User talk:Mnnie053

March 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Cambodia women's national football team—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) 05:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source unassociated to substance. Mnnie053 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cambodia women's national volleyball team. 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) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information removed doesn't have source. Mnnie053 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cambodia national under-23 football team, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source displayed is unassociated to the subject of the article. Please check before reverting again. Mnnie053 (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: The source stuff is unrelated to the subject matter being deal with. Have you read before reverting? Other information doesn't have source. Mnnie053 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can file an unblock request and it will be denied. Materialscientist was being kind: I'd have blocked you per NOTHERE, because all you are doing is just removing information, and after 50 or 100 of those edits, who even cares what the reason was? "Source displayed is unassociated to the subject of the article" doesn't even mean anything. Consider, during these 31 hours, what you are here for and what it is that you want to do. If you are really interested in improving the article, get to work and maybe find the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been finding and I did not find any source for pre-place information that doesn't have source. Some information have source but they are wrongly placed and is not related to the subject of the article. You revert these edits without explaining why and call others not here? Removing information with poor quality is normal edit, not disruption, and it is editors' right here. If you don't agree, then please give a relevant reason and I explain and we open a discussion. This block on the other hand is blatantly agressive. Mnnie053 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and what you see below serves no purpose: no one is going to look at those edits and then check the talk page to see if there's a message there for them before reverting. Besides, on closer inspection it seems clear that at least some edits of yours are, well, vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Here, you removed a bunch of information, and you said "needs source"--but you removed the actual sources in that edit, including this article. And in that edit you also removed the basic and uncontroversial statement "The national federation is a member of ASEAN". So, no, you will have to do some work here, in the content of your edits and in your edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining on edits

This is an explanation on the edits of mine in some recent articles. I won't start talk pages of individual articles because this edit apply to multiple articles so it is more efficient to discuss all here in my talk page. You can post messages for discussion here.

First of all, there is the removal of content that doesn't have source, which is a normal edit practice, is according to WP:V.
Secondly, some information has source but is not related to the subject matter of the article, is wrongly put by someone in the past. This is according to WP:WBAST.

If you revert, then please give a message here to explain, and we generally discuss here, not in talk pages of articles, like I said above. Mnnie053 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Content dispute between User:Mnnie053 and User:Pichsambath, removal of sourced content, possible biting of a newcomer. Thank you. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]