User talk:Ppteles

March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Australia, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:List_of_largest_empires. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Calling the reversion of a pending change by an unconfirmed user vandalism, and calling editors prejudiced for using peer-reviewed journal articles as their source, is not WP:CIVIL Work permit (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You have deleted my response on Talk:List_of_largest_empires. Please read Talk page guidelines. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.Work permit (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss the changes you are making on Talk:List of largest empires. You need to arrive at a consensus, amd discussing on the talk page is the way to do it. Thank you.
 * I already did and you deleted it.Ppteles (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mistaken.   I did two edits, here  ,and here .  In neither case did I delete your comment.  Work permit (talk) 22:18, 6 September 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. Thank you. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of largest empires. 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:. Not a sock, so I fixed my closure. But this is still a case of edit warring. See comment at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to know why I am the only one being blocked when I was not the only one falsely editing the content which is in the page I was blocked for. Besides, the page in question is making extremely false claims, which are unhistorical and false. This is really dangerous at this day and age as I explain in the talk page. First, and foremost, for the reasons presented, and the accusations made, which include calling my sources poor, and making completely outlandish, and factually wrong remarks in a wikipedia page, why is this not censored and what I did is? What can I do to complain about this? Thank youPpteles (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not the only one falsely editing the content is in it's self a good reason to be blocked, kinda settels it, huh. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that the edit I made was accepted therefore there WAS a consensus, which was later reverted by Work permit. I edited something, which was later marked with a reliable source label. After that there was no real editting, until someone reverted it to what it was BEFORE those two edits were made. I didn't say I didn't deserve the block, I am saying that I wasn't the only one edit warring, as per the very rules defined by wikipedia.Ppteles (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have stated that the edits of User:Work permit are 'factually wrong'. There is a good faith disagreement among editors as to how much territory should be included in Brazil. For example, see Talk:List of largest empires. In my opinion, the block of Ppteles could be lifted if they will promise not to edit the article again until consensus is reached on the talk page. Calling other's edits 'factually wrong' doesn't make it so. We go by what reliable sources have reported. Often it needs a discussion to decide how best to summarize what the sources think. If you disagree on the value of a source, you can use the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Attacking the good faith of other users can lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't called anyone names, this isn't personal, it is just a statement of fact. What would you tell a person who claims the Earth is flat, because they read it in a book, and then refuse to accept the fact that the earth IS round, and everything you show them is considered either 'unreliable' or 'poor'. This is what happened in that wikipedia page. We live in a time and age where we have the duty, the responsibility to fight against the spread of false information. And this isn't a matter of debate or of subjectivity as I will demonstrate in the next few sections:

 Claims that my sources were wrong 


 * First and foremost, I must say that I actually *did* source my claims   . as can be seen here.
 * These sources were otherwise ignored or called poor, as can also be seen here
 * I presented an alternative table of sizes of Empires by author Zbigniew_Brzezinski, which was called 'poor' and unreliable, because the author isn't a historian. Well, the sources they are using are also by an author who is NOT a historian, Taagepera. When I pointed this out I was told that I was wrong, because someone wrote on wikipedia that the latter author 'wrote about history'. Please tell me if this isn't a flawed argument.
 * My sources are *historical* and moreover, they are based on reality as I explained here: I quote: 'What about this fort, what is it? And this one? And this city? All fabricated lies I suppose?' (Seriously, how *can* you say that his is fabricated or needs sources?

Conclusion: The sources presented were not 'poor' or 'unreliable'.

 Outlandish claims 

On this section, I will just repost what I wrote on the talk page: 'Whoever is controlling this article on wikipedia, seems to make completely unhistorical, even shocking claims, and I challenge their ability to edit this article based on what is written above. From what they wrote above, they seem to lack the basic historical skills to be in control of this article, not allowing edits for improvement. Please note the claims that are made:


 * That "the Amazon Basin was unhinhabited in 1822". Perhaps they do not know what the State of Grão-Pará and Maranhão was ?
 * That "independent empire of Brazil was roughly half the size it was in 1900" this is even more hilarious. Brazil's borders and size were pretty much unchanged since the treaty of Santo Ildefonso. How can these claims be made unchallenged? The worse thing is that I have presented sources that have been called poor, made by two of the foremost English-speaking historians in colonial Brazil that explain all this.
 * That the Amazon basin was only colonized since the rubber boom. What happened to all the cities that were founded before them then? See example here, and here Is this some kind of joke?

