User talk:AndrewKkh

Welcome!

Hello, AndrewKkh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Pillars of Hercules did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Please also read No original research. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your recent editing history at Pillars of Hercules shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:AndrewKkh reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: ). Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're emailing me instead of posing that query here, (you can still edit this talk page — perhaps you're not aware), but no, no single user has reverted as many times as you have overall. You have miscounted. As for the content dispute, that is something dispute resolution is for. Please subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle and otherwise avoid edit warring, especially when they exceed the threshold of 3RR. Thank you. El_C 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Me

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

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

Request reason:

I reverted different edits. The first edit was correctly removed. Then I changed it, and since then have only made 2 reversions, and, besides, the 4 total were not within 24 hours of each other. The initial purpose of the reversion was to remove the speculation. I removed the speculation and they still revert it. Also it’s hardly fair that I get reported when the two editors (Doug Weller and Crossroads) are just colluding so that they don’t get caught by the 3r rule. I also made a talk page about the edit, which they’ve both handily ignored

Accept reason:

I missed that article talk page comment you've made that remains unanswered, and that's on me. You are unblocked with apologies. El_C 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits do not need to be the same — they just need to be reverts. Reverting at the ~27th-hour is gaming the system. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a legal mechanism. The spirit of the rule is what counts. Editors do not need to collude to collectively disagree with you. ~~Your unblock request is very much devoid of reflection or introspection, and as such, I view its chances of succeeding to be low.~~ El_C 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]