User talk:Anaxagoras17

Welcome!

Hello Anaxagoras17! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Paul Kagame has been reverted.
Your edit here to Paul Kagame was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/paul-kagame-net-worth/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anaxagoras17, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Anaxagoras17! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

The history you're trying to crowbar in -- AGAIN -- has fuck-all to do with the entity known as Peet's, the operating history of Peet's, the founder (or even subsequent owner) of Peet's, the policies -- current or historic -- of Peet's, the products -- current or historic -- of Peet's. Literally the only connection is to the company that acquired Peet's, and YOU are the one making connection without a SHRED of real sourcing that relates any of your material to Peet's. The one making no sense is YOU.' Calton | Talk 06:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:3rr is not a right, it's a guide. You can also wp:editwar if you keep on inserting the same contested material once a day, if you do it often enough. You are not doing just that. So stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warrning

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Peet's Coffee. 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 ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:36, 6 July 2021 (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).

Anaxagoras17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have engaged in good faith on the talk page. (In fact, I just posted a response but forgot to log in, and it was reversed.). I do not see other editors doing the same. Calton simply makes personal attacks. Other editors have simply asserted that 'activities of a parent company are not relevant to a subsidiary,' but reliable sources disagree. I did not violate WP:3rr. I now see Slatersteven's message that is "not a right but a guide," but did not see it before I was blocked. When other editors do not respond to/with logical arguments on the talk page, I don't know what that means for edit warring. I had read WP:3rr could result in a block for "at least 24 hours." I did not violate it and have been blocked for a week. Seems draconian. If people feel that strongly about it, they could make logical arguments on the talk page (and be civil about it).

Decline reason:

I am seeing an edit war where you revert 6 times over the course of several days. WP:3RR makes it clear that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Slowly reverting over several days is still disruptive and still edit warring.

4 different users have reverted your addition. While you did participate in the discussion on the talk page you continued to revert despite not getting consensus for your change. Your opinion had been given attention, and has been rejected by the community.

Give the duration of this edit war a 1 week block is appropriate. I am declining your unblock request. I suggest once the block has expired that you accept the consensus against your edit on the talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:24, 9 July 2021 (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.

I suggest you read wp:editwar, 3RR is not an upper limit. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well it takes two people to edit war. So in these situations it is not clear to me who is guilty of the edit war and which version should stand. I have read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS but am still learning the ropes on this. This time I am pursuing dispute resolution. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The version that should stand is the one that existed before the first revert you reverted (it called wp:brd). Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to not having seen that 3RR is not a right [[1]], this was posted July 21st, you were supposed to have read the policy on edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Are you accusing me of edit warring again even though I have stopped reverting and requested dispute resolution? Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am pointing out that you were told about our edit warring policy before you block. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you focused on a block from one year ago if you are not accusing me of doing the same now? Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you had reverted twice, and I was warning you. But you are right (I apologize) the block was a year ago, I was unsure if you had taken it onboard. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have taken it onboard. Zaathras was reverting without discussing on the talk page (at first) or acknowledging that the new language is different. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per wp:onus it is down to you to make the case on talk, not the person objecting. Also, it does not matter if the wording was changed, as the objection was (and has not changed) that the content is not relevant to the company. I will leave it now as it might be seen as if I am badgering you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New wording was an attempt at compromise as one argument was 'why not mention this same controversy for the other companies?.' It is up to editors on the talk page to communicate they have new or different concerns. That is now the case, but was not when I reverted. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petes

If you want to know why the story of the parent company may have been of interest to a few (in some cases local) news organs, ask why it is of such importance to you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. WP:FOC. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]