User talk:Bravehm

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

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. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Hazaras.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello respected administrator @Bbb23: These edits [1], [2], [3] of mine were to improve the article, but you blocked me because of edit warring. I edited to improve the article, not edit warring and I did not delete any content related to the previous edit warring. On the contrary, I added references to improve the article. As a user, I edited the article to improve it, not what @HistoryofIran reported.

User:HistoryofIran had already taken a very strong stance against me and even reverted my first edit without any accurate reason.[4] And this edit of mine was a restoration of the previous stable revision [5] that @KoizumiBS had changed without edit summary or discussion. Bravehm (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first claim about not edit warring is more typical dishonesty/manipulation which already has been addressed. And unlike you (eg [6]), I don't revert "without any accurate reason". Furthermore, you're linking a diff which the succeeding diff is of KoizumiBS restoring sourced info under the edit summary "restored sourced info", so where is the proof that they "changed without edit summary or discussion."? Dishonest as usual. This is not the first time you have engaged in dishonesty to try to make KoizumiBS look bad (WP:ASPERSIONS) [7]. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: This is called dishonestly, pay attention once.[8]. They brought changes without discussion and consensus under the pretext of "restored sourced info".--Bravehm (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They (KoizumiBS) have restored the sourced info, which is not a problem, but along with it, they have made other changes without discussion and consensus, which have nothing to do with the edit summary "restored sourced info". Bravehm (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tampered by various socks with the exact behaviour as you (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad/Archive), KoizumiBS merely restored the info removed by them. The only one being dishonest is you. Also, you not liking the sourced info about the Mongolian aspect of the Hazara (as seen here where your prefer your "facts", i.e. personal opinion over WP:RS ) does not mean that there is no WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have an answer for the fact that "KoizumiBS" brought changes without discussion and edit summary, you just repeat that they restored sourced info, while this can be dishonest.

Please tell about the changes made by "KoizumiBS" without discussion and consensus. Bravehm (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bravehm, this "discussion" isn't helping you and is an inappropriate use of your Talk page. If you continue, you may lose access to this page. HistoryofIran, I'd prefer that you cease to engage with Bravehm. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear administrators, the reason for these edits [9], [10], [11] being blocked is that it was considered an edit war, while it has nothing to do with the edit war, and it was only to improve the article, and it is different from the edit war that happened before. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Your contributions clearly show that you have edit warred. PhilKnight (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2024 (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.

Bravehm (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I was blocked for two weeks because of edit warring, but these edits of mine [12], [13], [14] were not edit warring that I was blocked for.--Bravehm (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear administrators (@Bbb23:) I used to get blocked for two weeks for edit warring, but my current block is unfair because I didn't edit warring and these edits were only to improve the article. Please see[15], [16], [17] Even if I did edit warring, it was not within 24 hours, and in no way did I violate the 3RR violation. Thanks! Bravehm (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not the only reason for the block. You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring, nor do you have to conduct your edit warring within 24 hours. 3RR is a bright line to cross, but you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts over a longer period if it is clear that your edits are disruptive or that you intend to keep reverting. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2024 (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.

@331dot: These edits by me [18], [19], [20] are not related to the previous edit warring but is completely different and should not be considered as edit warring. The reason I was blocked was defined as edit warring, when there was a misunderstanding and I only edited to improve the article and I added sources to the article, not to revert edits related to the previous edit warring.--Bravehm (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked due to edit warring, while I have not done edit warring in these edits [21], [22], [23] and these edits of mine have nothing to do with the previous edit warring. (I edited and added sources) @HistoryofIran has given a false report because he has already taken a hard position against me and reverted most of my edits without any valid reason. HistoryofIran have taken a positional and vindictive attitude in articles related to Hazaras. For example, once they had started edit warring with Jadidjw and later HistoryofIran were found guilty and apologized to that user. (Apologies, this one is on me, you didn't even alter sourced information) See[24] I request you dear administrators to unblock me HistoryofIran has given a false and dishonest report.--Bravehm (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to make your case for an appeal without casting aspersions against other editors. See WP:NOTTHEM. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 9 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked due to edit warring, while I have not done edit warring in these edits [25], [26], [27] *I never did edit warring, but I edited and added sources to the article, and these edits of mine have nothing to do with the previous edit warring. *Even if I have done an edit warring, I have never violated the rules of WP:AN3. * My blocking is unfair because I have been blocked based on a false report.

Decline reason:

If you think you've done nothing wrong, then that is a compelling reason not to unblock you. Given that this now your fourth unconvincing unblock request in quick succession, I'm revoking your access to this page. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2024 (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.

Bravehm (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]