User talk:Analyzer99

Robert Mugabe
Hi. I've asked you a couple of questions here. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Woogee (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that most of the edits are useful and constructive. However, please engage on Talk: - otherwise these edits will not stick. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleting sourced material without discussion is unhelpful. This is a third request for you to explain your editing and seek consensus with other editors.   Will Beback    talk    07:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on Robert Mugabe
We require that editors cooperate and discuss disagreements in article content in a collaborative manner, on article or user talk pages. Continuing to change or revert content without discussion is called edit warring. We have a specific rule against making the same change more than 3 times in 24 hours as well, the Three Revert Rule.

You have engaged in a long series of edit warring edits on Robert Mugabe. Despite warnings you have continued to do so. To stop the edit warring, I have blocked your account for 31 hrs.

When the block expires, you are free to edit again. However - your future edits need to be in accord with the edit war policy. You need to stop simply remaking changes when someone else objects, and discuss them in the article talk page.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

stop vandalism in Robert Mugabe
There are allegations Mugabe and other elite members are involved in diamond trade ! So just stop lobbying for Mugabe - thanks ! Handy-TV (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on African people. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular 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. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've reverted four times today and may be blocked if you continue. Please await a consensus.   Acroterion  (talk)  19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reported your six reverts at WP:AN3. You are clearly out of line, but since I reverted one time I am not personally taking administrative action.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at African people. 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 below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 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.

Hello
Could you explain y your removing the word black and in the process with some edits delinking the main "ethnic" article from the lead in articles? After looking at your edits closer I see a much bigger problem ..Will think about what to do. Moxy (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Black African"
Why are you taking the word "black" out of so many articles about black Africans and their descendants? In most cases, non-black Africans are not considered part of the group described in the article. Please explain. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Slavery
When an editor removes material that clearly violates copyright law ("copyvio"), you'd better have a good reason to revert. Please don't do it again unless you'd like to be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't suffice to write copyvio to delete text. There's nothing remotely close to being a copyright violation here in this one sentence.  It's simply sourced material.


 * There are two sentences. If you follow the footnote to the source, you will see that they have been copied and pasted from the source. Copyright violations are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. The next time you add or restore COPYVIO material, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You've broken 3RR. I recommend you self-revert or I'll report you at WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:ANEW — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at African diaspora. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 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.

African diaspora
Please stop edit-warring. Several editors have explained on the Talk page why the modifier "black" is necessary. It's time to drop the stick. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is none of the sources, African Diaspora associations or common use agrees with it and verifiability WP:V is a core principle of wikipedia and other editor are not proper source for wikipedia article. Even earlier version of this article for many years didn't use any "qualifier" about the skin colors of Africans before somebody changing it without proper source. In fact they avoid the issue of verifiability altogether to express personal opinion (fringe opinion without any sources backing) and quibbles about the subject. Analyzer99 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * STOP EDIT-WARRING! I don't know how to say it any more clearly. You've been blocked twice this year for edit-warring; are you looking for a third block?
 * If you're certain you know The Truth™ and everybody else is wrong, maybe you should pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion about verifiability of the changes. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I kept the discussion moving forward by introducing sources to back up my claims and edition.  Analyzer99 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Canadians
Pls stop your Disruptive editing - as you can see by the talk page NOT ONE person agrees with YOUR interpretation of things...Dont you think its odd only you think this and even The statistics use the term? Moxy (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every African diaspora association or organisms in Canada (and around the world) agrees with my definition and terminology used. Same as previous version of this article and news articles. In fact, it's your opinion (valid or not) which is not based on any sources.  I make it clear, and give further sources, in the black Canadians talk page. Analyzer99 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pls just read up on the topic - Moxy (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)



March 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Since you breached the 3RR, I filed a report on WP:AN3. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be blocked for a longer time
This would be a good chance for you to respond to the complaint at WP:AN3. From perusing your talk page I see you've had an escalating series of blocks. The last block was for one week. This suggests that you've been forcing articles to reflect your point of view even though others don't agree with your changes. Here on Wikipedia we expect editors to abide by consensus, if they have tried to convince others but not succeeded. There may still be time for you to respond at WP:AN3 and promise to act differently in the future. If you are not interested in changing your ways, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Black Canadians
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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 complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC) but unfortunately I didn't have enough time to respond. I didn't realized I had broken the 3 revert rules since I was discussing changes actively in the talk page. Moving the discussion forward by adding reliable sources (like government sites, United nations, Encyclopedia) to unsourced definition. I was going to remind the other user of the verifiability principle WP:V which is at the core of Wikipedia and seek other form of conflict resolution by appealing to the appropriate noticeboard for example. Which is what I will do in the future if other form of dispute resolution and discussions fail, hence why I request this block to be lifted. Analyzer99 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Africa
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Africa. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Block warning - Continued 3RR / 4RR edit warring on Africa
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Africa. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Analyzer99,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Regardless of how you feel about how correct your edits were, the fact that they were disputed by multiple editors means you should have taken the issue to the discussion page to work out a consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting other editors (often with no edit summary or explanation). I may be willing to end the block early if you agree to limit your contributions to the talk page until a consensus is established, and understand that further edit warring will lead the block immediately being reinstated. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, you were warring with at least three editors: ,,. When you know your edits are going to be controversial, even if you personally think they are right, it is your responsibility to go to the talk page and reach consensus rather than repeatedly restoring edits that you know are just going to be undone. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that, if you again revert other users' edits without discussion (even if you think you were right), you will be blocked again? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm going to discuss changes on the discussion page. Analyzer99 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I'm revoking my decline of your unblock and restoring the request to let an uninvolved administrator review it. Below is my original decline message; the reviewing administrator may take this into account if he/she wishes.


