User talk:LeChatNoirEtLeTra

Welcome!

Hello, LeChatNoirEtLeTra! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Renat 06:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of countries by Military Strength Index have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of countries by Military Strength Index was changed by LeChatNoirEtLeTra (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959542 on 2021-05-20T05:25:04+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of countries by Military Strength Index. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Jamesluiz102- (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please avoid coming to my profile to exaggerate about it. I made a few small edits in a very **short** time, so It can't be able to be considered it was repeatedly if the context points to that. I know It wasn't good but not that bad to come. But it would be nice if you didn't comment here because you pollute here to be honest. For the rest, I'll be doing some good edits, the rest I know. Good day. LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries by GDP (nominal). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The same I said before to cover each message): To avoid misunderstandings for anyone who sees this, this is the link I edited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I edited several times on the basis of contradicting a "consensus" that was never valid as almost no one commented and the evidence was small, and contradicting your Ad Populum, since although several people think the same, it is not the correct thing in a concept of misinformation, which is what you do together with a consensus that never really existed (That also almost no one knew of its existence).

I hope my dear M.Bitton, you have also reported Qwerty for making an edit war, or else you are being hypocritical and making the funnel law of being strict with others and being soft with others in the same context. You did a good job my taking things out of contextfriend! Now good luck, .It would be a shame if your report didn't work. Looking for some salt around here :) Have a good day! LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job taking things out of context* haha. LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LeChatNoirEtLeTra reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid misunderstandings for anyone who sees this, this is the link I edited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I edited several times on the basis of contradicting a "consensus" that was never valid as almost no one commented and the evidence was small, and contradicting your Ad Populum, since although several people think the same, it is not the correct thing in a concept of misinformation, which is what you do together with a consensus that never really existed (That also almost no one knew of its existence).

I hope my dear M.Bitton, you have also reported Qwerty for making an edit war, or else you are being hypocritical and making the funnel law of being strict with others and being soft with others in the same context. You did a good job my taking things out of contextfriend! Now good luck, .It would be a shame if your report didn't work. Looking for some salt around here :) Have a good day! LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great joob taking things out of context* lol XD. LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Job* LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for one week for violating WP:3RR at List of countries by GDP (nominal) and for personal attacks against other editors. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal first by saying that I did not even use personal attacks against other people, much less insults; Please point me out when I did that, if so, I will gladly admit it.

And secondly, the reason for the edits was based on keeping people informed and not only for that, but some users based their "reason" For change simply based on a flawed consensus that wasn't even formal.And I argue that it was a consensus that almost no one knew about and not even half of the editors of that page knew about it; So I don't know what's the point of sustaining a pointless change without even consulting more people (In fact, nobody knew that this discussion they had was a supposed "consensus").

In other words, have a good day! LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]