User talk:Princess of Myadaung

June 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Y-Zet. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, regarding your edit summary of reverting my revision (revision 900559711), I would like to remind you of your misunderstanding. Creating an account does not equal to having the free right to edit. Wikipedia is not a social network nor a personal forum, it is an encyclopedia. This means that you are required to follow the rules and guidelines when editing. Undid revision 900560435 by WikiAviator (talk) wtf ?? What reason you remove my expand??? See sources ...plesase don't esit war This is what you wrote. What does wtf mean??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAviator (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Y-Zet 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

What the sock of Emily Khine! Your reason is unwarranted. Please carefully check your Check User! I'm not sock. Can you explain how to i likely of the sock? Princess of Myadaung (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed both the technical and behavioural evidence, I concur with TonyBallioni's assessment and endorse the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:26, 7 June 2019 (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.