User talk:Minimobiler

October 2016

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Folding@home has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. bojo1498 talk 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Minimobiler, 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 take 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! 51.9.185.43 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Norepinephrine antagonist

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Norepinephrine antagonist, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 51.9.185.43 (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Folding@home. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 51.9.185.43 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Norepinephrine antagonist, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Norepinephrine antagonist. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 10:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Norepinephrine antagonist, you may be blocked from editing. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Norepinephrine antagonist. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 10:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Folding@home

Please stop reverting changes made by me and others on this page without valid reasons. The first edit you made had a misleading edit summary, so I reverted it, and you've reverted the edits made since then. If you do not stop, you may be blocked from editing. --bojo1498 talk 15:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Folding@home has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Folding@home was changed by Minimobiler (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864731 on 2016-10-18T18:29:54+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Folding@home

Hey there. Evidently you feel very strongly about the changes you have made to Folding@home. Would you mind explaining to me what your rationale for changing this page is? I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to express in your edit summaries, so if you could just explain it to me, that would be great. I'm not trying to assume you are wrong, but to me, your original edit summary seemed misleading, and I'm still not quite sure what "screenshot" you are referring to. It's quite possible I'm missing something that is super obvious, in which case I'd appreciate you pointing it out so we can end this discussion. --bojo1498 talk 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About speedy deletion tag

You have tagged WP:SPEEDY in Farah Mahbub (judge) for few times. As she is a justice of High Court Division with supporting references, the article is not certainly meet criteria for speedy deletion. But if you feel that she is not notable, then you can go to articles for deletion process. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Farah Mahbub (judge), you may be blocked from editing. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. restoring properly removed speedy tags DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 20 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

oshwah should first verify whether putting csd a7 on an article with zero notability and weight is disruptive in the first place. if it is proven that the article is entirely worth keeping, with proof to back it, then block is justified. otherwise, the block should be immediately repealed with a sincere apology from blocking admin

Decline reason:

Once a speedy deletion request has been contested and removed, you should not edit war to reinstate it - there is no onus on the editors contesting it, nor on the admin reviewing your conduct, to provide proof of notability. If you wish to pursue it further, a request for a discussion at WP:AFD would be the appropriate action in this case (as was explained to you above). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2016 (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.

to Oshwah and Boing! said Zebedee, the csd was never contested and was removed by the author of the article. check the edit history and all of my edit summaries.Minimobiler (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD tag was also removed by User:DGG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

same as the one before

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; your previous unblock request was declined. You are welcome to make a new request, but must provide new reasons to consider your unblock. Yamla (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i would be unblocked 31 hours after blocking period automatically, so why not sooner? not that there is any disruption caused in the first place

Decline reason:

You will be unblocked automatically soon, I advise you to wait until then. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2016 (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.

addendum:the csd is entirely justified and should be done.Minimobiler (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the article and do not believe speedy deletion is appropriate. That makes two administrators that work in the CSD area telling you that you are wrong. Do you plan to keep on tagging it for speedy deletion even though you have been told that it is not appropriate? I'm wondering if you have some sort of conflict of interest over this article. Peridon (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being unblocked because you are not dropping your insistence that you were right with your CSD nomination and you are continuing to argue that your edit warring was not disruptive, and so the danger exists that you will continue the disruption when the block expires. In fact, if you continue to argue that your CSD edit warring was right, your block might be lengthened to prevent further disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not COI, it is wp:soapbox and wp:weight, Peridon, to ensure wikipedia does not become a hub for non-notables and insignificants to be used as promoter site. if admins agree on not csding, then afd is the remaining wayMinimobiler (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i am requesting Boing! said Zebedee, Oshwah and others to re review the article for weight, notability, citability. it is no longer my departmentMinimobiler (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weight, notability, and citability do not come into the A7 criterion. Please see WP:CSD#A7. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon i chose to no longer tag it. now i am requesting an early unblock.the other admins should decide if the person is of any importance to be wikified.Minimobiler (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I offer this purely for future information, but deciding whether an article is of sufficient notability to be kept is not something an admin is allowed to do. Admins can decide whether a CSD nomination is appropriate (and that's according to a strict set of criteria described at WP:CSD), but beyond that they can not decide on weight, notability, citability, etc. That is decided by a consensus of editors at WP:AFD should someone choose to nominate the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that if this behavior continues I shall reblock for a considerably longer period. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC) DGG you were not the blocking admin, it was Oshwah, second matter is that i have stated previously that i will no longer tag it csd. now requesting an earlier unban.Minimobiler (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

right, I was not the blocking admin. But I was giving a warning. The warning also implied that not only did I see no reason to unblock early, but that I would have blocked for longer. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

