User talk:Lists129

Ghamam

SOHR later reported that the regime forces again retake the whole village Ghamam.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/more-soldiers-in-the-regime-forces-killed-in-the-countryside-of-lattakia-while-the-regime-warplanes-hit-the-countryside-of-hama/ 46.201.163.140 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you need marked this village under control of Syrian troops. 46.201.163.140 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notification

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Module

Is the Template: Taliban Insurgency displaying the recent updates made to the map? Whenever I update it it doesn't show the edits we have both made to it in the last few days?Prohibited Area (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Farsnews

Hi,

Yes, I know it's iranian and it's pro-SAA, but I used to to back up "pro-IS" claims, not pro-SAA. Thanks for Your help. --Hogg 22 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Bruskom ^{talk to me} 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadath

New report from SOHR: SAA retake Hadath near Mahin.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya The source doesn't confrim this at all,also look here new report from pro-goverment source.Lists129 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report from SOHR newer and report from SANA for morning and just duplicated data of the previous report. SOHR: violent clashes are still continuing in the vicinity of the regions of Huwwain and Mahin and village Hadath south-east of Homs, between ISIS and the regime forces and armed loyalists amid information that the regime forces restoring control over the village Hadath.SOHR Sûriyeya (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here report from SOHR on English: violent clashes are still taking place in the vicinity of Hwarin and Mahin areas and al-Hadath village in the southeastern countryside of Homs between the “Islamic state” against the regime forces and militiamen loyal to them, amid more raids carried out by warplanes believed to be Russian on the clash areas, and advancement for the regime forces in the area, and preliminary information about their restoring of control over al-Hadath village.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I am not denying this reports but they dont confrim the full capture of this village and I think the best is to put it contested.Lists129 (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR clear said that the "regime forces restoring control over the village Hadath." SOHR Also SAA retake hills near Mahin and ISIS retreated toward the town Mahin and to village Huwwarin.source So that discussion is closed. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya "preliminary information" doesn't mean that they fully captured it.But ok we leave like this for now even till new reports shows up about this village.Lists129 (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When SOHR indicated that the village is not fully was captured it said that parts or wide parts was taken but now SOHR said that on based preliminary information regime forces restore control over the village of al-Hadath. SOHR not said that clashes still continue and other source said that ISIS retreated to Huwwarin. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of edit

You are broke one of the importent rules of edit. Rules #2: Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”here So you are need provide reliable source (not just a maps) which is can support this you edit.here Or self-revert your edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I waited long enough for this changes to edit this 2 places beacause there is no reliable source who can confirm 100% that these are SAA held,thats why i used pro-gov map sources to make this changes.I just want that this template to be 100% correct,If you dont agree on this than please feel free to rv me.Lists129 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, a source has confirmed that the SYSACCO Chemical Plant taken the SAA.source Sûriyeya (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya this source which is pro-gov in this case in not accurate beacasue it's logical in the first place they need to capture this 2 villages and the production facility in order to capture this plant.Lists129 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources (SOHR and Al Masdar) we used as a reliable. SOHR(as reliable pro-opp.) and Al Masdar(as reliable pro-gov.) Source said that SAA dvanced on 4.5km along the Aleppo-Raqqa Highway and seizing the "chemical production facility" after an intense series of firefights with the ISIS. And SYSACO Factory it is the chemical Factory. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I understand that these 2 source were deemed as reliable,but I am saying that this article about the chemical plant is not accurate beacause it doesn't confirm the capture of this 2 villages and the production facility,if the article confirmed the captured of this palces than it will be logical that this plant is SAA held,but it doesn't it a contradictory article.Lists129 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Ok! I agree with you wait the more clear data which can clear confirm that the SYSACCO Chemical Factory taken SAA. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya Thank's for your understanding.Respect Lists129 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Rules

Look! many source says that. And you not accept it https://twitter.com/Ibra_Joudeh/status/690174005303721985 https://twitter.com/Syria_Protector/status/690193597015199744 https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/690205183759007747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr19ss (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tr19ss this all are pro-gov sources use reliable ones like SOHR or Al-Masdar.Lists129 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but this news made Abo Zain . He's a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr19ss (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tr19ss if you mean this Abo Zain then no beacause he is pro-gov too.The only 2 relaible source are SOHR AND AL-Masdar but you can use pro-opp sources to make those changes if there is such news about those villages you changed.Lists129 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it . good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr19ss (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latakia

