User talk:Julymath321

Genghis Khan (disambiguation)
Please stop reverting on this page. The description on a disambiguation page should correspond to what is provided in the lead of the article. Genghis Khan does not describe him as "Universal Ruler". To be fair, the article lead did not describe him as a 13th military leader. I've updated the disambiguation page to better match the description given in the article. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Your recent editing history at Genghis Khan (disambiguation) 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 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 your 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The information I posted is correct information. It is also supported by sources in the main article. The information Bkonrad posted is random POV that is factually INCORRECT. That is why I posted on his talk page to resolve content dispute but to no avail. I am interested in posting accurate information for an online encyclopedia.Julymath321 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I presented a reputable source for my content to resolve content dispute with Bkonrad whereas Bkonrad adamantly chose not to and instead started an edit war and simply requested protection level for the page. Julymath321 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The statement of Julymath321 is demonstrably false. After a series of reverts, I contacted Julymath321 on their talk page above on 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC). Julymath321 first attempt to "discuss" the matter on my talk page was on 17:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC). Subsequent exchanges are here. Julymath321 did attempt to edit this information into the Genghis Khan article The crux of the disagreement as far as I'm concerned is that "Universal Ruler", even if it is a literal translation of some title given to Ghenghis Khan, is not a neutral description of WHAT he was that can be readily understood by a general readership. older ≠ wiser 18:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * here (reverted by NewEnglandYankee
 * and again here (later removed by Brandmeister
 * which Julymath321 quickly reverted and was then also reverted by Boing! said Zebedee.

Actually it is a literal translation and a neutral description instead of a POV and it IS understood by general readership. Thanks for admitting what I posted is a literal translation.Julymath321 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also my thanks to Bkonrad to admitting that I engaged him in his talk page. I responded to him after May 19 because it was recommended by an admin that I engage him through his talk page to correct his POV and resolve the content dispute which is exactly what I did by following the admin's recommendation.Julymath321 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that Bkonrad's justification for his edit is now changing because he originally claimed that my correction of his POV was reversed because it was not mentioned in the main article. When I posted factual information on the main article with citation Bkonrad changed his justification for his vandalism that it is "not understood by general readership." Bkonrad is posting incorrect, false information and starting edit wars.Julymath321 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it is neutral or that it is an accurate description. You were reverted by multiple editors. Rather than persisting in single-handedly attempting to right a great wrong, you need to establish consensus for your edits to the Genghis Khan article and Genghis Khan (disambiguation) on the respective talk pages. As I explained previously, disambiguation pages cannot contain statements that are not supported by the linked article, and in most cases, the description for an entry on a disambiguation page is very brief reflecting the first line of the linked article. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"I don't agree that it is neutral or that it is an accurate description," is YOUR POV Bkonrad. It is important to post information that has citation so people don't post POVs on Wikipedia without any support. My description on the disambiguation page was more concise than yours and reflected the information on the main article, yours did not Bkonrad. Bkonrad you started an edit war then requested a block instead of seeking a content dispute resolution by providing sources and citations.Julymath321 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. In no rational world is "Universal Ruler" a neutral and accurate description. Sorry. Find any other reputable source that gives that as the PRIMARY description that introduces readers to who Genghis Khan is (as opposed to mentioning what the term literally meant in a sidebar). older ≠ wiser 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide sources which is something you are unable to do. Also, look above "Ghenghis Khan." Bkonrad doesn't even know how to even spell the name of the historical figure in the article topic in addition to posting random, incorrect POVs regarding content. I am interested in posting correct, factual information to update the online encyclopedia.Julymath321 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Universal Ruler" is not a neutral description and is not an accurate description. If this is your only intention here, to place that in the articles, let me know and I'll revoke your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, "Universal Ruler" is a neutral AND a factual description. Go educate yourself. Yamal, you are obviously not an experienced editor.Julymath321 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

So far Bkonrad has failed to offer up a single citation to support his edits and is continuing to go around randomly vandalizing Wikipedia pages by posing POVs that are not grounded in facts and have absolutely no supporting documentation.Julymath321 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yamla's candidacy for adminship should be rejected.Julymath321 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is important for users to be aware that just because you have zero knowledge about a topic doesn't mean it is not true. It just means you are ignorant and uneducated but doesn't make a historical fact false. Julymath321 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)  Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))
 * As you are simply using this page to rehash the same arguments and are now throwing around personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to post here. Instructions for any further appeals can be found directly below.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)