User talk:Analyzer99

Robert Mugabe

Hi. I've asked you a couple of questions here. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Robert Mugabe, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Woogee (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that most of the edits are useful and constructive. However, please engage on Talk: - otherwise these edits will not stick. Wizzy…☎ 04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sourced material without discussion is unhelpful. This is a third request for you to explain your editing and seek consensus with other editors. Will Beback talk 07:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on Robert Mugabe

We require that editors cooperate and discuss disagreements in article content in a collaborative manner, on article or user talk pages. Continuing to change or revert content without discussion is called edit warring. We have a specific rule against making the same change more than 3 times in 24 hours as well, the Three Revert Rule.

You have engaged in a long series of edit warring edits on Robert Mugabe. Despite warnings you have continued to do so. To stop the edit warring, I have blocked your account for 31 hrs.

When the block expires, you are free to edit again. However - your future edits need to be in accord with the edit war policy. You need to stop simply remaking changes when someone else objects, and discuss them in the article talk page.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop vandalism in Robert Mugabe

There are allegations Mugabe and other elite members are involved in diamond trade ! So just stop lobbying for Mugabe - thanks ! Handy-TV (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on African people. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted four times today and may be blocked if you continue. Please await a consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported your six reverts at WP:AN3. You are clearly out of line, but since I reverted one time I am not personally taking administrative action. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at African people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello

~~Could you explain y your removing the word black and in the process with some edits delinking the main "ethnic" article from the lead in articles?~~ After looking at your edits closer I see a much bigger problem ..Will think about what to do. Moxy (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Black African"

Why are you taking the word "black" out of so many articles about black Africans and their descendants? In most cases, non-black Africans are not considered part of the group described in the article. Please explain. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

When an editor removes material that clearly violates copyright law ("copyvio"), you'd better have a good reason to revert. Please don't do it again unless you'd like to be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't suffice to write copyvio to delete text. There's nothing remotely close to being a copyright violation here in this one sentence. It's simply sourced material.

There are two sentences. If you follow the footnote to the source, you will see that they have been copied and pasted from the source. Copyright violations are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. The next time you add or restore COPYVIO material, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You've broken 3RR. I recommend you self-revert or I'll report you at WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANEW#User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Malikk Shabazz (Result: ) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at African diaspora. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

African diaspora

Please stop edit-warring. Several editors have explained on the Talk page why the modifier "black" is necessary. It's time to drop the stick. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is none of the sources, African Diaspora associations or common use agrees with it and verifiability WP:V is a core principle of wikipedia and other editor are not proper source for wikipedia article. Even earlier version of this article for many years didn't use any "qualifier" about the skin colors of Africans before somebody changing it without proper source. In fact they avoid the issue of verifiability altogether to express personal opinion (fringe opinion without any sources backing) and quibbles about the subject. Analyzer99 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STOP EDIT-WARRING! I don't know how to say it any more clearly. You've been blocked twice this year for edit-warring; are you looking for a third block?

If you're certain you know The Truth™ and everybody else is wrong, maybe you should pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion about verifiability of the changes. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I kept the discussion moving forward by introducing sources to back up my claims and edition. Analyzer99 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canadians

Pls stop your Disruptive editing - as you can see by the talk page NOT ONE person agrees with YOUR interpretation of things...Dont you think its odd only you think this and even The statistics use the term? Moxy (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every African diaspora association or organisms in Canada (and around the world) agrees with my definition and terminology used. Same as previous version of this article and news articles. In fact, it's your opinion (valid or not) which is not based on any sources. I make it clear, and give further sources, in the black Canadians talk page. Analyzer99 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls just read up on the topic - Moxy (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frost, Karolyn Smardz; Osei, Kwasi (2007). I've Got a Home in Glory Land: A Lost Tale of the Underground Railroad. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-16481-2.
Hendrick, George (2010), Black refugees in Canada: accounts of escape during the era of slavery, McFarland & Co, ISBN 9780786447336 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Mathieu, Sarah-Jane (2010), North of the Color Line: Migration and Black Resistance in Canada, 1870-1955, University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 9780807834299 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
Winks, Robin W (1997), The Blacks in Canada: a history, McGill-Queen's University Press, ISBN 077351631X {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
Walcott, Rinaldo (2003), Black like who?: writing Black Canada, Insomniac Press, ISBN 1894663403 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
Williams, Dawn P (2006), Who's who in Black Canada two, Volume 2, D.P. Williams, ISBN 0973138424 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you breached the 3RR, I filed a report on WP:AN3. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked for a longer time

