User talk:Btbg

Welcome!

Hello, Btbg!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, CMD (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that in this edit to Togo, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Moxy- 17:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Niger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Moxy- 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Niger, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Burundi. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Burundi. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Burundi. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained content removal

Your rare edit summaries are rather vague and don't justify the removal of the content. I suggest you take the time to explain why you're removing the content, and if that means doing it slowly, one sentence or even one word at a time, then so be it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should know that your recent unexplained changes/deletions have been reverted. If any part of what was said above isn't clear, please let me know. M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be hard for you to understand, but not two issues are the same and no single comment (left somewhere) will justify the different content removal/change in multiple articles. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have no choice but to properly justify your edits. Edit warring won't get you anywhere. M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the behavior you've been warned against will get you blocked

Doug Weller talk 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to warnings

In case anyone going to throw more warnings in this page: I got it, the concept in regards to edit warring and some basic policies here. I normally hold to 3 reverts, with each revert only serve as purpose of explaining, if the original summary of a modification is not sufficient. If there is a 4th revert, then it would be presented outside the 48-hour range, in exceptional cases for example, if an opposing editor haven't replied after that same period on the talk page. I always seek for and resort to discussion at best. Btbg (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we need more effort on your part to do simple research WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Lets not get you blocked but instead working to find sources for basic points and non contentious material... or at least tag for others as per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATIONl. Could you also follow format as other related pages pls see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections. Moxy-

16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be long and complex to discuss, this page is not the plausible place to talk. So maybe you can open a discussion of this topic with me on a different panel? Btbg (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think best we dont go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.....pls take 15mins and read the links above.Moxy-

16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through, basically these links said if you "want to" or what you should do, not you must do. The removed parts are not only not sourced but also poorly written, excessed or other problems. With regards to the sections issue, it seems you have the issue with the Geograghy part being up, I will talk about this in the panel. Btbg (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from all the reverts and post here what you think is " not sourced but also poorly written, excessed or other problems" is viewed differently by most here so far. You may be right but things like a name change is a problem ..as it was wraped up with other edits. step by step. Be aware of WP:ICANTHEARYOU Moxy-

17:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is one person having problems with changing writing tone and removal of content that needs source so they constantly revert some changes on certain articles, I don't see anyone else thus far. I won't change the name again if it's disputable. Btbg (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Btbg Panel? Doug Weller talk 17:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, sorry, I didn't know that anyone warn me about disruptive editing or "gaming the system"? They only warn me about potential warring edit and not using edit summaries. I avoid both above. No one warn me about anything such as disruptive editing or gaming the system. So I did not "continue the bahavior" you said above. And I read the web's disruptive editing policy, nothing point to my edits as disruptive. I use the discussion page to input comments and not get replied. My edits get two opposition in two seperate pages by two editors for some same but also different reasons, the changes are broad; but no one is openly telling me to not edit multiple pages with some same types of edits. Btbg (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to follow the instructions above and hope another Admin will unblock you. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I made edits on two pages and I'm in the midst of various discussions, I didn't even do anything, this would make the discussions stagnant. I said we can talk the issue, you didn't tell me anything and I didn't even know the discussion on your talk page with another user. We just can talk this as editors who understand the situation, not bringing more. Btbg (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, leaving this to another Admin. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 2 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

"Disruptive edits", I don't understand. 1. My edits doesn't pursue any one point, in the link to the policy I read, none of the examples of disruptive editing suit my edits, my edits are too broad and for multiple reasons in multiple pages. 2. I got reverted mainly on 2 pages and currently discuss both, with 2 separate editors. In both pages I'm the editor who is not regularly replied after a new comment and ignored, both discussions turned stalemate or stagnant, I'm a lot more active and even the one who ask for a third opinion for a page in here, though not noticed. 3. No editor is particularly overt about opposing a specific aspect of my edits in that I can't make a same type of edit to other pages, as the pages are essentially different in content, so I'm technically allowed to edit multiple pages with some same type of edits. So, you edit more than two pages and have discussion on two pages that contain some same problems among other edits, is disruptive!? I already said clearly in my talk page about how I constantly avoid edit warring and resort to discussion and the process of building consensus, above, then yet blocked. I'm actively representing so, making multiple comments and not replied, for days just waiting on some discussions to continue, I didn't even do anything except discussing for days now. Btbg (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with the comment below that you should agree to a 1RR restriction before being unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 3 September 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.

