User talk:Historicalchild

New editor. Please cut some slack!

February 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Balhae has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Calvin Cheng, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please point out promotional material Historicalchild (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notes

This edit note misrepresents what you did. Removing negative content is not Edited with local context.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove negative content. In fact I expanded the content to say he makes controversial remark(s) NOT JUST ONE. And NMPs are NOT members of the Government. Singapore has a modified Westminster system. Not American. Historicalchild (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Calvin Cheng shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 4 November 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing with an obvious agenda, as you did at Calvin Cheng. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 5 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

If you look at the talk page of Calvin Cheng, I am the one who keeps trying to engage Jytdog on reaching consensus, but he refuses. I only edited only after being ignored, and he keeps baldly asserting that I am the same person as an IP user. Jyt is not allowing anybody to edit the article except himself Historicalchild (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, so I'm declining this unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (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.

Comment to reviewing admin: please see the report at WP:AN3. Historicalchild, I'm putting my comment here, below your unblock request, so the reviewing admin has a better chance of seeing it. You might want to move your own post up, because you too will presumably want the reviewing admin to see it. I think my opinion of the talkpage discussion, that you mention, is clear at WP:AN3. Let's leave it to the reviewing admin now. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding living people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: You will see from the talk page of Calvin Cheng that I keep trying to engage Jytdog but he just ignores me, accuses me of editing from another IP, and then reverts my edits which I feel are reasonable. I did not edit disruptively. In fact it has been Jytdog who has taken over that page and has refused to let anyone make reasonable edits or even discuss the topic. Historicalchild (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warrig/editing while having a conflict if interest

Please read WP:COI for how to proceed. It is very obvious that you have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject. That article has a history of COI and socking for over 10 years now and form the talk page archives, it seems one particular account was banned after trying to threaten offline harassment against an editor. You have been blocked by Bishonen recently for disruptive editing and you end up doing the same thing after you are unblocked. From now on, please suggest any changes on the talk page and do not edit the article yourself.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BukitBintang8888 I have not edited a single thing since I was unblocked. I have only been reverting your (yours and yours ONLY) COI, biased edits and supporting the edits of two experienced independent Editors Historicalchild (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed among a bunch of connected contributors as can be seen from the talk page. You should not be editing the article. Yes, even a revert counts as an edit and it is disruptive.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out

Please state whether you have been editing while logged out. Please be aware that there is no obligation to always sign in, but editing while logged out can make it appear that there are multiple people involved so is not OK in contentious situations, and the Cheng article and related discussions are definitely contentious. If you have been editing while logged out, please state that here, and state which IP addresses have been you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have not. Thanks for mediating between pro and anti editors. Historicalchild (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—notifying a biased choice of users of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

If you do not add pings to the rest of the rest of the people who have been involved in the discussion I will be filing at ANI to have you topic banned. You are turning everything into a crisis and displaying very clear advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please don’t threaten me. I am not as experienced as you are with policies. I don’t even know what ANI is .Thanks. Historicalchild (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREAD your posts. I am not threatening you, I am informing you how we handle people who consistently disrupt Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disrupting. I just don’t understand why it is ok to COI the other way like BukitBintang and Jane Dawson but not be supportive. It’s all very strange. Just confused and frustrated.Historicalchild (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are. This discussion is about you, not anybody else. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Please guide me along. Thanks Historicalchild (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is your responsibility to aim toward Wikipedia's mission and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. You have been here around two years (at least) already. Your behavior displays pure, unrestrained advocacy on the Calvin Cheng article and this is very easy to demonstrate. This is not ambiguous and you have been warned about it, with links to relevant guidance, on multiple occasions. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]