User talk:Eichenwalde

October 2016

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. McSly (talk) 12:36, 10 October 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eichenwalde reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCW&ISIL notification (specifically November 2015 Paris attacks)

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. APK whisper in my ear 12:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have refused to abide by community editing restrictions and have ignored my suggestion of how to gracefully back away from a confrontation,you're blocked for edit-warring. Firmness of conviction is not a justification for edit-warring, and it's a bright-line rule. When your block expires please use the talkpage to discuss controversial edits. Wikipedia works as a collaborative effort, not as an individual effort,and when several experienced editors politely explain that your edits are a cause for concern, you should listen and interact positively. These topics are under strict restrictions for a reason. Acroterion (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this! Unblock me now or it is you who is getting blocked Acroterion.How dare you treat me like this? I'll complain about you immediately if you don't unblock me now. Go block those tag-teamers. Experienced editors, yeah sure. I already know what you're trying to do here. Your edits are the real cause of concern. Unblock me! Eichenwalde (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Unblock me now or I'll complain about you. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request an unblock, bearing in mind that unblock requests that contain personal attacks or that do not address the reasons for which you were blocked will be declined by reviewing administrators. Please also remember that a return to edit-warring after the block expires will result in longer block terms and possible topic-bans in line with the general sanctions notice above. I gave you an opportunity to avoid suspension of your editing privileges, which you declined. As you have been advised by several editors, edit-warring is not a productive way to change article content, calm, polite discussion is required. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now it's the threatening mode. I'm not going to request any unblock. I'm going to complain you, that's it. Yes I was tag-teamed and clearly the editors are fooling the rules. Unsourced content in unsourced. I have been very polite. You tell others to stay calm,learn to stay calm yourself first. You shouldn't have the right to blcok others, in fact you should yourself be blocked. Eichenwalde (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010's 1RR violation

Hey Davey2010, how dare you violate 1RR while complaining me for it! Revert yourself! Just because I have been blocked for 1 day does not give you any right to violate 1RR, there is no such rule! The rule says you cannot revert more than once! You aren't exempt just because I have been temporarily blocked.This is total hypocrisy and violation of rules! Eichenwalde (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Acroterion (talk), this guy Davey2010 has himself violated 1RR. He has reverted saying I have been blocked. However I have read the 1RR notice very carefully. My temporary block nowhere exempts him from 1RR limit. Please tell him to revert himself. And if he doesn't, be fair and please block him as well. Eichenwalde (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted back as a procedural thing and clearly stated in the edit summary "If anyone wants to remove this please discuss on the tp first, Thanks" - I'm not remotely bothered whether it stays or goes however everything should be discussed,

You should read WP:BRD, You were Bold, You were Reverted, now you Discuss it .... You don't get your own way just because you're blocked!, The article gets restored and those edit warring discuss it and get consensus for their removals,

Leave the site, Cool down and come back refreshed tomorrow - I get this is frustrating but discussing it is better than edit warring and possibly getting blocked further so come back tomorrow with a fresh head and we'll take it from there.

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done as per the comments on my talkpage - It was meant to have been a procedural thing - As I said I'm not fussed either way but I assumed the edit should be reverted until consensus was to have it removed so I apologize for that, –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 1RR plain and simple and now you have reverted yourself. Therefore you knowingly violated it. And don't repeat the the same thing to cool down, come back etc. I have already heard it. I am already cool. It is you who needs to cool down and follow rules instead of getting angry and doing as you wish. I have plainly proved how wrong your edit about Islamic extremism was. No matter what you say it won't change. I have already stated the truth that is unsourced and does not even fit its definition, it is up to you to accept it. Take this time to think upon what I said. Eichenwalde (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious difference is that Davey self-reverted when asked. You were given the same chance and did not. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real difference: I did not revert the same person 2 times, nor I tag-teamed on anyone. Eichenwalde (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]