User talk:Avangion

Welcome!

Hello, Avangion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bruno Frey, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Bruno Frey was changed by Avangion (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866325 on 2011-08-29T18:20:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page

Hi Avangion. Thank you for your help on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, but please don't repeat WP:BOLD edits that other editors object to. This is explained in WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Please propose your changes on the talk page and wait for consensus to develop. This is especially important when editing the lead of a high visibility article such as this. Thank you. - Mr X 18:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Drmies (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at White genocide conspiracy theory 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 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 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. Bishonen | talk 07:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I do know you have received this alert before, but since that was two years ago, I thought you'd better have another one. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 25 August 2018 (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:Avangion reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: ). Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at White genocide conspiracy theory. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 25 August 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).

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

Request reason:

The three revert rule was not violated. After I twice reverted the inclusion of Trump as part of the list after my initial edit, I stopped because it appears that a consensus WP:CONS was present to keep him as part of the list. I then started to try to work to add to the conversation by adding WP:NPOV edits to the entry and making only small changes. After having my words reverted to the word "reported", I then chose different words and chose them to be on the WP:SAID list because the word "reported" was not on it. I reverted Wumbolo's change away from my words only once. I do not believe I broke the rules at any point and my work was entirely in WP:GOODFAITH. Please reverse my ban. Avangion (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:3RR does not guarantee you three reverts, as explained at that link. You clearly engaged in edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 10:52, 25 August 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.

Note from blocking admin: You also clearly violated the 3RR rule. Please compare my note at [1]. If you think you didn't violate the rule, I recommend you to read WP:3RR more carefully and to pay more attention when people warn you. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not blank declines for active blocks. This is not permitted. --Yamla (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]