User talk:Notreallymeeither

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Karl Marx 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. RolandR (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (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:. Neil N  talk to me 15:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request templates are to be used to make requests to be unblocked. Right now you're just using them to question about other users. If you want to request again in order to try to get your account unblocked, you can do that. If you continue to use them only to try to engage in conversations about the actions of other users and whether or not they're blocked, your ability to use this page (and make further unblock requests) will be revoked. only (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So yet again the question goes unanswerd. One last try. Do the "administrators" wish to apply the rules uniformly or not. It is a simple question, but seems to vex you. This is odd as you seem intent on portraying yourselves as the guardians of the information, but struggle with very simple queries.


 * The admnins are applying the rules fairly and uniformly. You appear to have made the same, contested, edit six times today, and it has been reverted by five different editors. You have not attempted to discuss your edit, but continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. This is the epitome of edit-warring, and if you continue in this manner when your block is over you are likely to be blocked again, for a longer period. If you want this change made to the article, you must seek to persuade, not to browbeat, other editors. RolandR (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And please note you were blocked for violating the three revert rule after being warned. No one else broke that rule. --Neil N  talk to me 20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Really Neil, so the ideologues get together and all push the revert button twice to stay under the limit and you think that is ok. Please note no one has disputed the validity of classifying Karl Marx as a communist, they have just been pushing the revert button. But it seems that is different, somehow. You're right Neil, feel better? The content of the article is sub standard, but the rules were followed. As long as we agree that 6 reverts by 3 people is some how better than 3 by 1 person. Oh, and RolandR you are an avowed communist, you having anything to do with the article is suspect. Notreallymeeither (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that multiple editors are reverting you, saying you're using poor sources and making unhelpful changes, indicates your modifications don't have consensus. You need to use the article's talk page to see if you can change that. --Neil N  talk to me 20:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources were histoy.com and this wiki. And the truth does not require consensus. Not the truth as I see it, the truth. The guy wrote the communist manifesto, but yet he is not a communist? Perhaps we should ramble over to the Pythagoras page and remove the bit about mathematics. Notreallymeeither (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A pointer to WP:THETRUTH seems to be particularly needed here. And please see WP:CIRCULAR. --Neil N  talk to me 15:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)