7 reverts you have made here [1]. They ref does not say they have reached the milestone. You need to provide a reference. Ref provided says 98. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just come off a block for edit warring over a CSD nomination, and you go straight off and continue an existing edit war on another article and take your revert count up to seven! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee search "foldingforum" and "100 petaflops" together, with quotes. see the resulting post with screenshot in foldingforum.org and check if it matches my claim of reaching the milestone on the same month.Minimobiler (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC) on another note, are you onto me on a personal level Boing! said Zebedee ?Minimobiler (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand this, do you? You *must not* deal with disputes by revert-revert-revert *even if you are right*. Until you get your head round that, and turn from edit warring to consensus-seeking discussion instead, you are fated to be on the receiving end of escalating blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a second opinion as a person who has not been involved in your edits at all: The blocks have been justified, as you have apparently violated Wikipedia's policies multiple times. If you disagree with a dispute, bring the matter to a talk page.

It appears to be that you did not provide a source for the claims you made, in fact the reference surrounding your added statement did not support your statement. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and verifiability.

I don't see anything personal being involved. The administrator who blocked you second time is not the same as the first one, so there is no conflict of interest. You were given multiple warnings and the consequences are as expected.

Hopefully you will be wiser a week later and can make non-disruptive, constructive edits. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: i got that in my head very well. i will not edit war, i will invoke admin noticeboards, talk page discussions the next time such a dispute occurs. i am requesting either an unblock or a reduction of blocking time to 24 hours or less. 1 week is too long and triggers my cringe as a metapedian.Minimobiler (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put that in an unblock request, and if a reviewing admin is satisfied then they're welcome to lift or shorten the block without needing to ask me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i have noted now who are the active admins. instead of edit warring and hoping that the other side will complain for dispute, i will from now on, raise the complains pre emptively in the noticeboards should such a situation arise. i am requesting to be unblocked now or have it shortened to 6 hours or less as i feel obsessively compulsed now regarding tagging various discrepencies, lack of citations, sections, asking things in refdesk etc

Decline reason:

I feel a week off would be best for the project and best for you as an editor. You could use the time to reflect on how to avoid edit warring in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 24 October 2016 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) No- see WP:UNBLOCK (specifically, WP:UNINVOLVED). Good luck! _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking admin is allowed to unblock, yes. But as you suggested my motive might have been "on a personal level", I think it is better to leave the review (of both my block and of your unblock request) to another - as I said, the reviewer is welcome to lift or shorten the block without needing to ask me. As an aside, I suggest that feeling "obsessively compulsed" is not a good thing, and that you would benefit by cooling down your general Wikipedia approach and trying to be a bit more relaxed about it. (By the way, there's no need to ping me every time - I have this page on my watchlist and I'll see whenever anyone comments here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why put me on watchlist? as i am no expert on topics, what i can do is obsessively make redirects, tag noncited sections and articles, fix syntax and semantics, bring admin attention.

If you comment on a talk page, then it is customary to add that talk page to your watchlist so that you do not miss any relevant ongoing discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@both- apologies for the misinformation above- clearly I interpreted it too strictly. Minimobiler, rest assured, there's nothing wrong with being watchlisted here- see WP:TPW- it can be a good thing! Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 23 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

i have reflected upon it and said that i will call in ani, not edit war, as said in previous unblock requests and outside section. help me out, i have questions to ask in refdesk, redirects to make

Decline reason:

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to troll the reference desk. You have made too many unblock requests, so I'm turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 26 October 2016 (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.

before i forget:how does carbonated beverage aid digestion.

Final warning

Considering you have already had two blocks for edit warring, I am very concerned by what I see at Norepinephrine. You removed some material here, and then that removal was reverted here with the edit summary "Unreasonable rm of text - editor needs to take proposal to talk page".

You then did it again, here, saying "check talk page" having started a discussion. Starting a discussion is good, but you then *must not* re-apply your disputed changes *until there is a consensus in the discussion* in support of them. This has been explained before, and you apparently understood and pledged to adhere to it.

