User talk:Carnivourous123

Welcome!

Hello, Carnivourous123, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Carnivourous123 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

Continuation of the same edit war, for which you were previously blocked above for 24 hours. --EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2019 (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).

Carnivourous123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think it's a bold one according to the BRD, the other edited without any more discussion on talk page. How can I discuss with him then? Carnivourous123 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not address your edit warring, which is the reason for the block. I must decline your request. The other user did respond to you; you need to continue discussion until there is consensus for what you feel should be done. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (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.

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).

Carnivourous123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the problem is he is the one who reverted first without discussing, so he's the one deserves to be blocked not me.Carnivourous123 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The response you show is after he made the revert [1] and after my BRD [2]Carnivourous123 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should discuss your own actions. See WP:NOTTHEM. You were clearly edit-warring. Huon (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2019 (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.

User:Huon ok I accept it then but why he isn't blocked then? Surely his revert was not legitimate according to BRD, then both should be blocked then.Carnivourous123 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist didn't breach WP:3RR, for example. Bocking them now would serve no purpose. Discuss the issue on the talk page, pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Huon (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking someone who makes warring revert is no purpose???? I repeat, I can't discuss with him, it's impossible to discuss with someone who reverts without any response. He only responded after two reverts and it's me who is blocked now, that's totally ridiculous Huon Carnivourous123 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not edit-warring now, so blocking them wouldn't stop an edit war. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I understand that this may feel unfair to you, but that's not the point. The more you go on about "but the other editor...", the more you convince me that you aren't interested in finding a solution to your dispute through Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Huon (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again?

Please undo this change you recently made at Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979-1991, where you have restored the flags yet again. It risks being perceived as a continuation of the edit war. So far nobody has spoken up in favor of your talk page proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of An Ninh. 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. Stop edit-warring the page and open a discussion on the Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]