This would be a good chance for you to respond to the complaint at WP:AN3#User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: ). From perusing your talk page I see you've had an escalating series of blocks. The last block was for one week. This suggests that you've been forcing articles to reflect your point of view even though others don't agree with your changes. Here on Wikipedia we expect editors to abide by consensus, if they have tried to convince others but not succeeded. There may still be time for you to respond at WP:AN3 and promise to act differently in the future. If you are not interested in changing your ways, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Black Canadians

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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 complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: 1 month). EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2011 (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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, in the block request the admin said: "There may still be time for you to respond at WP:AN3 and promise to act differently in the future."

Decline reason:

Given that you've been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, it's reasonable to assume that by now you know our policies, and you knew what the result of edit warring again would be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:54, 12 March 2011 (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.

but unfortunately I didn't have enough time to respond. I didn't realized I had broken the 3 revert rules since I was discussing changes actively in the talk page. Moving the discussion forward by adding reliable sources (like government sites, United nations, Encyclopedia) to unsourced definition. I was going to remind the other user of the verifiability principle WP:V which is at the core of Wikipedia and seek other form of conflict resolution by appealing to the appropriate noticeboard for example. Which is what I will do in the future if other form of dispute resolution and discussions fail, hence why I request this block to be lifted. Analyzer99 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Africa

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Africa. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning - Continued 3RR / 4RR edit warring on Africa

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Africa. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Analyzer99,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

Regardless of how you feel about how correct your edits were, the fact that they were disputed by multiple editors means you should have taken the issue to the discussion page to work out a consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting other editors (often with no edit summary or explanation). I may be willing to end the block early if you agree to limit your contributions to the talk page until a consensus is established, and understand that further edit warring will lead the block immediately being reinstated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I placed a citation needed since in Romance language 'ca' is clearly not a suffix denoting land like the suffix 'ia' for example (Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc). Which I explained when I made the edit. Undoing such edit should be done after finding a reliable sources. The rest is only one editor reverting my edit for no reason (at least no reasons given). At first, he gave the reason that I removed some part of the text. I re-edited it with all parts included (simply placing all hypothesis as a list). He's free as anybody to edit the wikipedia entry if he want to add or remove something. If he gives reasons to reverting my edit, I can change my edits back like I did the first time. This time there's simply no reason given and the citation needed tags is simply ignored and just make threat about edit war (which he seems to be the only one in it). He can modify the wikipedia entry in good faith anytimes like any wikipedia editors. When you're undoing an edit you also have the burden to say why, like he did the first time, not just say I don't have the right to edit such entry. Removing or finding sources for the supposed Romance language suffix is important to keep the information factual and verifiable.) Analyzer99 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pending your acceptance of condition laid down by Rjanag.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:19, 12 June 2011 (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.

Incorrect, you were warring with at least three editors: [1],[2],[3]. When you know your edits are going to be controversial, even if you personally think they are right, it is your responsibility to go to the talk page and reach consensus rather than repeatedly restoring edits that you know are just going to be undone. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree to take the discussion to the talk page.

Accept reason:

rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that, if you again revert other users' edits without discussion (even if you think you were right), you will be blocked again? rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to discuss changes on the discussion page. Analyzer99 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This time there's simply no reason to block me. I didn't modify anything except placing back the citation needed tags, since one editor replaced the citation needed tags with some personal theory with no sources at all. I explained it in the discussion page in question. Its a bit funny. At first the editor doesn't agree with me placing citation needed tags. But then turn around, and somehow agree with me about the falsehood of the statement, but remove the citation needed tags and replace the statement with his own theory different that the one that was there before. The proper action is to replace the citation needed tags with proper reliable sources information or remove the false statement later on.

Decline reason:

You returned to the exact same edit war you comitted to avoid. I see no indication you understand our edit warring policy, and you lied to an administrator in order to avoid your previous block. I see absolutely no reason to unblock you. Kuru (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2011 (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 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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here This time it's completely wrong. I explained why I placed citation needed tags back in the discussion page. And my edit was limited to placing citation needed tags. I have the right to do that and the situation prescribed it (since the tags were removed without adding sources and placing personal theory).

