User talk:Igsiters

February 2023

Hello, I'm MrOllie. 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. MrOllie (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. 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 Cambodia, you may be blocked from editing. Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:43, 15 February 2023 (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 Cambodia. The reasons you give in your edit summaries do not make sense in relation to the changes themself. Please slow down and be more specific, and use the article talk page for discussion. Please do not change large portions of the article without first seeking consensus by using the article talk page to discuss your proposed changes. The reason is to allow other editors and article watchers to discuss the changes you would like to make, and provide their input and feedback. This helps to keep articles stable on Wikipedia. Things work by consensus here, as WP is a collaborative project. Again, please use the article talk page first, before making additional large changes. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 13:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Back from your block and right back to the same article. You have already been asked to discuss your large-scale changes Meters (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Music of Cambodia—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Music of Cambodia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hey! Can you explain why you are removing contents without adequately explaining why? Thanks! Tails Wx 01:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain these more adequately now, I started in a hurry without taking time for a clear explanation in the edits summary. My edits are misundertood as vandalism. I try to make it in stages. Igsiters (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get consensus for those edits? Removing reliably sourced content are often interpreted as vandalism. Also take others' advice above, as per the warnings and the block. Tails Wx 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can input a discussion. The problem it is just random users undoing the edit simply because I did not explain sufficiently in the summary, they are not interested in the content itself and don't care about my edits initially. I explained it clearer in the last summary. Igsiters (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Feel free to add a discussion about the issue, ping the involved editors, and work the discussion out at Talk:Cambodia. Tails Wx 01:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Igsiters! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Igsiters! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will look at your advice. Igsiters (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: the source is problematic and some information displayed is not in source. If you disagree with the edit, then reverting my edit is enough, and then it come to discussion process. Why do you block me? Igsiters (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you by several others that your edits are not constructive as they remove large swaths of content without specific reason or consensus. You were blocked before for this behaviour, and you continue to do it. If you believe the block is unjust you can appeal it as noted above. ... discospinster _talk 17:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: I was blocked last time for the reason "vandalism", not this behavior, really was because my writing in the summary is inconceivable and misunderstood. This time I make the reason clear that the texts don't have source, or the source has ratification problems. I edited in a different page, the edits have different nature and reasons, it can't be generalized as such. Igsiters (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is exactly the same behaviour. The first block may have been termed "vandalism" by user: Alexf, but your actual edits were repeatedly deleting large chunks of text without proper explanations. Meters (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You understand it wrong. The first block was because my edit summaries are dubious in phrasing, and my edits are large, so they are mistaken as vandalism. The edits afterwards have clear explanation. There is that single difference. If they are still reverted, I would just go to talk page to discuss, so why block me, as you have seen, I have discussed extensively in 1 page and have made absolutely no warring edit. Igsiters (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

My first edits were mistaken as vandalism. Initial edit summaries are dubious and inconceivable hence it led to the 48-hour block. This block is a little wrong and misunderstood, I did not continue what led to the first block, I has explained much clearer in the summary, saying that content has no source or source has problems in ratification. Igsiters (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the blocking admin. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that my edits have a problem in that they haven't had clear enough explanation and override the actual textual change while the edits themselves are large. I will try to avoid this by dividing my edits and edit in a gradual process. The edit summaries need to be in accordance with any particular textual change. I also use the talk page and discuss any issue in order to gain consensus. Igsiters (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account has been globally locked, so you'll need to appeal that before we can consider your unblock request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2023 (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.