User talk:はぐれがらす

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Second Sino-Japanese War 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had recerted jiust one time, when User user Rajmaan's tepeated edit. I had not been revertrd by Zamflavius. I just modified his edit. But you would still say my series of edit is "revert"? In aniway, I'll try to use talk page as possible as I can.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Second Sino-Japanese War 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Second Sino-Japanese War. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring other people's talkpage comments

Have a look at this diff, very carefully. You are clearly refactoring my comments. Please stop this. Use the preview function before posting, and check your modifications very carefully. 直す面倒くさいよ。 --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK i may had done this. Sorry for that. But not intentionally. Please understand this.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Nanking Massacre. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can't accept this scabby blackmail.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blackmail. Rather, we are insisting you follow the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. If you refuse to abide by them, you are not welcome here and you will be blocked indefinitely. If, on the other hand, you are willing to "play by the rules", you are welcome to continue editing and there shouldn't be any further issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already playing the wiki rule now. Rather this Binksternet broke of neutral point of view by stereotyping me as "fringe". But the photo used there were clearly false and Binksternet couldn't accept even talk about possibility of it.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]