since it was told me that there was a mediation I bothered to read through the mediation and through the history of the article, so I noticed that very section was there since the beginning and that it has been there until June, when an edit war for its removal started: an edit war that prompted the subsequent mediation. I explained, then in the talk page, that if that section has been there for two years, that if it is common for other similar articles (I even gave examples) having it, that if it was there before the edit war, that if it got through a vote for removal, perhaps there were enough merits to leave it there until the end of the mediation. I got the same rabid answers, not even touching the reasons of the its removal as a block, not even discussing if it was a problem of contents or what, just "you have 27 edits since last May, every opinion of yours is automagically invalid". It's not my fault if the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever decided to unify their account system in April[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#History] and so in the English section of Wikipedia I have edits that go back only to May. I thought it was common knowledge, I did not even bothered to change my bot generated nickname (the ~itwiki part was generated by a bot because there was already a BRG account in some other Wiki project), so it should have been clear that I was not a sockpuppet, throwaway etc. But none cared. And so do I, now. Thanks, it wasn't a pleasure. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki#top|talk]]) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |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=I don't care if I'm blocked or not, after 7 and a half years[https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Contributi/BRG~itwiki&dir=prev&target=BRG~itwiki] I'm done with this mess and this is the good time to quit editing for a den of care-takers of pet theories. I simply was reading those pages (Ghouta attack, Khan al Assal attack, UN investigation) back and forth when suddenly the Motivation section that I was sure, I read 5 minutes before was completely missing. Looking at the history, I saw a big rollback, and since this is usually not the correct behaviour and a "motivation" section is customary in articles about crimes, I rolled it back and explained why in the talk page. Instead of discussing it, I was flooded by accusations and insults: no good faith assumptions, no willingness to elaborate the reasons behind it (like "why motivations shouldn't be important in this case"), just plain insults and accusations, like that my account was an alt-account, a sockpuppet, a throw-away account, even when my account was older than many of theirs, with hundreds of edits in its history. I even pointed that out to one of the implicated account, as everybody can see in this very talk page, but that did not prevent the repeated war-mongering bad postings of the others. Since it was told me that there was a mediation I bothered to read through the mediation and through the history of the article, so I noticed that very section was there since the beginning and that it has been there until June, when an edit war for its removal started: an edit war that prompted the subsequent mediation. I explained, then in the talk page, that if that section has been there for two years, that if it is common for other similar articles (I even gave examples) having it, that if it was there before the edit war, that if it got through a vote for removal, perhaps there were enough merits to leave it there until the end of the mediation. I got the same rabid answers, not even touching the reasons of the its removal as a block, not even discussing if it was a problem of contents or what, just "you have 27 edits since last May, every opinion of yours is automagically invalid". It's not my fault if the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever decided to unify their account system in April[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#History] and so in the English section of Wikipedia I have edits that go back only to May. I thought it was common knowledge, I did not even bothered to change my bot generated nickname (the ~itwiki part was generated by a bot because there was already a BRG account in some other Wiki project), so it should have been clear that I was not a sockpuppet, throwaway etc. But none cared. And so do I, now. Thanks, it wasn't a pleasure. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki#top|talk]]) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}