I ask you to take part in the discussion.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activist sources

we have used activist sources alot of times before,to mark locations on the map,like Mount AbdulAziz in May 2015.Alhanuty (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlAboud83 sources like this have been used in the past which totally destroyed the map beacause of they "credibility",we have new rules now which brought order to this map and it's working good,Please provide sources like SOHR OR AL-MASDASR which are deemd reliable to make the change that you intend.Dont get me wrongLists129 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i myself have alot of doubts on al masdar,plus it makes sense for YPG to advance,considering they are launching an offensive on shaddadi

Rules of edit

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” here So I ask you not violate rules of edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya that's not vandalism here look al-masdar confrims that this villages are Isis held,if you see these villages are for a long time contested and have been not updated.Lists129 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source Al Masdar just use this map for show where located the village Al Tayba which retaken SAA and nothig more. Source not support data from this map and according to the rules of edit we can't use all maps from all sources for edit only for golocation. So I ask you not use any maps for edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya When he uses this map he directly confirms that these places are Isis held,remeber we had a dispute like this with the chemical plant in Aleppo and it proved that I was was right,look these places were for a long time not updated when SAA attacked them and AL-Masdar was the source who changed since then no news was heard for this villages which means that they assault on this villages was repelled but AL-Masdar like Al-Masdar doesn't wright back when an SAA assault fails.I will not Rv,but think again a see for yourself.Regards Lists129 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This amateur map from this sourcehere but al Masdar only said about village of Al Taybah so stop distorts the rule of editing. Source Al Masdar not said that this map showed situation in this area source use map only for show of the village which mentioned in the source. This amateur map from amateur source in Twitter which we can't use according to the one of the main rules of edit. In the rule clear said: "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited" Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.

WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

So in rules clear said that we can't use all maps from all sources(including reliable sources) as a source for edit. So I propose you carefully read this rule! I hope for your understanding. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya Speaking about breaking the rules of editing and vandalising from unreliable sources take a look at the template and see the module who are the vandals here.Lists129 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These editors sometimes clear broke the rules of edit. But is very difficult to engage in dialogue with them, I also sometimes tried to convince them when they were not right. But this ended without any results. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About situation with Raqqa other sources also confirmed that yestrday SDF repell all ISIS attacks and restored entire area which they lost after ISIS counterattack. plus today opp. source said that today ISIS again captured village Hammam at Turkuman so this clear confirm that yesterday SDF retake this village.here But I also saw data that today resumed clashes in the city Tall Abyad. So I try searchin more data and maybe we can will correct map. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opp. source said ISIS seized over village Hamam Al Turkam tha located in east of Tall Abyad after surprise withdrew by Kurdish units from village and its outskirt. And source also said that ISIS still use people of Ein Alrous village as human shield to prevent allies air forces to carry out any airstrikes.here So if this tru this means that ISIS not lost all point which they captured yesterday. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro ISIS vandal

Help me revert editings which was made pro-ISIS vandal.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I cant beacause I rv Ekograf but I think someone else did,if you can help me with the Iraqi template beacause there is an editor who is vandalising the map with pro-side sources.Lists129 (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I help you buddy. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked of this map and maybe for now I can't help you in this issue because I'm a not very good familiar with situation in Iraq and I not see such of the rules of edit as we established for edit on Syrian map. Maybe firstly need to establish suched clear rules of editing for the Iraqi map as for Syrian map. Also for now we not need revert his edits because according to the rules of edit for all such maps admins may be accused us at the begining of the war of edits. But I agree that it is a wrong when someone used biased sources. But nevertheless I will think how I can help of you in this difficult situation. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crediable sources

