User talk:Realhistorybuff

August 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on India. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Quigley (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at India, you may be blocked from editing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop copypasting content from sources and repeatedly adding the same content when multiple editors have asked you to discuss before adding anything. Please open a discussion at Talk:India and explain why the content should be included in the article. If you continue to revert you are likely to be blocked from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to China, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Model minority. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at India. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WikiPuppies! (bark) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on India. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. You are continuing your edit war immediately after your block despite every other editor (seven in total) asking you not to add this information to the article and explaining the rationale quite clearly. —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my "Unveiled" source. My sentence regarding the inventions and discoveries of India is also true! I'll tell you what, mate, when I am giving you such overwhelming evidence to prove that India is all those things, why are you going out of your way to discredit me?? It is true. India was the source of many of the most important inventions and discoveries and India is a potential superpower. Go through the links that I have posted!!

Realhistorybuff (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:India, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:Realhistorybuff and India

There is currently a thread at WP:ANI concerning your editing. The relevant section is titled "User:Realhistorybuff and India". Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of seventy-two hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 2, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realhistorybuff. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:22, 3 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption as I am contributing positively to the articles on Wikipedia. Please go through my edits in the "India" article, please go through my other edits as well and you will realize that I contributed to the article in an immense way. I am sure you had the right intentions when you decided to block me, but you yourself have been a victim of manipulation and misinformation. Please go through my edits in the "India" article and you will realize that it is the user named "Elockid" (who, astonishingly, has administrator privileges) that is vandalizing the page. Please go through the link - "India Unveiled by Robert Arnett"- and go through my edit and you will realize that the article (and thereby the edit) is reliable and should qualify for a featured article. It is neither a POV issue nor is it a copyright violation. Reverting a good edit is vandalism and by this definition "Elockid" is the one doing the vandalism, not me. I am really disappointed with Wikipedia for allowing users like "Elockid" and "HelloAnnyong" to get away with vandalizing, while another user gets blocked for their actions. I will once again request you to go through the "India" article and my edits. Please go through the "India" article and my edits. I look forward to editing on Wikipedia again and I hope you agree with my analysis of the "India" article. You probably will once you got through the article and my edits.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for sockpuppetry. This is disruptive, therefore, the block is needed. Calling administrators vandals is also not going to win you favors as well. either way (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just figured out what a "sock puppet" is! I was unaware of the sock puppet rule. Had I known that I would be blocked for creating and using another account, I wouldn't have done it. To put it in another way, it was unintentional and non-malicious use of two different accounts on Wikipedia. My intention was not to be disruptive. I was unaware of the rule. Kindly unblock me. Thanks Realhistorybuff (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you signed up, WP:U was required reading. The section at the bottom (WP:MULTIPLE) was pretty clear. The fact that you appear to have used both accounts to push a WP:POV and to attempt to create new WP:CONSENSUS with them both is the whole reason WP:SOCK is never permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:11, 4 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock me cuz I don't have multiple accounts anymore. Realhistorybuff (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, we went through great lengths to block them. I can't really understand why you felt it was somehow acceptable to evade blocks and continue to edit war through a dozen or so socks. You'll need to provide a much more comprehensive narrative on what you were thinking and how you will change your behavior. Please note that further repetitive or pointless unblock requests will result in this page being locked. Kuru (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Here is the deal. The article on "India' does great injustice to what is, by every index, the greatest civilization on the planet. Even though most people do not use Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, quite a few people go through the articles on Wikipedia to get a rough idea of the topic. Unblock me so that I can prove to you that I was not, in fact, vandalizing the page. In the introduction, the entire (spectacular) history of India is compressed into one sentence, which is absolutely wrong. If not for anything else, unlock me for my persistence, watch the "India" page and judge for yourself as to who is doing the "vandalizing" Realhistorybuff (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:10, 13 September 2011 (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.

I don't really care about your content dispute. I care about your edit warring, disruptive editing, and block evasion. Your response sounds like you will continue the same behavior, only "persistently". I'll leave it for another admin to evaluate, since I have declined the previous request. Kuru (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for sockpuppetry and at that time I did not know what a sock puppet was. I did not know that it was against wiki rules to use multiple accounts. I have made many positive contributions to wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia should be grateful that I am coming out with such good information and contributing positively to the encyclopedia. You can track my profile and my edits if you'd like and I will gladly remove any of my edits if the links are not credible or if my edits are not accurate. Realhistorybuff (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry; this is your fifth unblock request, more than you should have been allowed to make if you were going to be this argumentative and just rehash the same arguments and pleas in the hope that someone would take pity upon you. Not only is this declined, you are losing access to your talk page. Further attempts to cajole us into letting you out will have to be made via the unblock list. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page during the block has been revoked due to abuse of the unblock template. If you wish to appeal the block further, contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Daniel Case (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

With this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, which may be viewed at [1], I hereby inform you that you are banned from editing the English Wikipedia with any account or IP address. Appeals may be made to the community, or to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please use e-mail if you wish to pursue an appeal, as your access to this talk page was revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]