But this is edit warring, again! And an admin would have been justified in imposing another, longer, block. In this case I am instead going to make this into a final warning (but with a potentially more severe outcome if you continue). Time-limited blocks do not seem to be getting through to you, so if I see *one* more instance of edit warring from you (which is defined as your repeat of any edit that has been reverted without getting a clear consensus for it first), I will indefinitely block this account.

If that happens, you will not be unblocked until you can convince a reviewing admin that you really, genuinely, will stop edit warring - and your previous broken promises will count against you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: motion to continue with temp blocks on next incident, block durations increased on a magnitude of 2 (4 days, 8 days, 16 days and so on). blocks be performed by Admins without the slightest personal attachment, non-involved.motion presented by me.Minimobiler (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that your response is not to apologize and to pledge never to edit war again, but to try to negotiate allowances so that you can repeat your edit warring more times, and to imply that I'm acting personally. But no, no negotiation - one more example of edit warring and you get an indefinite block from me, unless someone else acts first. And if you think I'm doing this for personal reasons, you're always welcome to register a complaint at WP:ANI (but if you do, I'd suggest watching out for Boomerangs). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around some more, I think your problem is that you are trying to do too much too fast. Your enthusiasm is great, but there is almost never any need to do things quickly - a slower approach that takes in the need to talk about things slowly and carefully is the way we do things here. Also, you have not been here very long and you cannot be expected to know the way everything is done - so please, don't try to do the big things that you do not understand yet (like article splits), but just take part in the discussions and leave the actual work to experienced editors. And please, though you might not appreciate it, what I'm trying to do is help you to a long and rewarding time here at Wikipedia - and please understand that I'm not being hard on you for any personal reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: i tag things for experts to look into, then some general user comes in and undoes it. impossible to make wikipedia grow and adhere to the criterias if general users keep reverting tags.Minimobiler (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it does grow. See below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Testosterone (hormone)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Testosterone (hormone) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MM, if I may abbreviate. I understand what you're doing with these articles, but please remember to attribute the split contents, otherwise you would (incorrectly) be identified as the sole author of that content. See WP:PROPERSPLIT for the steps needed to accomplish this. Thanks! Crow^Caw 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things: Firstly, splits should not be done until a discussion has had time to complete - three days is not enough, and there's no rush. Secondly, when the discussion is finally concluded, the split can be done then by actually creating the new articles with properly attributed content - you should not create empty articles in advance, as that will only confuse readers who find them. And you should not create splits without proper attribution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data (computing)

Re this revert. Just putting {{outdated}} is vague, as there is no indication of where the problem is. You need to show why you think that it is outdated, preferably by starting a thread on the talk page of the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see that you have had several warnings in the past. In particular, there is a comment above from Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC) (i.e. yesterday) stating "if I see *one* more instance of edit warring from you (which is defined as your repeat of any edit that has been reverted without getting a clear consensus for it first), I will indefinitely block this account". It seems to me that this revert was itself a repeat of this edit that was reverted. I don't see any consensus for the re-adding of that tag. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Despite two previous blocks for edit warring, and despite my Final Warning above, you engaged in edit warring at Data (computing). You are, therefore, now indefinitely blocked until you can convince a reviewing admin that you will stop pursuing disagreements by edit warring. You know how to request unblock - follow the instructions in your previous block messages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have bypassed 3rr and blocked me for doing 1 revert now. you are trying to coerce me into never using undo button?Minimobiler (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: your threat was entirely ignoring 3rrMinimobiler (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with 3RR, and I have never suggested it is. I very clearly wrote "...if I see *one* more instance of edit warring from you (which is defined as your repeat of any edit that has been reverted without getting a clear consensus for it first), I will indefinitely block this account", so you have no valid reason for pretending you did not understand. Please read WP:EW before you make an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your threat in question, whether it is within the policy of wikipedia to make customized rules and threats for specific users, is the bigger concern.Minimobiler (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So make an unblock request, and a reviewing admin can review my warning, review the block, and review your unblock request - and they're welcome to unblock you or modify the block any way they feel is appropriate. (And before you make further accusations that I have acted contrary to Wikipedia policy, you really should read WP:EW!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly within policy to use informal instead of templated warnings. I think it much better in many cases when as a way to try to achieve understanding. they have been questioned at AN/I 2 or 3 times over the years , and always supported. I do it myself a good deal. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: whether it is permissible to label a single undo after a recent unblock as "edit war" and to issue a customized threat for me that is not following 3RR (would boing issue such "final warning(!)" to anyone else and if not, why for me, if not abuse and lack of care regarding responsibility and personal grudges) is the bigger and correct issue to look at and warrants involvement of everything that looks into admin action.Minimobiler (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC) boing did the classic "i beat you up when nobody is looking." routine where i cannot mount complaints due to lack of witnesses as well as impediment imposed via blocks based on mismade definitions ( is 1 undo edit war or not?). this calls for arbitrator involvement. DGG should thoroughly check and recheck.Minimobiler (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

reason stated in this very section. i intend to do everything regarding this abuse.

