User talk:Jim7049

Requests for Page Protection
Hello, thanks for your contribution [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerch_Strait_incident&type=revision&diff=871725974&oldid=871716873 here]. I'd like to inform you that this has no effect unless an administrator first configures the page protection settings, as for example [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerch_Strait_incident&type=revision&diff=871140699&oldid=871139592 here (automatically expired on Dec 2)]. Please refer to WP:RfPP if you want to ask an admin to do this for you. Personally I think we can manage the little petty vandalism on the page, and IP contributions can be valuable too. But feel free to disagree of course ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Jim7049 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported
I have reported your disruptive behavior at the Administrators' noticeboard. Do feel free to get involved. Thanks. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Front for Liberation–Tahrir al-Sham conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/National_Front_for_Liberation%E2%80%93Tahrir_al-Sham_conflict check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/National_Front_for_Liberation%E2%80%93Tahrir_al-Sham_conflict?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported
I have reported you for knowingly violating the 1RR and for continuing your edit warring. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. 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:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that edit warring? I made one revert and the other one was a modification. You block me for not even violating 1RR? Jim7049 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported
I have reported you for violating the 1RR again, mere hours after the first block expired. EDIT: I didn't see that you self-reverted. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1RR does not only apply when hitting the 'revert' button. Re-adding/removing the same content twice is also a violation of 1RR, even if it is just partial (or a "modification"). If I were you, I'd save myself some future trouble and focus more on talk pages and less on reverting, even without violating the 1RR. Disputed edits might stand for a while, but ultimately it's the consensus that decides. All the best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

NPA
Please read WP:NOTVANDALISM and WP:NPA. Then reconsider why you made this revert. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. Jim7049 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

British recognition or lack thereof on Maduro
I would point you to the government statement that is days old that definitively states that the British government backs the opposition government and does not recognise Maduro. There is no ambiguity with the United Kingdom. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-statement-on-situation-in-venezuela Qaei    &#9742;  01:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was removed following the discussion [|here]. The statement is vague and does not touch on recognizing Guaido as interim president. Jim7049 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN
Jim, I am so sorry because I put my nomination in the wrong place accidentally by mistake. But don't worry I have put this in the in the right place, hopefully to avoid the screw up in the future. Sheldybett (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Operation Euphrates Shield. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Removal of maintenance templates
Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

, User Mikrobølgeovn has clearly taken advantage of me being blocked and further edit warred on the subjects that we weren't discussing. Since I got block Mikrobølgeovn not only reverted once again what we were discussing about (adding a unreliable tag to a source which he does not approve but has not presented a source for it not being unreliable). He completely removed the sourced material, reverting, edit warring further and taking advantage of by block as well taking it a even step further. Jim7049 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I implemented the existing consensus. All other users who were involved regarded as a clear-cut case, with one calling your source (an opinion piece) "trash", and another using the words "total conspiracy theory". There is zero doubt whatsoever that this sort of thing does not belong on Wikipedia, let alone in the most visible part of an article. Also, you may note that I only removed this particular source; we have disagreements elsewhere that I haven't touched, because there is no consensus. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , You removed a sourced material because you are pro Israeli, you have not presented a single source calling it a conspiracy and neither has the other user. You have 2 against 1 removed a sourced material by your personal views without displaying any sources what so ever. Your consistency against removal of this and especially when I'm block should land you a block as well. Jim7049 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it is rather pointless to repeat the entire discussion here. For any third party reading this, see Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing again. I'm calling to land you a block for your further edit warring and taking advantage of my block. You have edit warred 3 times just like I have as well. Jim7049 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC) This is for edit-warring and battleground behaviour on various articles, most recently at 2013 Egyptian coup d'état &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So who draws the line what makes an edit war an edit war? From the rules I have read so far only violating 3RR is considered an edit war which causes a block. Jim7049 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The admins decide what constitutes edit warring. I suggest you read WP:Edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Brief reason given for block, first of all what other articles as you claim have I edit warred? If you are gonna accuse somebody of something you better present evidence on what those are. As in the case of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, I have made no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, which were reverts of different edits rather than reverting the same thing 3 times. Jim7049 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not in my place to comment here, and I promise I'm not doing it to be a dick. Jim, look at Talk:Biafran War. User:Bendel boy had every reason to be annoyed with me, yet he has been nothing but polite. I wish we could communicate with the same tone. Even bitter disputes don't have to be handled in a hostile manner. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok first of all I was not hostile, and second of all it is not the reason I was blocked. The mod has accused me of edit warring without explaining on which articles. In Egypt coup I have made no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours on different subject, so I did not violate 3RR. Jim7049 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And in case of Egypt coup, I hope you won't take advantage of me being blocked and remove sourced content. Jim7049 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware that edits that did not violate 3RR were also considered edit warring. Request to unblock and not to edit war. Was blocked for 3 reverts in past 24 hours in an article. Jim7049 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
Please describe the steps you would take to resolve a disagreement with another editor about content without edit warring. Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Please read and describe how WP:BRD relates to avoiding causing disruption. Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the edit is reverted by a user I will discuss it at the talk page until a conclusion is reached before making any reverts. Rather than edit warring. Jim7049 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I can't really ask for anything more than this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked based on the assurance above. Earlier comments suggested they would continue the edit war at 2013 Egyptian coup d'état and I will be highly disappointed if that happens. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capture of Southern Naval Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Capture_of_Southern_Naval_Base check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Capture_of_Southern_Naval_Base?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fakhri Pasha into List of last stands. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Jim7049 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Madness Darkness 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/2019 March 11 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Reported for continuous edit warring
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018 has been nominated for discussion
Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Danski454 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
Due to the fact that you have been blocked and warned many times, and have failed to change your behavior, you have been blocked indefinitely per WP:CIR. We have already attempted to give you a chance to stop, multiple times. We've blocked you, we've unblocked you, we've tried explaining to you, we've believed your promises to stop, and yet nothing is changing. If you wish to edit here again, you will have to make serious changes. That does not mean more promises to stop, that means an editing restriction, such as a WP:0RR (ban on reverting) or something similar. For extended comments regarding this block, see my comments at AN/I. ~Swarm~   {talk}  20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)