User talk:Karl.i.biased

Suggested WikiProjects
Hey Karl.i.biased—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 250 pieces of Featured content and over 800  Good articles), but there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page, participate in our current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Regarding your comment here, WP:RS covers what a reliable source is. What other editors are telling you in this particular instance is that regardless of what Wikileaks may be doing at this point, they have received criticism from reliable secondary sources in the past. That fact doesn't change as time goes by. It can possibly be amended that Wikileaks later did cover Russian topics, but the criticism still existed. Wikilinks itself is a WP:Primary source though and must be used very carefully when discussing itself. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks 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 a dead end, you can 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. Dr.  K.  04:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for contacting me. I am rather new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I was supposed to respond somewhere else. I got 2 warning for those 3 edits, but I honestly don't understand why. And I am not even talking about the substance of those edits, I am talking about the system of warnings. So there was (and still is) this statement on the page about wikileaks, in the first paragraph even, that said that any crticism of Russian is absent on wikileaks. I've changed it because it's factually wrong. I literally went on Wikilaks to check the original statement the moment I saw it, thinking about searching for the word Russia on wikileaks, only to see a big report on Russia literally on the main page of the website. Which is why I changed the original statement on wikipedia about the absence of reporting on Russia. And I explained this edit by saying what I just told you in the edit summary. Now, maybe the original statement was right still, maybe the reports on wikileaks are, i dont know, false or whatever, but my edits were immediatly reverted with no explanation. Nobody made any arguments or whatever. I made mine, and it appears as if nobody read them. And then my edit was reverted 3 times by the same guy. By one guy. I re-reverted his reversion by again stating my case in the edit summaries, expecting him to engage in conversation, but he reverted, again, with no explanation. And now I get warning for edit warring? And he doesn't? I am not that fluent in English, but I am pretty sure that after I gave my arguments the burden of proof was on him to disprove me. Please, explain this to me, I don't understand.


 * Once you get reverted, you are supposed to click on the talkpage of the article and start a discussion there. The link is Talk:WikiLeaks. That's where discussion should take place, not in edit-summaries, not on your talkpage. Dr.   K.  17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you started this discussion. As for your argument, once I get reverted it's ME who should start the discussion? Doesn't that break the concept of burden of proof? I made my case, if you disagree - by all the Gods do, but you should make your case too. Not just revert the edit with no explanation.


 * Once you get reverted by more than one editor, it is a good indicator that your edit is not acceptable. It is up to you then to go to the talkpage to try to convince the reverting editors that your edit is good. Please see WP:BRD. By the way, I did not start any discussion. I just informed you that edit-warring through edit-summaries is not acceptable. Once you start edit-warring, you should be willing to go to the talkpage to resolve the problem, not continue edit-warring; such behaviour can lead to loss of you editing privileges.  Dr.   K.  17:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Because it doesn't make any sence so far


 * I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. Yes, you were. Click on this link and check. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Read WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:BRD, carefully. None of these policies exempt edit-warring due to WP:BURDEN. You edit-war, you get blocked. Simple. Dr.   K.  17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No I wasn't. Not untill after I was reverted 3 times to be a single user with no explanation, for which I got the edit warring and he didn't. Note that I didn't revert then the other user joined defending the article.

The rules are clear to me, burden of proof should be upheld. If a user makes an edit and makes the case as to why the edit he made is correct - it's up to other users to disprove the edit if they revert it. Which contradicts with what I did with the article, I am reverting it back now


 * Ok, but don't tell me I didn't inform you when you get reported and, subsequently, WP:BLOCKed. Dr.   K.  18:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You refuse to engage in a conversation, instead you dodge questions. When I ask you to tell me the rule I broke you link me to the list of rules asking to "read carefully" and you refuse to explain how did my actions break any of the rules. . And now you are basically threatening with a block? Cool.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to WikiLeaks. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dr.  K.  18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is any of this original research? Your original statement literally said that there's no reporting on russia on Wikileaks. I link you to the page on wikileaks about Russia, and you claim it's original research? What?
 * As I said before, you have to go to the talkpage of the article to discuss this with other editors. I have no more time to tutor you on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on your talkpage. Dr.   K.  18:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lecture? As far as I can see our conversation right now your point is that any time an editor reverts other editor's input on wikipedia, this editor, whos' input has been reverted, has to go to talk page to state his case, even though he made his point in the edit summaries already. It seems incredibly funny, because, according to you the burden of proof is always on the editors to prove that the reversion was wrong. And ofcourse you couldn't link me the rule that says that, I wonder why