Decline reason:

There's nothing in here addressing your own conduct. See WP:NOTTHEM. I don't see any abuse either; it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. You edit warred and, as is abundantly clear from this talk page, would have continued if you had not been blocked. Huon (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2016 (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.

Minimobiler (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

check my contrib between previous and present block.Minimobiler (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:EW and WP:3RR as I suggested? Your block is for repeated EW violations and *not* for a 3RR breach. 3RR is *not* an entitlement, and you do *not* have to make more than 3 reverts to be blocked for edit warring. There is also no requirement for you to be issued a full set of templated warnings before a block can be imposed, especially if you have already had previous blocks for the same reason. The warning templates are merely a convenient way of speeding up and automating the warning process, and are not adequate for all circumstances - in many cases, admins prefer more personal messages. And yes, if you make a change, that change is reverted, and you then make the change again without gaining a consensus, that is edit warring - and you have no excuse for not understanding that as you had two previous blocks for edit warring and a very specific subsequent warning from me. You are not going to be unblocked unless an admin sees a convincing commitment from you to stop pursuing disputes by edit warring and to always seek consensus whenever a change of yours is reverted. So as it stands, I really can't see your current unblock request being successful, especially not as you are continuing your accusations that my block of you was in some way personal and that I have abused Wikipedia policy and I "beat you up when nobody is looking" - it wasn't (I would treat any other editor who doesn't listen and keeps on edit warring exactly the same way) and I haven't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my contrib log shows 1 undo after previous unblock. you call it engaging in edit war again. that indicates lax and or grudge. show me warring after the previous unblock, you cannot because 1 undo, not multiple continuous undoes.Minimobiler (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made this addition, it was reverted, and you immediately put it back again. The reviewing admin will be quite capable of judging whether that is edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as i said, it shows 1 undo. written rule showing 1 undo is edit war, where is it?Minimobiler (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try reading WP:BRD too. It is entirely within policy to block an editor for making one revert (of a revert of one of their own edits), especially if that editor has been repeatedly edit warring and refusing to listen to pleas to stop. Anyway, I'll leave it to the reviewing admin now, as I need to attend to other things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

the reason given for the present block and declination (talk page makes clear that would edit war) are both false. there are ways to notify and put sanctions that limit users to 1 revert. i did only 1 revert and was accused of warring and now given a false accusation of "would war".

Decline reason:

I refuse to unblock anyone who files a request that basically paraphrases "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (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.

You are not being told you can never revert - if you see someone make a change of their own that you think is wrong, you are free to revert it. The problem is dealing with *your* changes, and there's an easy way for you to get yourself unblocked. I'll give you a clue... If you make an edit, and someone else reverts it, what should you do next? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: wp:1rr applies in said circumstance. bigger issue now, by several order of magnitude, is the false accusation and flurry of spiteful replies to the unblock requests which breaks wp:civil, wp:agf, wp:cis, wp:sanity. the latest unblock declination as of this post is clear indicator.

Sigh, I really have tried to help you, but you can't help those who won't listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

stated in previous requests. if any admin is willing to clear all spite, prejudice and speak with me in detail about the issue, i welcome it 100%

Decline reason:

This isn't even a coherent unblock request. At this point I'm revoking talk page access. You can appeal via WP:UTRS, but I strongly urge you to read WP:GAB first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 15 November 2016 (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.

Minimobiler (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see edit history of folding@home

@Maproom: see how many times my edit showing the date reaching 100 petaflops was undid.Minimobiler (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC) @CuriousMind01: reason for the rfc is that. stopping hopeless editors from reverting updates and corrections.Minimobiler (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of that. You engaged in an edit war at Folding@home, repeatedly adding a statement which was not supported by the source cited. Maproom (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]