User talk:JassonTodd

Welcome!

Hello, JassonTodd, 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 take 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! MPS1992 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Battle of Changsha (1941). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Changsha (1941). 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. MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies regarding Battle of Changsha (1942). MPS1992 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Changde. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Changde. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your block has just expired and you appear to be new, I will give you one warning. Do not do this again: [1] as you did at Battle of Changsha (1941). You have been asked to stop adding commentary into articles in this manner. If sources disagree they are to be contrasted in an appropriate way. Continuing to edit war demonstrates that you have not learned from your previous block. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Battle of Zaoyang–Yichang, 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. Den-Drater 07:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22864 was submitted on Oct 06, 2018 07:26:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:26, 6 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I use Chinese academic seminar materials and research works, and at the same time comply with the regulations. As a result, the administrator unfairly blocked me.

Decline reason:

I'm seeing a history of making poorly-sourced additions and edit warring over them when reverted, and I do not see attempts to discuss your desired additions and seek consensus on the relevant article talk pages. This is despite three previous blocks for the same problems. No, you were not blocked unfairly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 6 October 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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22869 was submitted on Oct 06, 2018 16:05:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:05, 6 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Because I was not familiar with communication before.I will be careful about communication in the future.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. I am declining this request. If you have difficulty communicating in English, you may find it more comfortable to edit the version of Wikipedia in your native language. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 6 October 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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22874 was submitted on Oct 06, 2018 21:56:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

latest unblock discussion

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).

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

Request reason:

Because I have already reflected,I won't commit again

Decline reason:

This is your fourth block for the same problem. I doubt you suddenly understand what you did wrong and what you need to do differently. Please tell us in your own words what you did (repeatedly) to be blocked and what you will do instead.) -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 7 October 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.