User talk:Batman06400

Logging in

Please be careful that you log in each time before you make edits. If you edit from both this account and your IP address, it is deceptive because most editors will not know that you operate both this account and the IP. Carefully read WP:MULTIACCOUNT and WP:SOCK. If you accidentally make an edit while logged out, note that on the article's talk page to help avoid confusion. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Your recent editing history at French people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sundayclose there is no war, we discuss. The Lead has no reference and it is inadmissible to censor referenced texts. --Batman06400 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are edit warring. Read WP:EW before you decide to exonerate yourself. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. Repeatedly reverting others is edit warring. The above warning stands, and if you continue edit warring you will be blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you please not to revert on that page again. You have now reverted three times today and you will be blocked if you revert again. We don't want that. I think you are here in good faith, and hope that you can find a way to work with us constructively, but please pay careful attention to this. One more revert will get you blocked. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk you will obviously refer your texts ? I do think that few people know the subject. it is therefore information that circulates on the internet and feeds itself.--Batman06400 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2020 (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. Sundayclose (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at French people. 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 ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Julio189red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I should have created a "controversy" chapter in French people. In this page, there is no reference. Wikipedia must be referenced. The problem is that a person begins to write imbecilities and then you have to comply with them. And the story you tell about the accounts is just your interpretation. --Batman06400 (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Batman06400 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello I was blocked for asking for references on the French people page who have no references. From there I was told that I had several accounts outside I only have one account the other was an old account that I no longer used. I entered into conflict on the "French people" page with the User:Sundayclose. he refuses to reference the writings on this page. he refuses to put references in his text. However Wikipedia must have referenced texts. So he deleted my reference requests several times for different pretexts. On this page there are only imbeciles. I then wrote a paragraph with serious references. The User:Sundayclose constantly deleted my paragraph and blocked me. Once blocked, it deleted everything I wrote on wikipedia in several pages by going back my historic.

graduated in history I would like to bring more clarity and modification on the historical pages that I master. A block affects me because I want to participate in writing the truth on the internet. in the wikipedia story pages, there were marked a lot of errors. Yes I would like you to warn the User:Sundayclose of his behavior. I would also like that it is not possible to block without end date a user like me who wishes to bring his science and his participation in this company Wikipedia.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = {{subst:accept reason here}} ~~~~}}