User talk:Ersroitasent

January 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Yom Kippur War does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! (Hohum ^@) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (Hohum ^@) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Africa (Spain)

Will you please provide reasons for your repeated deletions of passages from this article. The material taken out without twice without explanation is reliably sourced and provides an outline of the origins and early history of this force. It did not suddenly appear in the 1920s, yet this seems to be the purpose of your edits. If there is a valid explanation for your actions then I am sure that we can work out a compromise without damaging the article. If not then then I will have to lodge a complaint of vandalism against you.Buistr (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Yom Kippur War, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Fai zan 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vicegerent

You have made changes to Vicegerent without giving reasons. These have been reverted. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2014 (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:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: ). Thank you. Fai zan 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 day

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating 1RR on Yom Kippur War,

you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorization will be summarily desysopped.

Army of Africa (Spain) (cont)

You have now made no fewer than seven deletions from this article without any explanation or obvious purpose. You have also removed source references and even the "reference" sub-heading. In spite of repeated requests you have made no use of the "talk" page. Most Wikipedia editors will welcome improvements or corrections to articles which they have worked on but this appears to be simply pointless vandalism. I have accordingly restored most of the material that you deleted and taken the opportunity to add details and source references. If you have any interest in being a serious Wikipedia contributor then please follow the basic rules as cited above. Buistr (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (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:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: ). Thank you. Fai zan 02:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. D P 09:29, 5 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

nonsense block! no desire to discuss There is an ongoing discussion!! admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time Ersroitasent (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. Your imperiousness doesn't help, either. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2014 (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.

Nonsense? You have now removed the exact same edit 5 times on the same article, even when performed by different editors. That's 100% unacceptable - and it does not matter that they happened over a matter of days. You don't get to revert THEN discuss, and you most certainly do not get to edit-war, then decide to discuss D P 12:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove comments by administrators when they directly relate to the unblock request, doing so is disruptive and somewhat deceitful, I have restored DangerousPanda's comment above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is an ongoing discussion!! admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next timeErsroitasent (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Now found to be a sockpuppet, so you need to request unblock from the talk page of your main account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 16 February 2014 (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.

Would you please confirm that you are happy with me reviewing your block given that I have previously blocked you for edit warring on the same page? If you are I'll ask some questions and we can work out some conditions under which I'd be willing to unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to any unblock please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fornslsateve. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]