We not use all sourcres from Twitter. When we use data from unknowed(amateur) activist from Twitter we need add data from credible source which can confirmed a data from source in twitter. So I beg you in the future, when you using data from the poorly-known activist from Twitter add a more reliable source which can confirm a data from activist in Twitter.here Sûriyeya (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More crediable source SOHR said that reinforcements Al Nusra/Islamic factions arrived to AlNusra/rebels-held towns of the Tall Shihab, Zayzun,Saham al-Jawlan to protect them from attack of Yarmouk Martyrs brigade(pro-ISIS)here Sûriyeya (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mari'iyah

Source said that the ISIS launched another offensive to capture the Deir Ezzor Military Airport and the nearby villages of Al-Jafra and Al-Muri’iyah from SAA. But SAA repelled all attacks conducted by ISIS, including their largest assault on Deir Ezzor Military Airport.here So source said ISIS try completely captured Al-Jafra and Al-Muri’iyah from SAA but SAA repelled their attack so according to data village Al-Muri’iyah can't stay is under control of ISIS. So that please do self-revert. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya how can this village be SAA held were no reports indicated that this village is captured by SAA.It is not logical to put it contested beacause the village is Isis held not SAA and the source claims that Isis launched the offensive not SAA.16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Lists129 (talk)[reply]

Verifiability and burden

Re[1] and Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Jubb_al_Katashli.2C_Aqra_mountains.2C_Umm_al-Saraj_Mountain_and_Qur.27a_Saghira. Can you please provide a source that says these places is under IS control, or do I need to drag your ass to ANI or some other drama board? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko I dont need to provide to you any source for these places beacause sources were already provided for these places check diffs instead of removing without a fact.Lists129 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Ref. WP:Burden. Here is the latest diff that changed them to IS. No source were given. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko Yes, this user changed these places not just these places but many others and he was reverted by Mehmedsons Revision as of 06:45, 19 July 2016 but actually they were changed with a reliable source provided by the same editor Mehmedsons Revision as of 08:12, 19 July 2016.Lists129 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the source says "ISIS alleged that they captured the Al-Aqra Mountains and the villages of Umm Al-Sirraj and Qarah Saghirah after a violent battle". That is not good enough to claim that they actually did captured the places. I am not saying this map is good enough to claim that those places are under SDF control either, but I did not change it to SDF. I removed them, since we don't know. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serghaya

I temporarily put them as under truce but rebels handed these villages to the government as part of reconciliation. At 28 Januaty the Local source make mention - rebels have agreed to surrender the remaining villages between the Lebanese border and Wadi Barada area and at least 250 rebels will leave the town of Serghaya and its nearby villages in Rankous area in exchange for transportation to the Idlib Governorate.link Rebels left these areas except Madaya,Buqain and some rebels controlled positions inside Zabadani. And I provide the several sources that make mention rebels left these villages and pull to Idlib. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons acctually these sources you provided are unreliable sources.Al-Masdar was reporting about negotiation Btw gov-opp to surrender that area in exchange for tranportation to Idlib not confrimation,the sources you provided are randomly twitter sources without credibility.Here reports about negotiation are still taking place for that area.1

2.Lists129 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep agree! New reports claim the agrement reached between Government and oppositions factions at Serghaya. At now these area under truce and opp. factions will be transfered to Idlib soon. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accuse me in misinterpretation!

Local source SOHR make mention that the SAA at 7 February advance and took control of the hill Hawara Jabboul, and other sites was controlled ISIS, to be able to extending its control over the swampy Jabboul lake.link link And some other sources at 7 February also mention that SAA controlled almost whole area of Jabboul lake. According these data I add these positions but if you think that it was wrong, I will not to challenge this. And if sometimes you will not agree with some of my change then you can tell me and if I was wrong I make self-revert. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons to be honest i didn't accuse you for misinterpretation,you did misinterpretate the source that's all (add fortification) without being mentioned,I rv,like you said there is no confirmation for SAA controlling all Jabbul Lake.Lists129 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War map

Re [2]. Two problems. First, @VivaRevolt is not "a well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage". He is pro FSA/opp. You can use him only for edits that are unfavorable to the side he prefers. Second, that was your third revert within 24 hours. Please, self revert. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko first of all i didn't revert you check again,second of all when editors started using VivaRevolt for all sides Sdf,Fsa,Isis,Saa if you remember no one objected and now you object?Double standard now!! but if you have any issue with this than take it to the SCWM talk page not to me.Lists129 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists129,

this is a revert of this edit.
this is a revert of this edit.
this is a revert of this edit.

