User talk:Redfoxjump

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize. Please stop the slander. Redfoxjump (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you did edit in a disruptive manner. On the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) page, you continued to delete sourced information despite my many attempts at civil discussion. You undid edits making outrageous claims such as, "disruption is clearly wrong" even though the sources I provided explicitly stated otherwise. Then you attempted to add diction that was not from a neutral point of view despite the fact that it directly contrasted with the sources I provided. Finally, you made an irrelevant request to "show the number of all of Japanese supply ships" even though the source I provided sourced the diction I used. Each of these times, you hastily undid the edits without proper reasoning or consideration for other editors, and for the recent edits, you didn't even bother to try and discuss the issue on the talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Discuss First

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Discuss any issues you have with the wording on the talk page BEFORE editing. I made this request very clear now. Honestly, I don't want to have to get administrators involved and make this a bigger issue than it needs to be, so let's civilly discuss the matter on the talk page until we can arrive at some sort of an agreement. I've made a new specific talk page section where we, and other concerned editors, can address any issues we have with the current wording in the infobox. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Amaury. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

sorry I accidently rollbacked one of your edits,and have rollbacked myself to your last edit. This was in no way because of yourvcedit, or an indication of that I wish to participate in your edit sparring. I was wanting to see the differences between diffs, and accidentlybhit roll back, trying tovedit with fat fingers on a mobile device.--KTo288 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 06:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackRanger88 (talk • contribs)

Edit warring at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I noticed that many other editors have accused you for vandalism but I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intention. Maybe you've made some mistakes however I believe your motive is to improve Wikipedia. Well everybody makes mistakes. Just do not make the same mistake twice. Cheers!

Chamith (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War - Japan

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Japan. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Krakatoa Katie 12:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwind warned you at WP:AN3 to stop this nonsense. You're on your way to a possible topic ban from articles related to Japan. Krakatoa Katie 12:59, 4 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my editing. [[1]] I deleted "citation needed" (12:14, 4 July 2015) (User: A21sauce added "citation needed". [2] 17:03, 3 July 2015 ) After that, I added the source. (12:25, 4 July 2015) [[3]] My editing was necessary. Redfoxjump (talk) 8:13 am, Today (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

You're being disingenuous. The edit about the Global Peace Index isn't why you were blocked, it was your resumption of the edit warring regarding the invasions of Korea ([4] [5] [6] [7]), which you were expressly told was edit warring but continued to do anyway. Unblock request declined. —Darkwind (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

""( [8] (06:25, 3 July 2015)

[9] (07:38, 3 July 2015)

[10] (08:47, 3 July 2015)

[11])"" (08:22, 4 July 2015)

Is this "3RR violation" ?

Redfoxjump (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to make the wikilawyering point that the reversions are spread over 26 hours rather than within 24 then I concede the point. But it is clear edit warring, so the block remains. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:00, 5 July 2015 (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.

Edits at Culture of Japan and Japanese history textbook controversies

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Japanese history textbook controversies. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Estimate Disputes on the Japanese Invasions of Korea Page

Hi. I noticed you were involved in a content dispute on the aforementioned page. I have created a talk page section, in order to avoid future edit warring. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Redfoxjump. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]