I've opened a discussion at Talk:WikiLeaks. I highly suggest you use it to discuss your changes before re-attempting to add them. I tried to provide some helpful advice above. At this point, you are very close to a block, and a less lenient admin possibly would have already applied one. I think you have some good contributions to offer Wikipedia as an editor, so please, try to heed the warnings you've received and engage in a discussion of the changes you want. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Arabiya
Hi If we remove Al Arabiya we should also remove Masdar. The problem is the both are WP:reliable source despite that there are not neutral sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Go on then. Personally, I am not against removing Masdar if it's a pov source too Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is we have not the right to remove biaised reliables sources. Please stop the removing. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We do. IF there is a consensus that the source is pov (point of view), as is the case with Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel because Saudia Arabia is officially a side of war in the yemeni civil war, we prefer to try and find other sources for the same info. If only al-arabiya is reporting on the death toll, there's reason to believe that they are biased in their reporting, which is why i am removing that info. IF you really want this info to stay, you should try and find it being reported by other sources. I couldn't and that is in itself a big question mark for the al arabiya reporting credibility Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."--Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is true, but your statement about executions is sourced solely by al-arabiya. It doesn't help represent different points of view, it just tells a story nobody else is reporting. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you. Also, another user is against you. You could also see arabic sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, my position is simple. If what you are adding is not pov/biased, then surely you would have no problem finding another major news organization reporting the same thing. Itried searching, and the only google result was al arabiya, which does not look good. Sorry. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please add source that they are Saudi state media, not Saudi-affiliated media. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Regarding using Urban Dictionary as a source, please see WP:USERGENERATED as to why it's unreliable. Also, it being used on multiple articles isn't grounds for including it either, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. But did you see where this sources was used in the article? IT was used to "prove" that an article about this word was written on the urban dictionary. Sourcing statements like this by user generated content is certainly allowed on wikipedia. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Such information is irrelevant if there isn't any independent coverage by secondary sources about the word appearing on Urban Dictionary, which appears to be the case here. Also, I recommend bringing the matter to the page's talk page, otherwise you might border on edit warring and breaking the three-revert rule. --TL2<b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 02:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have brought the iscussions to the talk page, but I do believe it should have been one by the person who nominated the article for deletion, I am not going to do that for him. As for the "Such information is irrelevant if there isn't any independent coverage by secondary sources about the word appearing on Urban Dictionary" I am pretty sure at least one of the other sources used in the article mentions that this word appeared on that website.
 * And on top of all that, you removed two links, not just the urban dictionary, but the other site too. What was the basis for removal of that link? Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Baizuo 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. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am sorry, maybe i am not familiar with the wikipedia's rules, but if two persons revert each other, and one of these two persons tries to contact the other person and explain his position to him, and the other ignores him, I am pretty sure the warning should go to the person who ignores him, but I don't see a warning on Toon's talk page. Strange, huh? Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Toon is neither new nor at three reverts. You're at three reverts and in peril of being blocked if you revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you base your decisions as to who to block on being new? Is that what you are trying to say? And by the way he turned out to be wrong after all, I just added a secondary source for the urban dictionary. That secondary source was already used in the article btw, but Toon didnt bother to check Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll actually take two minutes of my times to explain what happened here to you, because you obviously didn't bother to look it up yourself (which btw makes me wonder how you came to posses banning rights here). So the other user decided to remove any mention of urban dictionary in the article because, according to him, there was no mention of the page about this word appearing on urban dictionary in any secondary sources. Apparently, that user didn't bother to read literally the second source that sentence was sourced for, which was the german newspaper I now added as a source for the urban dictionary statement too. tl;dr The other user was wrong in his reverts, didn't listen to me, and didn't stop until I copied and pasted the same source twice in the article. Check it yourself Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a fourth revert. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule. I strongly suggest you self-revert, so the edit is washed out, lest you be blocked for violating 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is all important because, basically even though i actually broke the 3 revert rule, If i revert my own edit now it will revert the article to the state it was after toon's edits that were erroneous and based on wrong info. What do i do? Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried pinging you at the article's talk page about the matter. While I do apologize for not checking the source earlier, I can say that it still isn't significant enough to warrant the mention of the Urban Dictionary definition in the article, since the source you linked covers the word itself, not the Urban Dictionary definition, and only briefly mentions the Urban Dictionary definition, and that's only to get the basic grasp of the word (from my understanding anyway, I can't really read German, so if you happen to know German and I happen to be wrong on that, please let me know). Also, please remain civil when talking to other editors, thanks. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 03:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you on the article's talk page just a minute ago... And let's just say the claims you make there are... erroneous. I actually invite C.Fred to the article's talk page too. I'd like to see some input there. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I'm addressing procedural matters here, it's not appropriate for me to comment on content. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2017 (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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not edit war because you think you're right, you may not use UD as a source (it's user-generated) and you may not describe other people as trolls because they happen to disagree with you.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking me without reading any of the discussions. 1) Urban dictionary wasn't used as a source for anything but for the statement that an article about that chinese word appeared on urban dictionary. And even that statement was also sourced by a reputable secondary source (a german newspaper). 2) I didn't call a user a troll because he "happened to disagree with me" and I find your tone to be absolutely unaccepable, talk to you children in that tone, not to other editors. I said that the other user might be a troll because after he claimed in his explanation for his actions that I was the one adding urban dictionary as a source to the article (suggesting that I had some malicious intent in mind) I corrected him, BUT IN REPLY TO MY CORRECTION HE WAS STILL CLAIMING THAT I ADDED THE UB SOUCE TO THE ARTICLE. Jesus christ if even admins don't bother to check what they ban people for, I wonder how.... Nevermind. You won't even see this message. Good job at admining wikipedia @Acroterion , I'll never edit Wikipedia again. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit-warriors are blocked to stop disruption to the encyclopedia. You edit-warred and ignored warnings, you're blocked. Being right or wrong doesn't enter into it. You accused another editor of being a troll. That's not acceptable. Please learn this and move on. And user-generated content is not acceptable as a source. That you found another source later on in the edit war doesn't have any bearing on the fact that you reverted without regard to warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I would have accepted it if it wasn't for your tone and your continued refusal to read anything before banning people. What you've just said is just plain wrong. I did not find a source after starting the edit war, The source was there for the last 6 months. The statement where the urban dictionary was mentioned was sourced by this german article. The problem is that visiually the link to the source appeared at the end of the sentence, not immediatly after the word (urban) dictionary. The only thing I did is I copied the url to this article on this german newspaper's website and pasted it after the word DICTIONARY. Do you understand what I am saying? And yeah, I accept the ban, because I broke the 3 reverts rule. But I don't accept your language, your tone, and, most importantly, your refusal to read anything before making your decision. Oh, and by the way, are you going to ban the other editor I was edit-warring with too? He also broke the 3-reverts rule. He actually started th edit war, and, unlike me, he was actually wrong. Are you going to ban him? Are you? Pinging @Acroterion  Karl.i.biased          (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly broke 3RR, ToonLucas did not. 3RR is a bright-line violation. AN3 deals with behavior, not content, we don't look at edits and decide what's right and wrong - administrators are prohibited from doing so in these cases. You were extensively warned and advised, and chose to ignore it, so you're blocked. As it very clearly states in the guidance on edit-warring, being right (or believing you're right) is no defense.  Acroterion   (talk)  

