User talk:HaT59

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Malawi (1964–1966), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but deleting more than 3000 bytes in one go without telling anyone, what else would you call it but "vandalism"? HaT59 (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirection. The outcome of a talk page request. Normal editing. Merging. Any number of valid alternatives. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have once again accused editors unjustly of vandalism. This is not vandalism. If you continue to ignore community norms and be uncivil, your talk page access will be revoked. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Your recent editing history at Malawi (1964–1966) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You have performed more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. You must undo your last revert, or you will likely be blocked. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop defending SnowFire for deleting a useful article for readers without reason. We need to discuss BEFORE we delete. HaT59 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is unjustified. We need to discuss BEFORE we delete. HaT59 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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:. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternate account
Hello HaT59,

I have to ask - are you another editor's alternate account? You backed off the Malawi spin-off article for a short time, but IMMEDIATELY noticed and reverted after I updated the templates. Exactly 1 minute later. To me, this suggests a regular editor who has the templates watchlisted, but is using an alternate account for whatever reason to avoid scrutiny. If so, please edit directly as your main account. If not, and you truly are a newbie, then you need to actually provide some sort of explanation. You talk above about "We need to discuss", and yet I was the one who filled the talk page with voluminous good reasons why it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy to merge the article as it currently stands. If you continue to refuse to either accept the consensus, or else explain yourself AND generate a new consensus in favor of the article, then it's back to the edit warring noticeboard, and you'll likely be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When you stop vandalizing the article and undoing my every edit, we can perhaps discuss calmly. And no, I'm not an another editor's alternate account, but because of you, I'm blocked again. I don't understand why this little 3000 bytes article bothers you so much. You have exhausted me. I don't want to contribute here anymore. HaT59 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's be very clear: it's because of your own actions that you are blocked, not because of me. Today, I was merely cleaning up some template links to point to the current article in line with Wikipedia policy.  You were the one that immediately set into un-redirecting without any discussion, despite your earlier warnings and repeated notice to engage on the talk page.
 * Anyway, Wikipedia works by consensus. It's not a personal blog.  Sometimes that might mean that the consensus is Dumb And Wrong (I've been on the wrong end before too), but you need to at least attempt to challenge it with discussion rather than edit warring.  And trying to save content is all well and good (we certainly need fuller coverage of African topics), but I have to say, there wasn't exactly a whole lot of content to save in this particular case.  Or any content, really.  If you want to take another shot at Wikipedia some day, I'd suggest starting with adding content rather than edit warring over an article.  SnowFire (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't gone back to my changes, I wouldn't have cancelled and been blocked. It is impossible to discuss with people who make no effort to understand and who think they are the only ones who are right. You repeat that there is nothing to keep in this article, but you do not accept that others may think the opposite. This is not my idea of a discussion. Under these conditions, yes, I have to fight hard to save an article that is dear to my heart. But again, you're obstructing for reasons that escape me. So I stop here and I maintain that you are a vandal. HaT59 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, I was not the last person to redirect the article, and as stated before, you did those undiscussed reverts, not me. Anyway, I do not think you are a good fit for Wikipedia based on your comments.  We're a collaborative project here.  That means editors have to be able to deal with other editors who disagree in good faith. If you dislike doing that, I recommend a blog (seriously!) - nobody will edit your work there and you don't need to prove anything to anyone. SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you stop writing on my talk page or do you want to have the last word? I asked you to discuss BEFORE deleting but you just do as you please. And you have protectors who support you. How do you want to have a peaceful discussion? And you talk about a collaborative project when you're deleting all my work? I brought sources that you didn't even read. Do you realize that your behavior is holding back the contributions of others? No, of course not, because it's only your opinion that counts. HaT59 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing 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:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were just blocked three days ago for edit warring and have returned to pick up where you left off. If this continues, I expect the next block will be indefinite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. DrKay (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is totally unjustified. I find you very aggressive. HaT59 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)