 * Analyzer, You clearly don't understand Wikipedia's policies or the terms I stated for you above, which are clear: even if you think your edit is correct, you can't do it until after you've gotten consensus at the talk page. Even now, in your unblock requests you are insisting on explaining why you think your edit is right, which is completely immaterial: the issue is your behavior, not the correctness of your edit. You can still be edit warring even if your edit is the "right" edit. This is all made clear in the "guide to appealing blocks" which is linked in the block message you received; as administrators reviewing the block appeal, we are not interested in arguments about the content of the article, but only in arguments about your behavior and whether you were edit warring.
 * Since you clearly do not understand what you did wrong here and since you have shown that you are willing to lie to administrators to perpetuate an edit war, I recommend that the reviewing administrator decline your unblock your ability to edit this talkpage to prevent you from making further inappropriate unblock requests. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You were right the first time but this time too, but the other editor changed the original stable version (by simply removing a citation needed tags I placed) with another new etymological personal theory without discussing it first on the discussion page. You write: even if you think your edit is correct, you can't do it until after you've gotten consensus at the talk page.  Which doesn't only apply to me but also to the other editors as well. I didn't restore the edit to the one I thought was right, but the one that was the stable consensus version before the editor took on his own (finally) to address the issue brought up by the citation tags I placed, but instead of finding new sources he simply remove the citation needed tags to write a new theory of his own without discussing it on the discussion page first.  Since I'm the one who brought up the issue in the first place, I obviously don't think the stable consensus version was right (it turned out there was an error in it but replacing it with another error without discussing it, or having proper reliable source, is not good either).  I think it was important to find proper verifiable sources not just replace it with another personal theory like the other editor did.   I already started a discussion about it on the Africa discussion page and I would not make any edit to the article before discussing it first on the discussion page and seek proper conflict resolution (like noticeboard, etc) if the situation prescribed it.  In this case, I obviously agree that the original stable version needs to be changed, I'm the one who brought up the issue (along with other edits which I shouldn't have) in the first place, but with proper verifiable sources not personal theory and at least not without discussing it first in the discussion page. Analyzer99 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, since you still don't seem to get it after multiple uninvolved admins have tried to help, I expect that your failure to understand this key policy and your actions will likely lead to a very exasperated admin declining this unblock and removing your access to make any more unblock requests. Not really the most brilliant plan. I recommend one more read through the guide to appealing blocks and the edit-war policy, then amind your request accordingly before another admin drops by. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the situation since I didn't modify the WP:CONSENSUS version beside adding a citation needed tags and starting a discussion about it in the Africa discussion page. Which is what I learned and agreed to do from the previous block and it's what should be done in that particular situation.  It's not my preferred version at all. I'm sure we would have come to another WP:CONSENSUS about the statement by discussing it on the Africa discussion page or I could have eventually used other conflict resolution like appealing to the proper noticeboard.  Placing citation tags is also a form of consensus seeking resolution since I didn't modify the WP:CONSENSUS, but simply asking for further sources for what came to be accepted by the other editor as a erroneous statement.  I didn't write MY preferred version like you claim I did.  If anything it is the other user who modified the WP:CONSENSUS without discussing it or adding sources or verifiability.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Africa&action=historysubmit&diff=433909185&oldid=433904790  While it's true I wanted to change further aspect of the etymological subject and was blocked for it. I was, and still plan, to suggest those changes (placing all hypotheses withing hypotheses list) to the Africa discussion page.Analyzer99 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No hes got it right - you have been reverted everyday multiple times a day since June 6, 2011 on the Africa article - you were block on June 12, 2011 - then on June 13 you got unblocked and  started reverting again. You  final posted to the talk page on 13 June 2011 - but in the process  missed the message about this problem above it. As you have explained above - it's clear you don't understand or are unwilling to follow Editing policy—Talking and editing, BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Editing policy. "(all this have been pointed out to you many times)"Moxy (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)