User talk:Bbaskbas

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Istanbul. 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:

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; 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Istanbul

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Istanbul. 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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Bbaskbas reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 23 October 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).

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

Request reason:

The edits I made was well sourced but ☼ was really acting like a boss of the page. He never lets anybody to make edits. I couldn't edit the page even using the current sources in Istanbul, he quickly reverted them. I guess the last edit was probably made by one of his friends too. There's a big problem on Istanbul page and somebody should stop these problems. If there's a reference we should put them in pages. Wikipedia is not a science journal. The dispute on the names of Istanbul is just related with etymology and if there's a research about it, wikipedia should let it seenBbaskbas (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Did you read the warning on edit warring that was posted above? If you did, you will have seen that it says "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." It is therefore pointless to post an unblock request based on an explanation of why you think you were right. Indeed, if the policy on edit warring were amended to say "unless you are convinced you are right..." then the policy would become meaningless, as almost everyone who edit-wars thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:35, 23 October 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.