Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, CMD ( talk) 06:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Mako001. I noticed that in
this edit to
Togo, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Mako001
(C)
(T) 🇺🇦
03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Moxy-
17:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Niger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your
sandbox for that. Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk)
14:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Moxy. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Moxy-
14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at
Niger, you may be
blocked from editing.
M.Bitton (
talk)
15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Burundi. 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:
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) 21:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary, as you did at
Burundi.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Burundi. 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:
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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Your rare edit summaries are rather vague and don't justify the removal of the content. I suggest you take the time to explain why you're removing the content, and if that means doing it slowly, one sentence or even one word at a time, then so be it. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I thought you should know that your recent unexplained changes/deletions have been reverted. If any part of what was said above isn't clear, please let me know. M.Bitton ( talk) 12:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This may be hard for you to understand, but not two issues are the same and no single comment (left somewhere) will justify the different content removal/change in multiple articles. M.Bitton ( talk) 12:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You have no choice but to properly justify your edits. Edit warring won't get you anywhere. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
In case anyone going to throw more warnings in this page: I got it, the concept in regards to edit warring and some basic policies here. I normally hold to 3 reverts, with each revert only serve as purpose of explaining, if the original summary of a modification is not sufficient. If there is a 4th revert, then it would be presented outside the 48-hour range, in exceptional cases for example, if an opposing editor haven't replied after that same period on the talk page. I always seek for and resort to discussion at best. Btbg ( talk) 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Doug Weller
talk
17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)@ Doug Weller:, sorry, I didn't know that anyone warn me about disruptive editing or "gaming the system"? They only warn me about potential warring edit and not using edit summaries. I avoid both above. No one warn me about anything such as disruptive editing or gaming the system. So I did not "continue the bahavior" you said above. And I read the web's disruptive editing policy, nothing point to my edits as disruptive. I use the discussion page to input comments and not get replied. My edits get two opposition in two seperate pages by two editors for some same but also different reasons, the changes are broad; but no one is openly telling me to not edit multiple pages with some same types of edits. Btbg ( talk) 05:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Btbg ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
"Disruptive edits", I don't understand. 1. My edits doesn't pursue any one point, in the link to the policy I read, none of the examples of disruptive editing suit my edits, my edits are too broad and for multiple reasons in multiple pages. 2. I got reverted mainly on 2 pages and currently discuss both, with 2 separate editors. In both pages I'm the editor who is not regularly replied after a new comment and ignored, both discussions turned stalemate or stagnant, I'm a lot more active and even the one who ask for a third opinion for a page in here, though not noticed. 3. No editor is particularly overt about opposing a specific aspect of my edits in that I can't make a same type of edit to other pages, as the pages are essentially different in content, so I'm technically allowed to edit multiple pages with some same type of edits. So, you edit more than two pages and have discussion on two pages that contain some same problems among other edits, is disruptive!? I already said clearly in my talk page about how I constantly avoid edit warring and resort to discussion and the process of building consensus, above, then yet blocked. I'm actively representing so, making multiple comments and not replied, for days just waiting on some discussions to continue, I didn't even do anything except discussing for days now. Btbg ( talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with the comment below that you should agree to a 1RR restriction before being unblocked. 331dot ( talk) 09:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
@ Doug Weller: Hello, 10 days now and no one talk about our request. Listen, I have no idea about such concept as gaming the system before you log it as the reason to block me from site editorial. The policy about this is complex and I'm rather fresh into it. It is not plausible to not give any guide or warning about such policy, while immediately do hard block on them when they step into it (not sensible at all).
I didn't know about this and I did not intend to game with whatever it is, when in the process of my edits. So what I understand is that I was blocked because I (sort of) discussed the same issue (not all same but some is) in two articles. This is very hard to avoid, since you are done in a page, you went to another page with another user who don't know the same type of edits done before would undo and debate the same type of content edit and we would have to discuss the same issue and perhaps the same way again in that talk page. With the same case, later from now, I would avoid this by transmitting what is possibly parts of discussion about same type of change to the talk page of the previous article, would that be more reasonable? Btbg ( talk) 14:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@ 331dot: I said above in the proposal that "I now tried my best to stay to 1 revert only in each page...", did you not read it all? So yes, I agree to the restriction mentioned and new ways of resolving the issue. Btbg ( talk) 10:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Btbg ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do consent with the provided restriction above that I don't revert more than 1 in an article to avoid similar misunderstanding or dispute. I wrote this twice. This is asked for above and that request of mine was dragged for a month. Btbg ( talk) 15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 10:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
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.