Btw, I have taken it to the talk page. No answer from you so far. Do I need to take it to another forum? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko

1- I changed the status of a place with a source
2- I restored places that were vandalised
3- that's a rv.Lists129 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is a revert of my revert. I even got an alert. It may also be viewed as edit-warring. Since I reverted Beshogur and started a discussion, you should have discussed the edit and tried to find a consensus. It's BRD, not BRRD.
is a partial reversion. It still count as a revert.
yes, that's also a revert. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko Dispute??Consensus?? For what you didn't provide any source after i changed the status by providing a source you are misunderstanding this.Lists129 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a source to revert, and yes, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". Does this mean that you do not intend to self-revert? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you really are not understanding....As you said,you reverted another editor (Beshogur) not me.Lists129 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted Beshogur, then you reverted my revert. Do I really need to get an administrator to explain the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to you? It's simple. Beshogur made a bold edit. That's fine. I reverted, since I didn't like the sourcing. That's fine. You reverted me without (at the time) saying anything on the talkpage. That's not fine. Now, go and self-revert, before I report you. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko Like i said i didn't revert you, i made an edit which was changing the status of those place by providing a source.Lists129 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously don't believe you reverted me, you should read this essay. Quote: "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text." You completely reversed my edit, so you reverted me. End of discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fikhah Saghirah

We cant use anti-SAA/pro-opp. source link link against SAA for rebels gains.link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2017 (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. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating 1RR on Syrian Civil War and ISIL General sanctions. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C Tell me pls how i vioalted the 1RR rule by makeing an edit with providing a source diff.Lists129 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a revert of this edit; adding a twitter source in the edit summary does not change this. El_C 13:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C if i can explain,first this article is based mostly on twitter sources,Erlbaeko reverted another editor Beshogur not me,I was editing normaly by providing a source that it's not agaisnt the rules.I didn't "undo" his revert that's what he pretend i did.ThanksLists129 (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be any revert (dosen't matter the intention), doesn't matter whose edit it reverts back to. El_C 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C making an normal WP:BOLD edit on WP:ES by citing a source WP:CS is a revert?!.Lists129 (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it was. El_C 14:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston sorry to bother you, but i really would appreciated your help here.Can you please explain to me how an normal edit based on sources is considered a revert?.What did I do wrong to get blocked?.ThanksLists129 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your two edits that were linked in the report are both reverts and they happened within 24 hours. For purposes of 1RR enforcement we don't inquire about the quality of the sources, we just check to see that the reverts were done. It's possible for someone to be right on the content issue but to still get blocked if they were going too fast. The theory is that, even if your version is better, we can afford to wait until you can persuade others on the talk page. If you haven't checked the wording of WP:1RR it would be good to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston But i didn't revert him i made a normal edit,I know the 1RR i never broke it before i know how it works...the catch is that the user that reported me it's intentionally making this to look like a revert it's not the first time he is harassing me and making false accusations against me.diff.Lists129 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the two reverts listed in the 3RR report. Your 23:58 is marked as 'Undid' in the edit summary. That makes it a revert. Your 16:10 restores the article to how you had it at 15:58. In other words, it undoes the 16:05 edit by Erlbaeko. So it's a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston i made a normal change!!!I know the 1RR, I had 7 hour left before i could make an revert I always respect the 1RR and the rules of editing that are placed on the module...please try to understand the situation,it's not the about the 1RR rule but the source is the real reason and he wanted only a justification to get me blocked, beacause here today diff he reverts part of my edit that i made.Lists129 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to follow your logic. I don't think there is anything more for me to say here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston It's very simple i got blocked just for making a normal change and wanted to prove you that i didn't made any kind of revert and wanted to remove this unfair block.Here is my proof diff but anyway thank you very much for listening and sorry if i botherd you :).Lists129 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C thank you for the unfair unblock...I will remember this ;).Lists129 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this block is unfair, use {{unblock}} to appeal it. El_C 00:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]