User talk:Berposen

Hello!
Spanish is my strong language, if you know and can speak it would be a better way to communicate with me, so you can go to my page in Spanish of Talk by clicking on this post.

Posts
Give a click to leave a message in English.

Become acquainted me first please, would be good. And trust me.

P.S: Maybe I do not speak the language well, I apologize for any mistake.

April 2022

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 shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Azov Battalion

This revert, in addition to being a violation of the clear consensus established in this RFC, is also a WP:3RR violation ([1][2][3][4].) I suggest you self-revert. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is normal to give people a warning and a chance to self-revert first. Someone else has already reverted you, so the point is largely moot, but do you concede that you violated the 3RR and shouldn't do so in the future? The important thing is mostly just to make sure that it doesn't happen again (and that you don't revert a fifth time, I guess.) If you believe that you didn't violate the 3RR and want me to take it there so an admin can decide, I suppose I could report it, but it mostly seems like a waste of everyone's time. --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (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:Berposen reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Azov Battalion. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting

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).

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

Request reason:

I request unblocking, I thing since the administrative action was taken by an administrator involved in the controversial issue.(WP:INVOLVED)[5][6], [7], [8]. My comment,[9], And I stay in the position that does not warrant blocking. It is not okay to misuse politics (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) to evade the fact of an editorial dispute. The maneuver of the 2 opposites,[10][11] was well chosen, instead of discussing the placement of the template on the talk page, the group simply reversed it. Even one of the main editors understands the template.[12] I answer by adding the questioning again in "is". Actually, my template placement was my second all-time edit within the article. [13] I did not kept to my first intervention, [14] despite the fact that I had actually already read the RfC, where there is no consensus if it is the current terminology of the regiment. The template is usually used, and when there is an ongoing discussion, it warrants, and that's all, it is an obligation to make it clear to the community of Wikipedia readers that their "being" status is being discussed, either in a textual phrase, or with templates, independently if the discussion be it in a new RfC, or simply on their talk page. I will not delve into my language, because the criticism of my inability to communicate with others is made to google translators, a technology that is also used here in Wikipedia, and it is not my fault that the translation is not adequate. I will not use my unlock in the controversy article, or anything related, I will use it at Jorge Glas's article, and probably because of the language border, I will try to distance myself from enwiki. A majestic greeting. Berposen (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant. You are blocked for edit warring, and indeed you were edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:42, 12 April 2022 (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.

Edit warring

I note you are still at it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you are now at wp:3rr, and no an RFC is not decided until it is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berposen, your recent edits are disruptive imo. I suggest you desist. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

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. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that you may be running out of chances. You are continuing to revert at Azov Battalion after a one-week block for the same thing issued on April 8. Continued edit warring about the same thing usually does not lead to success on Wikipedia. (You might be indefinitely blocked). There may not be much time left for you to back away from this dispute. The complaint is still open at WP:AN3 if you want to respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]