On the other hand. I was going to propose other edit, not related to that statement in the discussion page. This time the so called stable consensus version was the one I restored. The other editor simply replaced a citation needed tags with his own theory without any sources. The moment I was blocked I was writing a proposition to change the format of paragraph (placing all hypothesis as a list), which is another subject, but didn't modify the main text and was going to discuss it in the discussion page as agreed in my previous block. Something I was looking forward to discuss. The only thing I did this time is replaced back the citation needed tags since no sources were provided and it was the previously so called stable consensus version. In fact, the editor is the one which modified the so called stable consensus version with his edit without discussing it in the discussion page. Analyzer99 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So the facts are this... You have been involved in edit wars, over and over, and the most recent edit war was to try to keep citation needed tags in the Africa article. You pledge to no longer edit war, and to instead discuss matters, and you were unblocked based on that pledge. You are unblocked, and immediately continue that behavior again. I'm sorry, you don't have any "rights" on Wikipedia, only privileges, and those privileges have been revoked by this indefinite block. You seem completely unable to avoid getting into conflicts, and unwilling to engage in discussion (despite pledging to do so), so I see no reason to unblock you, or trust your word. -- Atama頭 21:41, 13 June 2011 (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 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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You're misunderstanding the situation. What I pledged is discussing changes to the article "stable version" in the discussion page before making them. But the other editor didn't do that. He simply replaced the citation needed tags with another theory and no reliable sources without discussing change before hand in the discussion page. This last edit was a proper edit and was not related to the edit war issue. We could all discuss his suggested changes to the stable consensus version in the discussion page. I started a discussion about it as I should.

There was another matter related to placing all hypotheses as a list. I was going to propose it in the discussion page first. As it should. In fact, I was writing my discussion page suggestion before I was blocked again. In fact, if you see my other edits on Wikipedia, I usually participated in a lot of exchanges on discussions pages when needed. If the other editor want to modify the citation needed tags with new information, he's welcome to discuss it in the discussion page and I'm looking forward to it. I already started a discussion about it.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring, and unblocked under the promise that it would not happen again. You immediately went back to the same edit-warring behaviour, re-inserting/removing what is your preferred version. You seem to be mistaken that simply posting on the talkpage of the article makes WP:CONSENSUS. It does not matter if you think you are right, edit-warring is never permitted. You should have read WP:EW and WP:BRD a little more closely. As you continue argue that you have done no wrong, and state that you will continue to behave in this manner in the future, the indef block is vital protection to the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 14 June 2011 (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.

On second thought, I'm revoking my decline of your unblock and restoring the request to let an uninvolved administrator review it. Below is my original decline message; the reviewing administrator may take this into account if he/she wishes.

Analyzer, You clearly don't understand Wikipedia's policies or the terms I stated for you above, which are clear: even if you think your edit is correct, you can't do it until after you've gotten consensus at the talk page. Even now, in your unblock requests you are insisting on explaining why you think your edit is right, which is completely immaterial: the issue is your behavior, not the correctness of your edit. You can still be edit warring even if your edit is the "right" edit. This is all made clear in the "guide to appealing blocks" which is linked in the block message you received; as administrators reviewing the block appeal, we are not interested in arguments about the content of the article, but only in arguments about your behavior and whether you were edit warring.

Since you clearly do not understand what you did wrong here and since you have shown that you are willing to lie to administrators to perpetuate an edit war, I recommend that the reviewing administrator decline your unblock your ability to edit this talkpage to prevent you from making further inappropriate unblock requests. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were right the first time but this time too, but the other editor changed the original stable version (by simply removing a citation needed tags I placed) with another new etymological personal theory without discussing it first on the discussion page. You write: even if you think your edit is correct, you can't do it until after you've gotten consensus at the talk page. Which doesn't only apply to me but also to the other editors as well. I didn't restore the edit to the one I thought was right, but the one that was the stable consensus version before the editor took on his own (finally) to address the issue brought up by the citation tags I placed, but instead of finding new sources he simply remove the citation needed tags to write a new theory of his own without discussing it on the discussion page first. Since I'm the one who brought up the issue in the first place, I obviously don't think the stable consensus version was right (it turned out there was an error in it but replacing it with another error without discussing it, or having proper reliable source, is not good either). I think it was important to find proper verifiable sources not just replace it with another personal theory like the other editor did. I already started a discussion about it on the Africa discussion page and I would not make any edit to the article before discussing it first on the discussion page and seek proper conflict resolution (like noticeboard, etc) if the situation prescribed it. In this case, I obviously agree that the original stable version needs to be changed, I'm the one who brought up the issue (along with other edits which I shouldn't have) in the first place, but with proper verifiable sources not personal theory and at least not without discussing it first in the discussion page. Analyzer99 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2011 (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).