Please wikipedia demands seriousness, we live in times where we cannot allow the spread of false information such as this. I demand someone, admins, whatever, to come here and see what is going on. This is very dangerous.'

Conclusion: If the person is making such claims, how can wikipedia protect the article in question? Again, I wonder how can we protect articles from presenting false information? Which leads me to my final alegations

''' Edit Warring? '''

Which one was the consensus version? Because if you make edits *after* an edit, it means you actually accept that edit, right? So why do that, was this to take advantage?
 * My edit *was* accepted by TompaDompa, and Work permit, as can be seen by edits made after this one, which simply added a 'unreliable source' tag to my edit, as can be seen here, and here.
 * Later, this edit was reverted, and this is what I challenge, was this truly done in 'good faith' as you claim, or they used the fact that I had added other references, to take advantage of that and revert it to a previous edit, which they had previously accepted?

Final conclusion: I believe that the people doing the editing may not otherwise understand that their claims are *factually wrong* (and I am not afraid to say this), and this is related to prejudice agains the people of Portugal and Brazil. Please note that not only I was ignored, as my sources were ignored, called poor, and unreliable, when clearly I was not only right as my sources were excellent.

Final notes: My proposal to create two tables, one with the list from Taagepera, and one with the list from Brzenzinsi, was utterly ignored too, so you can see that I was trying to reach consensus (threw in an olive branch) just to be again ignored, and reported, when in fact everything I did was right.Ppteles (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Post Scriptum: Just noticed this source that is now being used, so all of the sudden, one can use non-historical sources, a book about education in Brazil, when books on the History of Brazil are simply ignored. Ppteles (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind not editing the page further, until this debate is over, because I believe I will win it easily, but could you please revert it to the edition that had previously been agreed by me, Work permit, and TompaDompa. This version was clearly accepted by the three, until reverted by TompaDompa. Ppteles (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: I did not agree with your edit, . The reason I didn't revert it immediately was that I didn't want the situation to escalate into an outright WP:Edit war, and I figured that simply undoing your edit might lead to just that. TompaDompa (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that you do not agree with an edit, if you add something to it? That is highly unorthodox behaviour. Ppteles (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Ppteles I will lift the block if you make a promise to wait for consensus, but I won't agree to revert the article to a previous version, as you requested at 21:04 above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept. Ppteles (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of largest empires. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:53, 12 September 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.

