User talk:WarKosign/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ronhjones (talk | contribs)
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. (TW)
Line 46: Line 46:


[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at [[:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict]]. <!-- Template:uw-delete4 -->--[[User:Johorean Boy|Johorean Boy]] ([[User talk:Johorean Boy|talk]]) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at [[:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict]]. <!-- Template:uw-delete4 -->--[[User:Johorean Boy|Johorean Boy]] ([[User talk:Johorean Boy|talk]]) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

== August 2014 ==
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Ronhjones|<b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron<span style="color:red">h</span>jones&nbsp;</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]</sup> 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:32, 4 August 2014

Welcome!

Hello, WarKosign, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Operation_Protective_Edge, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Johorean Boy (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Operation Protective Edge. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Also, please note that due to active arbitration remedies this article only allows one revert per 24 hours. Mike VTalk 14:32, 21 July 2014 (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).

WarKosign (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Please review my edit history. I attempted several times to find a compromise, made several different edits, asked Johorean_Boy to use the talk page - and he ignored all my attempts and kept adding disinformation over and over again. He is the one that should be blocked.WarKosign (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I reviewed your edit history. You were, indeed, edit warring to ensure your favored version of the article remained in place. Instead, you should have kept discussing it on the article talk page until consensus was developed. ----jpgordon::==( o ) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (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.

wp:label and citation details

Regarding this edit, please read WP:LABEL and comply with it and cite the source properly with all source details. It is not fair to make other editors clean up your edits so it's better to get them right first time. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Palestinian rocket attacks in 2014 to "timeline" section

Hi. I have left a comment on the talk page here.

Kingsindian (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on palestinian casualties

Hi. I have removed part of your edit for the reasons outlined here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove or edit content

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johorean Boy (talkcontribs) 10:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Johorean Boy (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. --Johorean Boy (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]