December 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Baizuo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''Additionally, it is not a good idea to continue edit warring after your block has expired. Revert one more time and you're off to WP:AN3 again. As said previously, please use the talk page.'' <b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A return to edit-warring after being blocked for that on the same subject is an extremely poor idea. You don't need to exceed 3RR to be blocked if you're repeating the same behavior. Blocks escalate for repeated edit-warring, so the term is substantially longer this time.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As a matter of note, Karl, you should be aware that even if you intend to address the issues regarding the content dispute, you should still discuss those changes in the talk page, in order to gain consensus for it. Reverting again, even if the problems were addressed, effectively only reignited the edit war. In short, when in a content dispute, always discuss any possible changes and solutions regarding the disputed content in the talk page. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 01:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you don't want to self-revert? It doesn't look like you have consensus for this on the article's talk page. Your talking about "stable version", but the version you're reverting from has specific problems which have been discussed by multiple editors on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus yet, that's exactly true. Which is why I am reverting to the last stable version. The fact that this version has problems, as per talk page, is also true, but I think we should wait untill we can reach a conclusion on the talk page. I've just adressed most of the problems the other wikipedians have on the talk page. Hence, I am waiting for their reply untill we can start removing chunks of the article. Karl.i.biased (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Baizuo. 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:. Killiondude (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that you weren't blocked for WP:3RR, you were blocked for edit warring. While 3RR is a bright line, you can edit-war with any number of reverts per day. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Your recent editing history at 2017–18 Iranian protests 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. - MrX 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Yemen famine
We do not disagree about WP:RSUW, but your version is not what the article is saying. The article isn't saying khat has exacerbated the famine, it is saying that khat is a major cause of the famine. --27.99.54.243 (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepan Bandera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stateless ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stepan_Bandera check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stepan_Bandera?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) 09:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Secondary source
The source is secondary. It is an interview on Dozhd channel, not his video.--Betakiller (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry, you are right. For some reason I didn't check the vid in question. Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving your Wang Zeshan article
Hi. I've worked a bit on your Wang Zeshan article adding categories. I suggest to add more well-referenced information to the article and some of his publications. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Karl.i.biased has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you high? Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should be. I reverted your edit to Ukraine. You added a link to an article about prostitution as if that was the main topic. Also, your claim about Ukraine being 1st in a list of Gini coefficients makes no sense. Please use the talk page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My claim? It's literally from the wikipedia's List of countries by income equality. Sort the countries by World bank's GINI and the Ukraine is the first countr on that list of all countries that have a GINI score. You can just as easily double check it via the reference provided in the Ukraine's infobox. The reference is this same list on the data.worldbank website. Did you even check it before you reverted my edit twice and even went so far as to type that "Also, your claim about Ukraine being 1st in a list of Gini coefficients makes no sense." Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted that table; using it violates WP:CIRCULAR and WP:NOR, anyway. The website cited doesn't support the claim you're making. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, i am looking at the GINI ranking of the World Bank's website right now, and the Ukraine is number one there. Using the data from the world bank to fill infobox spots is neither WP:CIRCULAR nor WP:NOR. Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide the URL. I'm looking at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=UA where it lists the 25.5 number. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ukraine 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. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should respond to the report or you may face a lengthy block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ukrainian Insurgent Army, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Ukraine. 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:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ( Non-administrator comment ) What occurs is unfortunate, I think that some of your contributions had merit. I see that WP:BRD has already been mentioned multiple times above; I would only like to strongly urge you to read it (again if need be).  Edit warring is unacceptable by anyone no matter the quality of the material; when our edits are contested (no matter by how many), it's always preferable to take a break if necessary (if frustration is too high), then to simply start or pursue civil discussion about it on the article's talk page and reach WP:CONSENSUS.  If that is not enough, there then are solutions to gather the attention of more editors (for instance, WP:3O, noticeboards like WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN, WP:FTN; WP:DRN, WP:RFC and WP:DR has more information).  These can of course take time, but Wikipedia is a community-driven project where communication and patience are required.  My hope is that this message can help to avoid further blocks in the future.  We all start somewhere and Wikipedia can be challenging at times.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PM800 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing editors of vandalism for no reason constitutes an offense in itself. Reported. Karl.i.biased (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alina Zagitova
Referring to your update : Why this addition? Is there an athlete from the team competition I have missed? Or - was there a team event in last summer olympics? To my knowledge the games are open only to athletes who are 16 years old latest at the day of the Olympic closing ceremony? That doesn't leave room for anyone .... TorSch (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First athlete born in the 21st century to win an Olympic gold medal (at the 2018 Olympics) not in a team competition.
 * I googled it, and she is not even the first person to win a gold in a solo competition.... Here, you can check (sorry for a reddit link): https://www.reddit.com/r/olympics/comments/4yizqr/the_first_olympic_medallists_born_in_the_new/. She probably is the youngest athelete to win a gold on the winter olympics, however Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I will have to rest my case, I was wrong. However, the reddit.com list (attached link) shows only ONE Olympic gold medal winner born in our current millenium; teamed or un-teamed, Chinese Ren Qian (CHN), born 20 February 2001. The other athletes on the list were either winning silver or bronze medals, or they were born in year 2000, which by definition was the last year of the 20th century. As for clarity, there are even athletes born in 2000 who have already won gold medals in the 2018 Winter Olympics, before Alina Zagitova got her medal. Those had their wins in snowboarding or freestyle skiing, like mentioned Redmond "Red" Gerard (born June 29, 2000). Another point here: Before the age limit was changed, there were younger participants, and even younger winners. So winter games or summer games, Alina was not the youngest ever, and I have not dived into the material to find out if Ren Qian were... Rgds TorSch (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Alina Zagitova 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.You are getting dangerously close to 3RR Please take your concerns to talk TucsonDavid U . S . A . 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always fun when a vandal installs twinkle and tries to warn users for reverting his vandalism. Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been doing this a lot longer then you I have asked Admin to review the edits. But I get it you’re Russian so you’re mad that they’re not represented

