User talk:Redom115

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

From the information I gathered over the internet, the changes I made I believe were credible. I believe that the block was incorrect because I did not provide false information, furthermore I provided evidence for my edits. I understand there could be some to debate as what I edited but there is a general consensus to the edits that I made are true. The links that were also already provided also supported the changes that I made. This is my evidence for the POTUS page and the reason for my changes. Thank you. ^[1]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not the contents of your edits. You'll have to address that, and nothing else, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:25, 22 April 2017 (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.

You were blocked again for returning to the subject for which you were previously blocked to edit-war on release of the first block. You may not edit-war, sources or no sources - you must obtain consensus for your edits. If this happens again the next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Angela Merkel.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned, and in fact blocked, several times for your disruptive behaviour. Now it's time to stop and to obtain consensus for any proposed changes. Your edit history tells me that you are clearly not familiar with Wikipedia's editorial process, and I urge you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia before continuing disruptive edit warring. Note that competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Tataral (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of useful templates/tags that it's normal to use. They are preferable in many instances to immediately deleting material, which can give the impression that an editor is trying to push a particular point of view.

• Template:Citation needed. If a source has not yet been provided.
• Template:Dubious. If a source has been provided, but the information presented may, nevertheless, be wrong.

I hope that they will be useful. EddieHugh (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gross domestic product 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 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. Thanks. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits replace longtime consensus in WP articles (and not just "United States"). Regarding aggregate U.S. wealth, you are conflating total wealth of a country with the concentrated wealth owned by individuals. In summary, you continue your history of intrusive POV edits (many of which introduce hackneyed expressions and clichés such as "flora and fauna"). I have alerted a WP administrator. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As I say in the block log, this is simply too much edit warring, against too many other people, after too many warnings to stop, and two previous edit warring blocks. A block that expires in, say, a week or two just means you'd start back up again when it expired. You'll need to submit an unblock request that indicates you actually understand what edit warring is, that you aren't supposed to do it, and that you do not plan to do it anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have given evidence to support my points and the people that have reverted my edits have not provided me with any evidence to counter what I editedRedom115 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not relevant to your block. You are blocked for edit-warring and have not addressed this, so there are no grounds to consider lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (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.

I can 100% guarantee that you will never be unblocked if you don't stop talking about how your edit was right, and start addressing the fact that you were edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, I would just like the people who say I am wrong to provide me with evidence. That's all ((unsigned|Redom115}}

That's what talk pages are for. When reverted, you discuss before your content gets added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I did discuss, all the people who argued just hurled insults at me without any logic or evidence so I complained, I was also wondering; these edit restriction that says indefinite is there roughly a time-span you could tell me if it will be lifted.

The block will remain in place until you convince us you won't ever engage in edit-warring again. So far, all you've been doing is justifying your actions and showing we need to leave the block in place. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no I meant it in a reassuring tone. If it came out wrong then I am truly sorry for the misunderstanding and I apologise for my mistake. I truly hope that clarifies all the misunderstandings. Thank you.

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).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I truly understand the gravity of my mistakes in my edit warring. I realise now that there should be more discussion in order to reach a common consensus for edits and that every diplomatic avenue should be pursued in a very cooperative. I very sorry that if my edit warring caused disinformation, I assure that it was never my intention. Thank you. Redom115 (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but despite multiple attempts to explain the problem to you I still don't think you fully understand it. For the purposes of this block it doesn't matter whether or not your edits introduced disinformation or not. Even when your edits are perfectly correct, edit warring is still not appropriate. Edit warring is disruptive in its own right, independent of the content being warred over. Huon (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2017 (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.

The reviewing admin might want to consider a WP:1RR restriction as a condition for unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just curious if any administrator had seen my request. I hope I didn't write the request wrong.

FYI, using the unblock template will create an entry in the list of open unblock requests at CAT:RFU. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I fully understand that edit warring is completely illegal and inappropriate and wrong. I fully understand the gravity of my actions and for that I am truly sorry. I promise that it will never happen again with me. Thank you.

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below, you are unblocked under the condition that you abide by a 1 revert restriction. You may not revert any edit on any given article more than once in any 24 hour period. Failure to abide by this restriction may result in an immediate indefinite block, without warning. You may appeal this restriction at the Administrators' noticeboard no sooner than six months from now. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If unblocked, would you be wiling to abide by a 1RR restriction as suggested above? This would mean that you would only be allowed to make one revert on an article in any 24 hour period. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I would, I just have one question, this rule is it like forever or if for example I stopped edit warring for a long time, I could edit normally?

Any such restriction could be appealed after a given period, say six months. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just curious as to how can I exactly find the period?

Like I said, six months. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so is it six months for me because I just thought the six months was just an example.

I am willing to unblock you on the condition that you are subject to a 1RR restriction, which could be appealed at WP:AN after six months (note that the restriction would not expire after six months, and that an appeal might not be successful). If you're amenable to this, let me know and I will lift the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would gladly accept, just one last question if the appeal is not successful, I could try again

I must confess to being a little concerned that you are so keen to figure out how quickly you can get out of this restriction... the usual process if an appeal against a restriction is declined is that the clock is reset. Thus if you appealed in April and the appeal was declined, you would be able to appeal again in October. However, since you have already agreed that edit-warring is wrong and that you won't do it again, this should be moot, as you won't need to be exempted from 1RR for regular editing... right? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise, I was just wanted to know that if I could fully be trusted again by the community.

Ah, fair enough then. Block's gone, see the unblock message above for the conditions. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just wondering, can I still edit normally, not reverting or is that just once every 24 hours?

You can make edits as normal. However, you are not allowed to undo another editor's changes on an article more than once in a 24 hour period. This applies to manually changing the text as well as using the Undo or Rollback functions. I should add that if you simply wait 24 hours and then make a second revert, we are liable to regard that as gaming the system. The purpose of this restriction is to get you to discuss changes you disagree with, rather than simply changing the article back to your preferred version. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So say for example I reverted edit on one article, could I revert edit on another article without waiting 24 hours or is just one revert, one article.

This is all answered in WP:1RR. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the exact wording, from the policy (amended for 1RR):

An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert... A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

In theory, there is nothing in the letter of the policy to stop you from reverting at Article A, and then at Article B, and then at Article C and so on, although administrators are likely to take a dim view of such behaviour. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow exactly what you are trying to do here on the the List of countries and dependencies by area article, but I have a strong suspicion that you have already breached your agreement regarding reverts in the above section.

Please just stop editing when your edits are being reverted and challenged and discuss. Game-playing with repeated reverts, then self-reverts, is disruptive and certainly not in the spirit of what you agreed previously. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically, there's only one revert on List of countries and dependencies by area, but given that and that similar activity at United States I am already starting to wonder whether I've been over-generous here. Redom115, be aware that the 1RR restriction is an upper limit on the number of reverts you can make, not a quota that you have to fill. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello User:Redom115. Judging from your recent edits at United States about it being the world's foremost economic power it appears you have broken your WP:1RR restriction. (You added the word 'economy' or the phrase 'economic power' seven times beginning at 16:00 on 15 September). All of your changes have been undone by User:John or User:Mason.Jones, but they are not under a 1RR themselves. If your edits are in fact a 1RR violation it would be logical for an admin to reinstate the indefinite block that was removed on condition of your good behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)