User talk:Gl72099

Welcome!

Hello, Gl72099, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zanhe (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

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 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. -Zanhe (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2017 (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. Kanguole 11:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the size of tang dynasty

A discussion has been opened at Talk:Tang_dynasty#Area_in_infobox. Please discuss on the talk page with the editors and reach consensus before you make any changes to Tang Dynasty and List of largest empires. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Signing comments on talk pages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about 3RR

A reminder that WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. You've been warned about edit warring before, and you could be blocked if any subsequent edit violates the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2017 (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).

Gl72099 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think it was an error, because I have made agreement with User:TompaDompa in the talk page of Tang Dynasty. that we should remove the Tang Dynasty from the list of the largest empires, since neither the primary source, the old book of tang, nor the map from historian Qixiang Tan suggest that 715 AD was the largest extent of the Tang Dynasty. instead, both the primary source and secondary source suggested that 669AD was the largest extent of the land area of the dynasty. Since the Wikipedia page of list of largest empire produces wrong information, I suggest it should be changed immediately. I think wikipedia should check its content for its the featured articles more carefully, because even I am new to Wikipedia, I could tell the one obvious mistake in the article. if the articles constantly produce wrong information, it will only reduce the credibility of wikipedia. also Im really concerning about the policy of using mainly secondary sources. because for history articles, primary sources could provide a more valid information, since the primary sources were documented at that certain period, they are generally more valid and accurate, especially about the facts. Im a history student in UK university, In my college, students are required to use primary sources for their essays prior to secondary source. I don't see why the policy here is in the opposite. I can see why it required to not add people's own interpretation, but primary sources could provide more accurate and valid facts.

Decline reason:

I see at least 5 reverts instide 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I do not believe that those reverts are covered under the exemptions to edit warring found here. You were even warned at your 4th revert @ 16:54, and decided to continue edit warring at 17:02. I am afraid that I am not able to unblock you. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:33, 20 November 2017 (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.