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. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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)   17:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Very well, thank you. I'd just like to call out your attention for what seems (at least to me) to be an unwillingness of the three editors in question (also in reply) to reach compromise, and also what I believe is a bias on that page, given that their claim that Portugal did not control the entirety of the Brazilian territory, or even worse, that Portugal didn't control Brazil in 1822 is nothing but a false statement, that I have disproved countless times since 2016, with different sources. I think wikipedia should be cautions with sporting false statements, as this can spread like wildfire,as we all know. Also, as you know, I have opened a mediation request. If you don't mind I will report directly to you both in case I feel that these three editors are not treating me with respect (yelling, or show complete unwillingness to compromise, and do not allow for any changes to be made, even if proven otherwise). Above all I wanted to call out the attention of administrators to that point . Ppteles (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a 1RR limit, and it appears to me that Ppteles understands that we're serious. I do think that other editors need to be respectful of the need to discuss and avoid blind reverts, not taking advantage of this restriction.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Exceeding three reverts is a bright-line violation. Edit-warring can be sanctioned for less than that if the editor is clearly gaming the system or shows a pattern of disregard for other editors, or shows intention to edit-war to get their way, all of which are seen here. An aggravating factor is that you were unblocked on a promise to mend your ways. You've violated that promise.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a remark about the accusations from saying that "I'd just like to call out your attention for what seems (at least to me) to be an unwillingness of the three editors in question (also in reply) to reach compromise" and your concerns,  when you say "I do think that other editors need to be respectful of the need to discuss and avoid blind reverts, not taking advantage of this restriction", i would suggest you to take a look at this, where i provided a reliable source supporting ' claim, but my comment and source were ignored by this user, since they were engaged in edit warring and did not even check accurately "the three editors'" posts on the article's talk page. Again, i would recommend to  to desist from personal attacks, since "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" qualifies as personal attacks. Hope,, that this will lift your concerns about my behavior, please note that i reported this user twice just to end the edit war, but i don't consider him, or anybody else as my antagonist. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  07:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe this to be unfair, given that I believed consensus had been reached given that there was no reply to a series of evidence given in the talk page. As such it was my belief that I was not breaking that promise, or otherwise I wouldn't have done it - and believe this block to be unfair. I would like to know if it's possible to get a second opinion. I do not believe that I am being treated fairly, especially given that the page in question is presenting false information and wikipedia sould have a more expedite way of solving this problem, and moreover I was being shouted against by other editors on that page. Could you please tell me if I can appeal to someone to check if I am being appropriately treated or being the target of unduly prejudice. Ppteles (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Ppteles, just FYI—and without wanting to doubleguess Acroterion, of course—but you notice that although they have commented on your unblock request, they haven't actually answered it? Methinks you will get a second opinion when another admin comes along in the course of time and deals with it as the next on the pile, so to speak. Take care, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 17:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would like to know where I can settle disputes? I have already started a formal mediation process, but would like to know if I can take this a step higher. Ppteles (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTTHEM. If three other editors disagree with you, you clearly haven't got consensus, and you've violated your unblock agreement by repeatedly reverting. This earlier edit summary is not acceptable and given current behavior it appears that intention remains. You've asked for a review in your unblock request above, so another admin will come along and review - I can lift the block if you persuade me, but a review must be done by someone else if I am disinclined to change the block. Your appeal doesn't address your behavior, as an effective unlock request should, blaming others for your behavior. You might want to rethink the way you've framed the appeal, bearing in mind that you've violated the terms of your previous appeal.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am being treated fairly, was shouted against, some people believed I was a 'sockpuppet', although afterwards showedkindness, as well as making false accusations. I did truly believe I was breaking any rules, and believe this could be due to preformed ideas about Portugeuse and Brazilian people.Ppteles (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouting isn't sanctionable, however annoying it may be. Edit-warring is. Alleging prejudice without any basis is also sanctionable, and I advise you to stop digging the hole deeper. It is your behavior is being addressed here.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That one was written before I read your comment, you say 'if three editors disagree with you' - but this isn't a matter of agreeing vs disagreeing, the article in question makes a false claim, which I have demonstrated on the talk page. I assumed that no reply for a long time was agreement. I am not 100% familiar with wikipedia policies - what I notice though, is that there is a lack of willingness by these three editors to 'compromise', which in this case means to admit that one of the main sources they've been using contains unreliable information, not based on fact. I am not accusing anyone everything I describe here actually happened. My belief that this may come from preformed and prejudiced ideas comes from some of the claims I read on the talk page, which include not being able to distinguish between 'land that Portugal controlled in the Americas' and 'land that now is part of Brazil'. Also saying that Amazonia was uninhabited (are natives not people?) among other 'preformed' ideas.  Ppteles (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "shouting" accusation, here is the record. You edited the page, violating the terms of your unblock because you did not have consensus. You said in your edit summary you thought you had consensus because 24 hours passed without comments to your posts on the talk page.  I then told you when I first reverted that you did not have a consensus . There was no caps in that reversion.  You went ahead and reverted anyway .  Another editor reverted you again, saying you did not have consensus . Again, no caps.   You went ahead and reverted yet again .  At this point it seemed clear you were either ignoring the comments or did not notice them.  So I reverted you and made clear, by capitalizing, that you did not have consensus and reminded you were violating the terms of your unblock, which in fact you did on your first edit.  You went ahead and reverted again , complaining about my "shouting".  You were reverted a final time by , who then reported you.   You violated the terms of your unblock when you first made the edit, and proceeded to do so 3 more times before being reported. -- Work permit (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All caps is considered rude, and that is what I said. I reverted it when I thought I had reached consensus, and therefore that I wasn't breaking my promise, and then believed to have 3 reverts before it being considered a block, as was done to TompaDompa. Ppteles (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * if my all caps hurt you, then please accept my sincere appologies. However, i think that the key issue is that you promised to avoid edit warring (and even editing the article without consensus) and you blatantly violated this promise. Saying that other editors did not reply within 24 hours means that they endorsed your edit is quite strange, since i think you know that there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Moreover, please note that assumung good faith is a fundamental principle and as said above, it's hard to understand how you could have ignored the fact that there was no consensus for your edits. