User talk:EmSixTeen

November 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Black and Tans, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 17:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read those guidelines yourself. EmSixTeen (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Black and Tans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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.

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2018 (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 regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just lovely. Perhaps they'll be a little more mature. EmSixTeen (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Andy Dingley has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Black and Tans. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 14 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

"POV tagging as "citation needed". Requesting factual citations is not a POV edit - How could it ever be? The user who has reported me has a massively clear bias, all it takes is to read his previous responses on the talk page ("but you didn't mention that did ya, ya feckin' murderous Brit"). What sort of language is that? When people with biased POVs are able to abuse their familiarity with the system, by reverting a legitimate request for real information outside of the biased POV of the article itself, what sort of a place is Wikipedia intended to be? A cited page or resource on such a loaded term as "war crimes" would be a must, I feel. I'm astounded.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating the three revert rule. Edit warring is never permissible on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:59, 14 November 2018 (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.

The request was just superfluous as the sentence already had a request for sources at the end of it. But you wanted another one halfway the sentence for a "loaded statement" (= POV). In fact, I am not sure if you have read the section "Conduct". The Banner talk 22:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you've read your books on grammar, but I'm sure that it's just a genuine mistake - right? Let's have a quick lesson/refresher though as it seems like this is an ongoing issue for you that you'd like to berate me for:

"Due to the ferocity of the Tans' behaviour in Ireland and the numerous war crimes they committed, feelings continue to run high regarding their actions. "Black and Tan" or "Tan" remains a pejorative term for the British in Ireland^{[citation needed]}, and the reputation of the Tans is still hated in Ireland."

There's a character called a full stop here, and it's the one that delimits sentences. Now that we're reminded of that, we can relate the where the citation request is to where my citation request is - In a completely different sentence, about a completely different topic. I'm sure you overlooked that accidentally.

In all seriousness - This is not a superfluous request, and it's ridiculous that the two of you are trying to impose a restriction on my request for a citation based upon your own biases. You cannot state something as war crimes in an encyclopedia without referencing what are specifically war crimes, or where that was determined. There is a link to the war crimes article, yet that article has nothing specific to our case. When we delve deeper ourselves and go to the uncited crimes perpetrated by the United Kingdom there's nothing at all about the Black and Tans unfortunately - Or any references there at all regarding Ireland before the 1960s, four decades after the Black and Tans were dissolved. If we look elsewhere, to the article specific to British war crimes, once again there's nothing at all about Ireland. A request for a citation is not arguing that something neither happened nor existed - it's nothing more than a desire for citation. Perish the thought that people would like to curate some more knowledge and improve Wikipedia for others who seek the same information that they've come looking for on the page themselves. That's the whole point of WP:V. EmSixTeen (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmSixTeen. The Banner talk 08:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why you’re still dwelling on this. You and Andy have already succeeded in having me blocked for calling out your bias. Eratobrain (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's amazing. Someone looking to push your propaganda (who else but you two?) has went to the efforts to make an account and fabricate a comment pertaining to be from me. Oddly enough - it's with *just* enough of a similarity to hark back to my other comments, in an attempt to push this new angle as a puppet. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. EmSixTeen (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]