Jump to content

User talk:211.27.126.189

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring at World Chess Championship 2018

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Even if I don't have positive view on my edits later, I won't edit war if something gets reverted for good reason 211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is insufficient. Yamla (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (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.

How come?211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll be the judge of whether the other party has a 'good reason'? That does not sound like much of a negotiation. I fixed your unblock request so it would show up. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after you pled "lesson learned" to Abelmoschus, you reverted yet again to break the consistency with the 2016, 2012, and 2006 matches. Stop the bald-faced lies and don't edit the match article until after the match conclusion on 29 November. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize about the lesson learned thing I posted when I reverted something. It was just one edit so it shouldn't be an edit war or a reason to add more time to the blocked period (I think, maybe I'm wrong about this). It wasn't intentional and it doesn't matter which articles I broke consistency. Besides, if I've been told not to edit the article until after the match concludes, why have I not been blocked until that time? Lastly, I wasn't trying to unfairly increase my chances of having a lesser block or none at all at any stage.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's called looking at the edit summary (responding to the 1st post after the templates about blocks not by me). 211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It was just one edit so it shouldn't be an edit war": From my notifications alone I see you reverted my edits 10 times in the past 7 days. "it doesn't matter which articles I broke consistency": it does, and if you edit without consistency in mind you will be relentlessly reverted and get loads of warnings and blocks in the process. Fbergo (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant after I said lesson learnt which was less than 2 days ago I did 1 revert, not how many I did before (which is already way too many). Speaking of what articles I broke consistency with, how does it matter when they were all about previous world chess championships?
10 reverts in 7 days can probably be done without breaking 3RR (obviously doesn't apply in this case) which from my memory states 3 edits is the maximum to be done in 1 edit war in 24 hours (sometimes slightly longer) or something similar if I'm mistaken.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, 2 things seem confusing to me.

1. Am I forbidden from reverting even 1 edit in the time Wikipedia will not be shut down even with a very large discussion related to the edit before and after the edit itself was made? I said I learnt a lesson that relates here but was told I lied because of 1 revert made later (especially when I've been effectively blocked ever since - not that a 3RR was reversed for this account after that post on the talk page of another user)? 2. Blocks that end earlier than when a user wants to restart allowing a fellow user to edit somewhere are illogical. At time of posting, I'll be unblocked in under 12 hours yet a user doesn't want me to edit that page whilst the match is yet to end (which will take about 1.5 weeks).211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Things to know relating to this section or relates stuff: 1. You can go to my contributions for an alternative to this talk page on the edits I've done. 2. Probably more than 9.5 out of every 10 edits from here have no bad intention (including consistency of which I'm no big fan of checking through viewing other articles, etc.) 3. Before formally taking away from any of my edits (incl. planned edits), please message me here. If at least one of us disagrees to the original edit, and only then, will it be reverted such that the general public can see that (for planned edits, it's rather making the edit formally than reverting it because it wouldn't be even made. 4. Only the listed edits and related discussion will be signed (sorry if that can't be done according to the rules but it's what makes sense to me). The edits (asterisk means it's planned, and especially this part of the subject will be updated):

Regardless of intention, your edits are disruptive and you have spent the last few days telling admins how you should or should not be punished, edit-warring on consistency and style with more experienced editors, denying the obvious edit war, lying about understanding wikipedia policies, and explictly mentioned you do not want a username (so you can keep causing trouble with a hard-to-remember number that can change at any time and where sanctions won't be as harsh as deserved as they could be punishing other people using the same IP; You are willingly evading accountability). You are continuously disrupting a high visibility article (ongoing event). There are enough qualified editors updating and maintaining that article, your so-called help is not needed nor desired. If you return to editing it, it will only give us more work to revert your crap and get the article protected from such edits. Fbergo (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I don't want an account, but not so I could continue under this IP address. Why I don't want to create an account isn't related. I've had this view and for the same reason (which I'm not comfortable in saying) no matter where Z was or when it was, on multiple IP addresses, for more than 3 years back. I know nobody who edits Wikipedia, so a block on this IP or any from which I as the same real life person edit will not lose their editing priveleges assuming strangers aren't a around or maybe they are but don't edit Wikipedia.

