User talk:Libesruinssineced

Libesruinssineced, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

August 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of multiple discoveries. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 09:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I took at the talk page, but Nihi doesn't care about it. He reverts me edit without making any comment.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of multiple discoveries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. Airplaneman  ✈  05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Brought to my attention through here. If reverts again, they also risk a block. Wasting server space on useless article revisions when there is clearly a disagreement shows the failure of elementary dispute resolution capabilities.  Airplaneman   ✈  05:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see here. Airplaneman   ✈  05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi admin. I clearly explained the situation in order to avoid edit warring. But he was continuing to offend me. --Libesruinssineced (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (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. --mfb (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

List of multiple discoveries
Libesruinssineced, you have previously been warned by administration not to introduce inappropriate material into "List of multiple discoveries".

You are now doing so again.

Please stop, so that we do not need to waste time resorting to administrative sanctions against you.

Cheers. Nihil novi (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and unsourced changes at List of multiple discoveries
Libesruinssineced, this is an admin warning. You were previously blocked on 7 August 2015 by User:Airplaneman for edit warring. Please use Talk:List of multiple discoveries to get consensus for any further changes. If you continue to revert on this article you may be blocked for a longer time. Your concept of a multiple discovery does not seem to be shared by anyone else and all of your changes are unsourced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've made a large number of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_multiple_discoveries&diff=688060560&oldid=687711407 further changes] at List of multiple discoveries on 29 October. You added no sources to show these are considered by scholars to be multiple discoveries. On the talk page, there is no sign that anyone else supports these changes. If you don't undo these changes (until consensus is found) I am planning to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Long term edit warring
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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. Long term warring at List of multiple discoveries, per the above notices. The block might be lifted if you will promise not to edit this article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi EdJohnston, why did u block me? I admit that my previous edits were partially wrong, but what's wrong with the current one? The sources are already included on the scientists article? I posted something on th talk page, but none answered. This time can give answer for all of my edits, which are totally correct. I improved the article. Also you protected the artcile by writng SOCKPUPPET. I admit that Ip 7... was me, but trust me, I forgot to log in. Why did not you block Nihil novi. Please what he has done. I thought that you blocked him, but not. He pasted on his talk page that he has been blocked, in order to get my and others attention. This behaviour is unacceptable. Please block him, as he was warned previously as well. Otherwise I have to report this whole game at ANI. Thanks.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the section at Talk:List of independent discoveries there is a discussion between you and other editors, but there is no sign that anyone else agrees with you. On Wikipedia, changes need WP:Consensus. It is possible that you have difficulty with English that limits your ability to work on this type of article. Others have pointed out what seem to be elementary mistakes, like having technetium be a component of nuclear weapons. You seem to be adding wrong information to Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, who doesn't agree with THE CURRENT EDIT? Only Nihilnovi. Why are you talking about TECHNETIUM? That was a mistake that I have done previously. Current edits are all improvements of the article, such as adding of more MULTIPLE Discoveries, changing the image pf LAPLACE and adiing new ones, etc? Tell me edits which are not appropriate presently? But why have you blocked me, if Nivhinlovi was the last to revert my edits. Then both of us should be blocked. Also, you have not taken any action of this unacceptable and deceitful behavior]. Please do something, as you're admin and you know that the policies are for everyone. If you like Nihilnovi and don't want warn or block him, then after my block is expired I have to report to ANI or other admins about this behavior. Regards Libesruinssineced (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If your edits are truly an improvement, you should have no difficulty getting support from others. I didn't block User:Nihil novi because he has not edited against consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, the last edits were truly improvements, but nihil reverted just for personal puroposes. i SHOULDN'T have been blocked. Why are you changing argument. You haven't told anything about this unacceptable and deceitful behavior. Why?--Libesruinssineced (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand consensus, so it's no use for me to make any further comments. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, yes, you are changing the argument and pretending that nothing happened. I will report that game. That even appeared that offended you, as you did not block him but he pasted falsely that you block him. What kin of admin you are? Shame.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't 'falsely paste' that I blocked him. You could be misunderstanding what he was trying to do. He cut and pasted some posts from your own talk page to his own talk, perhaps to be able to refer to them in the future. This is unorthodox but it's not disruptive. At my suggestion he archived that whole thread. See User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 2 for my advice to him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)