User talk:AllSaintsNext

August 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, perhaps read the contributions before making such accusations. “Military disasters” are not what are being added to the page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page rather than continue your endless edit warring. I presume that you are the same person who was edit warring via an IP account recently. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Treaty of Ghent has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Treaty of Ghent was changed by AllSaintsNext (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870526 on 2020-09-02T04:13:02+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Invasion of Quebec (1775); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop projecting.

Anyone, literally anyone, can see your own talk page and the page in question.

It is you who is edit warring and this “warning” is a hilarious projection. So much so I’ll keep it as evidence.AllSaintsNext (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite your evidence that my claims are wrong. No matter what I say, you will twist it and accused me of violating NPOV. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, that not how it works. It is YOU who has the burden of proof, which you haven’t successfully proven. Your opinion is not what is reported in ANY of the citations. Violating NPOV in the very basic meaning of the word.AllSaintsNext (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to hear your evidence why my claims are wrong, that's the whole point. I asked you, provide one. Otherwise, I'm going to take this as evidence that you're trying to stall me as a tactic. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided multiple evidence why your “claims” are wrong. Namely, your citations don’t even include what you’re copy editing into the article, nor do the authors opinions reflect what you’re inserting into the article. Hence the violation of NPOV. You can use this as evidence all you like, but other editors, and other admins, have stated in the past how poorly you edit, and you removing them from your talk page doesn’t mean they’re not still in the records. Again, the burden of proof remains on you, of which you have failed miserably.AllSaintsNext (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is YOU who should provide proof why I'm wrong, because quite obviously even if you did, you haven't provided citations and link to the contrary. It's a simple task and you're not citing evidence why since we're talking about historical facts. It's not really hard to do. And I'm willing to adjust my sentences based on your complaints, but you not providing why I'm wrong and your inability to do so will be taken as you're trying to stall me. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

erm no? No it’s not. It is YOUR job to prove what you are saying is correct and supported by historians, not YOUR opinion. It’s the same reason why you can’t claim god is real on the Christianity article, because no one could disprove it, it’s up to YOU to provide reliable sources as citations to prove YOUR edit. Please familiarise yourself with WP policy before continuing. You clearly have had a lot of experience with poor edits and your history of talk page arguments shows this to be the case. Inserting your opinion, instead of objective statements based upon historians, is in violation of NPOV. I will continue to revert your edits should they continue to be poor ones.AllSaintsNext (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, if you're not willing to cite one historical fact of why I'm wrong (which I will happily reply so we can agree to work on a compromise), then we're done. You're just stalling me. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to make uncited edits that violate NPOV and you will be reported at ANI. I cannot make it any clearer why your edits do not belong.AllSaintsNext (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already cited my sources, you don't and you don't have any books nor evidence to claim mines are wrong. I cannot make it any clearer why your edits do not belong. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no you haven’t, you haven’t done any of the things you’ve claimed. All you’ve demonstrated is that you argue like a child. Thank you for proving this so. AllSaintsNext (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite me one historical fact I got wrong, there's nothing wrong asking you this, and I'm willing to share my own arguments in the matter to resolve this issue we have between us, but you have continue to cite Wikipedia matters rather than what historical fact I got wrong. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANEW case

In discussion at WP:ANEW, you said, "Admittedly I should have directed the user to the talk page sooner."

Exactly. If you're getting close to 3RR yourself, sometimes it's best to report at a noticeboard and get more eyes on the situation, and/or let admins deal with it.

IMO, this is a no-harm, no-foul situation. If you both take the matter to the talk page, nothing else gets done. It's only if one/both of you were to continue to edit war that administrative action would need be taken. Based on the comment above, I trust you won't do anything to necessitate that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree and appreciate your input.AllSaintsNext (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And a courtesy reminder: make sure to indent your comments so it's easier to follow the thread. Each reply in the thread adds a layer of indent. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]