Ok I don’t mean to come off as a jerk I edited to show bot the OIC flag which it should for 2018 since for 2018 she’s considered a individual no need to be rude to each otherTucsonDavid U . S . A . 07:21, 25 February 2018 (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:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is your fifth block for edit warring in the last couple months. You're lucky that it isn't for a couple months this time. When are you going to pay attention to  "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm asking because I want to know if I should extend your block length to prevent future 3RR violations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, because introducing false info is bannable by 1 day, with articles such as Gamergate controversy or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections not being considered false info at all. Ban me from this shitty propaganda-ridden website please, so that I won't have the urge to come back here. Goodbye. Karl.i.biased (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ōkuma, Fukushima
I reverted your recent edits to Ōkuma, Fukushima. The town still exists, a functioning local government still exists, and official population counts are still maintained. For more information you can read the town's official website: http://www.town.okuma.fukushima.jp/201802/05-2894 purplepumpkins (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Horváth, András Pálóczi (1989). Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians: Steppe Peoples in Medieval Hungary.
Hi, I see you added this book as a source for religion of Cumans in the "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" article. Could you, please, provide exact page number(s) for this statement (conversion to Christianity etc.), so I can return it back to the article? Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alina Zagitova and Evgenia Medvedeva: Country represented
There's an ongoing debate: Talk:Alina Zagitova. I think you should leave OAR in the infobox for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your reverts
Its hard to tell, because you keep reverting me with vague or nonexistent edit summaries, but please be more careful with what you're reverting. If you check the page history, you'd see that I keep on making a variety of changes to the article, which you keep reverting wholesale, where it seems you only object to one or two of my changes.

Please, after 5 blocks for edit warring, it seems like you should be a little more mindful of this sort of thing. Sergecross73  msg me  14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this edit. This is adding some prose about the reviews. Its content about the save system and game bugs. You reverted me on the grounds that we needed to use historical sources about the controversy. None of that edit you reverted had anything to do with the controversy section at all. Are you even reading the edits being made, or are you just reverting every edit without checking? Sergecross73   msg me  14:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked you from this "shitty propaganda-ridden website". I would support an unblock if you agreed to a general WP:1RR restriction. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TES 1 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TES 1. Since you had some involvement with the TES 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

90th Academy Award listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 90th Academy Award. Since you had some involvement with the 90th Academy Award redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)