Analyzer99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't restore the text to my preferred version. It was NOT my prefered version at all since it's the version I placed a citation needed tags in the first place (and I also wanted to change the paragraph format, but that's another subject which I was going to suggest in the discussion page). I restored it to the consensus version (of a few hours/days ago), the consensus version before another user removed the citation needed tags (that I placed there) to replace with with another personal etymological theory without discussing it in the discussing page beforehand and without adding sources and verifiability for the changes. If anything it's the other editor who changed the stable consensus version for a personal one by removing the citation needed tags and replacing it with another completely different theory of his own. (I explained it in the discussion page of Africa at the bottom of the page)

The previous Moxy version, was the WP:CONSENSUS version and it's the one I restored with added citation needed tags.

This is where the change from the consensus version was made: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=433909185&oldid=433904790

Without any sources or justification WP:V and quite frankly I know enough linguistic to know that it's wrong again (but that's not what is important here). What is important is that the WP:CONSENSUS version was modified in the link above without sources (WP:V), justifications or discussion in the Africa discussion page. From my previous block I understand how important it is to discuss "controversial" changes in the discussion page beforehand. I expect the same thing from other editors as well. I simply restored the text to the previous consensus version with a citation needed tags and started a discussion about it in the discussion page. This is obviously not my preferred version since it's the consensus version I placed the citation needed tags in the first place (and wanted to placed all etymological hypothesis into the hypothesis list, but that's another subject I was going to discuss in the discussion page as agreed).

So I did 3 things: Restore the previous WP:CONSENSUS version, place a citation needed tags and start a discussion about the etymological hypothesis and the statement in question regarding the romance suffix in the discussion page. The WP:Consensus version is not my preferred version at all since I placed a citation needed tags and start a discussion about it with other editor in the discussion page (I also was going to start another discussion about the format of the paragraph before I was blocked). Replacing an error with another error on such controversial statement without discussing it, without sources is what I learned NOT to do and expect the other editor (Til Eulenspiegel) to do the same as they rightly expect of me. Clearly this is done in good faith (the most I did after all was placing a citation needed tags to a WP Consensus version and start a discussion about it. I didn't modify any content from the previous WP:CONSENSUS version. ). My block should lifted or placed on a definite terms.

Decline reason:

Repeatedly making reversions to wholly or partly the same effect is "edit warring", and is not permitted. It does not matter whether you can produce reasons why you believe you were right to do it, nor does it matter whether the version you revert to is your preferred version or not. Considering your prolonged history of being blocked for edit warring, and your prolonged history of failing to get the point when the matter is explained to you over and over again, it is time for an end. Your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2011 (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.

Well, since you still don't seem to get it after multiple uninvolved admins have tried to help, I expect that your failure to understand this key policy and your actions will likely lead to a very exasperated admin declining this unblock and removing your access to make any more unblock requests. Not really the most brilliant plan. I recommend one more read through the guide to appealing blocks and the edit-war policy, then amind your request accordingly before another admin drops by. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the situation since I didn't modify the WP:CONSENSUS version beside adding a citation needed tags and starting a discussion about it in the Africa discussion page. Which is what I learned and agreed to do from the previous block and it's what should be done in that particular situation. It's not my preferred version at all. I'm sure we would have come to another WP:CONSENSUS about the statement by discussing it on the Africa discussion page or I could have eventually used other conflict resolution like appealing to the proper noticeboard. Placing citation tags is also a form of consensus seeking resolution since I didn't modify the WP:CONSENSUS, but simply asking for further sources for what came to be accepted by the other editor as a erroneous statement. I didn't write MY preferred version like you claim I did. If anything it is the other user who modified the WP:CONSENSUS without discussing it or adding sources or verifiability. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=433909185&oldid=433904790 While it's true I wanted to change further aspect of the etymological subject and was blocked for it. I was, and still plan, to suggest those changes (placing all hypotheses withing hypotheses list) to the Africa discussion page.Analyzer99 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hes got it right - you have been reverted everyday multiple times a day since June 6, 2011 on the Africa article - you were block on June 12, 2011 - then on June 13 you got unblocked and started reverting again. You final posted to the talk page on 13 June 2011 - but in the process missed the message about this problem above it. As you have explained above - it's clear you don't understand or are unwilling to follow Editing policy—Talking and editing, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Editing policy. "(all this have been pointed out to you many times)"Moxy (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]