I know I feel lazy to check consistency but when did I lie about edit warring or understanding policies which inmfact I didn't? Plus, why have my original specifically original) edits been called crap? 211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, what we're talking about here is for another subject on this talk page, and the article you're talking about is not the only one. If editing this one isn't an option, will you make sure all the others get no future edits from me? If my edits here were reverted only once in total, would this whole thing of blocking have arisen?211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:CaradhrasAiguo. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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.
Per policy on blanking on user talk pages, you may not insist on reinstating threads when the messaged user has intentionally removed them. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Apparently sending a talk page for an article to a user talk page is spam. The edit war wasn't meant to start.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC) I am no longer trying to edit war, can this please be removed? PS when you removed empty headers recently they were commented out anyway.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (211.27.126.189) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help. You'll get the hang of things (like checking edit history). And before the anon that complained there (and the one in England) accuse me of using you as a sockpuppet myself, I already see you're from Australia and I'm in Canada, so we're not jetting around the planet to edit, and I am not aware of you. You appear to have been reported to that board and are now trying to help there. Keep it up, and Merry Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need this template on my talk page regardless of how far back in time I've been editing. thank you.211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

Replied here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Userboxes on your page

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with another user

[edit]

I am flattered that you asked me to get involved, but I would be entirely starting from scratch, as I did not participate in the editing of the article about the 2018 World Championship, and I would have to read and digest quite a lot to catch up. Also, that was months ago, and the conversations about what happened then ought to have died down by now.

I see that you have taken some flak for not having created an account. Is there anything I can do to help with that? One can do some amount of useful editing without an account, but as you have probably noticed, it puts you at a psychological disadvantage when arguing with others over various issues -- as if you somehow carried less weight. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive379#User:211.27.126.189_reported_by_User:CaradhrasAiguo_(Result:_Blocked) for a start. Thank you.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you aren't asking for me to intercede (it's way too late for that), but are only looking for some advice.
I also guess (from the interaction on Bobby Fischer) that there might be some residual hostility toward you left over from the November incident. While this might be unfair to you, there's not much to do about it, except continue to grovel. Wikipedia is anarchic in some ways. If you worked in the same office with someone and had a dispute with them, you could shake hands and make up, and indeed, you would probably have to. But your fellow editors here are distant total strangers. This makes it extra important to avoid crossing the line from disagreement to dispute.
I can't complain about your recent activity at Bobby Fischer. More of that, less of the weird stuff that happened in November, that's all I can suggest. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please look for the post starting with apology retracted. @Fbergo probably will never un do the retraction and some of his reasons why he retracted in the 1st place are not true or over exaggerated.211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, there's not much to do about it. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I think @Fbergo was too harsh with the retraction whether or not the retraction was reversed. In fact the harshness is too much to comply with WP:BITE (an example is when he relates people not bothering to sign in to edit on Wikipedia to hell when in fact it's never going to be nearly as bad even at its worst on Wikipedia.) I think the retraction needs to be fixed but @Fbergo is not intrested even in the slightest.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You edit warred at the World Championship 2018 article and remained defiant in the face of criticism from multiple editors, and to attribute the retraction to WP:BITE is nothing short of apportioning yourself a victim when you have been the clear aggressor time and time again. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP who edit warred on the article has since changed location however this post was made by the same person (only from another IP). Here's a few things to point out: 1. I wasn't trying to be disruptive and I think I haven't been given enough reasoning to stop (in particular why the headers looked ugly on their own I've not been told to this day). 2. Your post is partially unclear and in fact @Fbergo has been told not to violate WP:BITE by others who thought he was which I'm saying because I think you're saying what he said is valid under WP:BITE. In fact he seemed to exaggerate how bad it is to not bother signing in and edit Wikipedia to such a degree that the truth will never come close to the exaggeration. 3.If you continue this discussion here (even if I get an account which won't be for at least a few years no matter what), someone else will think that it was them who you're accusing. 4. I remember saying that my edits assumed that nobody would prematurely resign the match. This is rather difficult to figure out in advance (the last time this happened was over 10 years ago), not to mention how easy it is to change the article accordingly. Having said that, whether the tie-breaks would be played is something the Wikipedia article alone is enough to figure out (however it's best that citations come from non-Wikipedia sources. 5. Until I can find which IP I was changed to this discussion should be continued at the talk page of the IP from which this message is coming from (regardless of which person in real life sent it).123.243.100.66 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the former owner of 211.27.126.189 and the discussion is best continued at 211.27.115.246's talk page. Thank you.211.27.115.246 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:211.27.126.189&oldid=878688537"