Comments - proposal

Of a 140 edits you have reverted 5 editors over 10 country articles multiple times. That said what we are looking for is WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:USI as most main country articles have stewardship of editors that are aware of the content and will help with sources if one is requested. It is very hard to deal with and talk about mass removal on multiple topics on one page Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion because as volunteers we are all subject to Wikipedia:Time management and trying to avoid Wikipedia:Wall of text covering multiple points of contention. .......Can we agree that taking it slow edit by edit explaining each edit thus allowing others the ability to see change by change is best on these type of articles WP:PRESERVE and be WP:CAUTIOUS. I will endorse an un block if you agree as we want to Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers but also not deal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert Moxy-

17:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed I should took edits slower and clearer. Btbg (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTENTDISPUTEs are inevitable on a project of this scope. What must an editor do instead of reverting/EDITWARring? Please set your preferences to require an edit summary before saving an edit. I really see a lot of arguing with more experienced uses. I would need greater indications of you having understood all that Moxy has been trying to tell you. Your current unblock request tells me that you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. It is declinable right now. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means receiving and accepting constructive feedback. To be unblocked, you need to describe how your editing was disruptive and what you would do differently. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: if there is constant dispute, I see multiple options and would first seek an input opinion, look for resolution, or talk in the wikiproject panels. Writing summaries are left to type of changes that first came, repeating the same type of change and minor change may not heed. The policies given by usr:moxy above are about how to handle my edits to make them more reasonable and efficient, for better coordination and cooperation. I understand I need to divide my edits more plausibly and explain likely contentious change clearer. I now tried my best to stay to 1 revert only in each page and if dispute continued going to above panels of discussion.

So far I understand, I was blocked because I discuss an undone change in one page and made some same type of change in a second page and discuss about some same type of change with two seperate users in two discussion pages. As far as I see, my only choice then is to finish discussion about same type of change with one user in one page first before going to other pages. I accepted and read feedbacks and like to discuss with individual users about possible conflicting aspect. Btbg (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only seek to discuss. I addressed above what I would do if I saw content dispute. Btbg (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Hello, 10 days now and no one talk about our request. Listen, I have no idea about such concept as gaming the system before you log it as the reason to block me from site editorial. The policy about this is complex and I'm rather fresh into it. It is not plausible to not give any guide or warning about such policy, while immediately do hard block on them when they step into it (not sensible at all).

I didn't know about this and I did not intend to game with whatever it is, when in the process of my edits. So what I understand is that I was blocked because I (sort of) discussed the same issue (not all same but some is) in two articles. This is very hard to avoid, since you are done in a page, you went to another page with another user who don't know the same type of edits done before would undo and debate the same type of content edit and we would have to discuss the same issue and perhaps the same way again in that talk page. With the same case, later from now, I would avoid this by transmitting what is possibly parts of discussion about same type of change to the talk page of the previous article, would that be more reasonable? Btbg (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request is on the Admin list of unblock requests. You'll have to wait. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: there should be a limit, we can't wait forever... Btbg (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No limit as not everyone gets unblocked. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? We? How many of you are there? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean anyone that participated in discussions with me. As said above, I was in the midst of various discussions and was affected by this block from site editorial, what was already stale will be more stale. Btbg (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to consider backing unblocking btbg, @Deepfriedokra I'd strongly advise a WP:1RR restriction Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but pass. Defer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I said above in the proposal that "I now tried my best to stay to 1 revert only in each page...", did you not read it all? So yes, I agree to the restriction mentioned and new ways of resolving the issue. Btbg (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: my unblock request is dragged for a month. Is it too much to ask me to make another and wait for another unspecified period, just to write mostly the same again, and who will answer, when? Nearly most else is put in the proposal comments which is supplement to the request above. Btbg (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers here, working in what free time we have. I've already reviewed a request by you so I cannot review another- that would be unfair to you. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: You don't need to review another, you can alter the above review. You are a volunteer but your action affect others and restrict others' rights. It is unfair that someone can block one and at the same time telling them to wait without specification, while they are free to do other stuff. Btbg (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do consent with the provided restriction above that I don't revert more than 1 in an article to avoid similar misunderstanding or dispute. I wrote this twice. This is asked for above and that request of mine was dragged for a month. Btbg (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:13, 14 November 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.