User talk:Mockingjay28

September 2019

Hello, I'm Citobun. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Joshua Wong have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joshua Wong. Citobun (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joshua Wong 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. Citobun (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun I left you a message. You never replied. I said please cite the proper sources.

I replied. Citobun (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citobun Did you cite the source stating Wong is a politician? Or is it just your point of view?

Citobun Why statements by the G7 have to be involved in the Joint Declaration between PRC and UK?

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:Mockingjay28 reported by User:Citobun (Result: ). Thank you. Citobun (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock| I was wrongly blocked for being unjustly accused of engaging in editing wars, which I am totally unaware of.

{{unblock| I was wrongly blocked. I edited Wikipedia using resources found on official media, websites, etc. However, I have been accused of using unacceptable wording, which is totally the same as on official media.

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).

Mockingjay28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account of mine should be unblocked for editing Wikipedia and I have adhered to Wikipedia policies.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 10 October 2019 (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.

Appeal to rejection of unblocking my account

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).

Mockingjay28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand Wikipedia's policy. I am contributing to Wikipedia as a user with unbiased views. I am strongly opposed to the statement above suggesting that I was causing damage and disruption to Wikipedia as truths and facts were provided from my end

Decline reason:

This clearly demonstrates we can not unblock you as you believe you did nothing wrong. Thanks for letting us know, I will therefore leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2019 (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.