User talk:Bello5Packo

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UNESCO. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at UNESCO. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. -- GB fan 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your response at Talk:UNESCO#Ataturk section. There are two things you need to know. First, you should not change someone else's comments (I changed the link back). If you believe the link is wrong, discuss it with the editor or include in your response that the link is wrong and provide the correct link. Next, just because people viewed the article during the time that section was in place does not mean they agreed with it. You should discuss why the content belongs in the article. How it pertains to UNSESCO and how the sources support the content and applicability to UNESCO. Just claiming that thousands of people agree with the content because it was viewed is not enough. -- GB fan 18:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is on the talk page. Many other admins are not blind (by the way). Bello5Packo (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would offer some advice, but it does not look like you want to follow it. Good luck trying to convince people with that argument. -- GB fan 23:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says that existing text (code) not must be changed (because we seek consensus). Welcome on the talk page (UNESCO). You (for example) can write as you wish. I am not against. Bello5Packo (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:UNESCO. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- GB fan 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I invited you (above) not for roll backs (welcome prepare the topic instead roll backs). Bello5Packo (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2016 (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. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]