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  18:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you truly are sorry then I accept your apologies, although I believe that you have also assumed that I was in not good faith. I have repeatedly warned you that the value for Portugal was incorrect - and what you were saying was not according to fact -  I was then told my source wasn't good enough, repeatedly, when this seems not to be the case, at least according to the Reliable sources noticeboard. I am fairly new to wikipedia, although I've known the project for a while, it seems that some people just take to themselves that they own a certain page and trat newcomers as vandals if they notice that their edits are factually wrong. You insisted on this mistake, which in my opinion was truly because you do not know much about Portuguese and Brazilian history, or you wouldn't say the things you have said. Also, you also told me that Taagepera was a historian, when he is not. In any case, I opened a formal mediation request Ppteles (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As far i can see on the Reliable sources noticeboard, nobody said that your source is reliable, quite the contrary, there, you have been told to find a better source. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I 'wasn't told' anything because I am not someone else's minion, and you have already been warned to tone down a bit. Second of all, you read it wrong, I believe, quoting from User:FOARP "Additionally Brzezinski WAS an acknowledged scholar in the field of international relations, and therefore IS an RS on the subject of large empires.". This has also been acknowledged in the talk page. --Ppteles (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not going to bother you anymore on your talk (unless you engage again in edit warring), but i would just let you know that nobody warned me, i was just asked gently to avoid all caps and i'll do that. You should avoid misrepresenting other user's small mistakes and minimizing your big mistakes. Secondly, again, your source is not unanimouly described as reliable. FOARP thinks it's reliable, not simonm223, not TrompaDompa, not Work permit, and not me. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarification,, no-one is apologizing, or has to apologise to you, apart from one editor over the very minor matter of using all caps. Which, compared to your edit warring and beach of faith, is an irrelevancy. It's slightly concerning that, having been—very generously— unblocked, your immediate response is to tell everyone else they were wrong and that you were right. This does not bode well. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 06:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, this is why i already appologized above. i did not know that all caps mean shouting, i wanted to underline what i said in my edit summary. Take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "no-one is apologizing" - Someone did apologise, and shouting is not a minor matter, qute the contrary, because even if there is disagreement over the content of that page, this is different from being unkind or rude. In any case what did you expect? Am I supposed to be 'humble' and accept people's 'generosity'? What am I now some kind of minion? Am I supposed to be like the slaves of yore and be expected to be humble and accept other people's generosity towards me? Are you implying my concerns are not legitimate? I am more concerned with the fact that some editors are unwilling to accept that for example the sources they claimed were not reliable, are reliable, when told so by a third opinion. I have an opinion on this matter and will voice it, within wikipedia's policies. May I remind you that I am fairly new to this whole editting process but I am learning rather quickly.--Ppteles (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I recently made an edit, which was *again* reverted by TompaDompa, when I had told him I disagreed with his edition. Nothing happened. Ppteles (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to, I think my edit summary explains it rather well: The threshold for inclusion has for two years or so been 2% of the total land area of the Earth, and there's a discussion about the threshold on the talk page. Removing this for now, until it is decided what to do about the threshold. I'll also note that of the four editors involved in the discussion about the threshold, you were the only one opposed – that seemed to me to be sufficient WP:CONSENSUS to restore the status quo threshold until the discussion has come to a conclusion. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather you also assumed consensus, since no one truly said go ahead, also consensus is not about majorities or voting. Nowhere in the article, your implied threshold is mentioned, and therefore I raised concerns, which you yourself have now raised. The whole thing to me, as I told you, seems like you feel that you own the article, and truly do not allow for any edits besides the ones you mention. A quick look at the edits made on that page seem to show that. But I am willing to accept that this is not so if you claim the opposite, although I fear that it is, almost after an edit you disagree with occurs, you immediately revert it. I also fail to understand why you removed the 10.4km^2, given that this had been previously accepted, even by you a year or two ago, when you raised similar objections. Usually if you edit something after another edit, this means taht you have accepted that edit. And nothing truly changed, except that I have proven thousands of times that Taagepera's paper is incorrect. Also, I don't see why you keep saying Brzezinski isn't reliable. The only unreliable value there is the value for the Portuguese empire. Finally I have made several proposals including creating different tables to which I received zero replies. Why do I must believe that you want to reach a consensus, if I seem to be ignored? Ppteles (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not about majorities or voting. But see WP:BRD: when you make an edit that's reverted, you need to discuss the matter and get support for the change on the talk page. Sometimes silence can be interpreted as assent, but 24 hours is an awfully short window of time for that. (Some editors only edit one time-frame per day or may be off for a few days between work obligations and weekends.) As for particulars on the content of the article, I really don't want to comment on that: since I've acted in an administrator capacity related to the article, I shouldn't get involved with the content of the page. (Although if necessary, I may take action regarding user conduct on the talk page.)I will offer an observation and a friendly suggestion, though. The talk page is a mess of discussion about the reliability of sources. It's hard to follow. It may be time to reboot the discussion with a specific proposed change. (Hypothetical illustration: "I suppose changing the introduction to say that Superman is faster than a speeding bullet based on this article in the Daily Planet.) Then you have an easier matter for editors to come in and review if it went to a request for comment. (Although since you've already started a mediation case, it's probably best to let that get resolved before starting a RFC.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks C. Fred. I think that article needs improvement. Taagepera may have said a few nice things but taking his values for the Empire extents (which were mainly drawn from German atlases in the 1980s) seems to me to be a bit limiting, especially given that, in the specific case of the Portuguese empire, Taagepera clearly got it wrong (probably based himself on what historians call the 'First Portuguese empire' which was bound by the Treaty of Tordesillas.--Ppteles (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Over-use of pings
List of largest empires is on my watch list. You don't need to ping me every time you add a comment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ok.-Ppteles (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

September 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:. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently nothing was learned from your last block, as you were back to edit warring on List of largest empires‎ today; depending on whether your first addition of the Portuguese Empire is counted as a revert, you reverted the article either three or four or five times today. It is thus necessary to block your account to prevent further disruption. After reviewing the edits that led to your blocks, the only way I'd unblock your account is if you were placed under a topic ban restricting you from all edits, to articles or talk pages, on topics related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, and specifically including List of largest empires. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC) revised 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but this isn't true. Today I made two edits, one of the an inclusion of a definition of EMpire as required by another Wikipedian. only one of them can be seen as a reversion, but there is consensus given that an arbitrary threshold is OR!.(I'm providing a generalistic link for you to read). Ppteles (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The AfD discussion is about whether or not to keep the article. Substantive discussion about the article should take place on the article's talk page. And whether you made the reverts over 24 or 48 hours, it still shows intent to edit war rather than to discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not true, I have been actively discussing the article on the talk page! It is one of the things I have done the most! Look, an ad was added to the article to provide a better definition for empire, which I did. I thought we were meant to be bold. TompaDompa, with whom I have some differences, even accepted that edit. I did not break any of the rules you provided to me. I seriously don't understand this.--Ppteles (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently nothing was learned from your last block, as you were back to edit warring on List of largest empires‎ today; depending on whether your first addition of the Portuguese Empire is counted as a revert, you reverted the article either three or four or five times today. It is thus necessary to block your account to prevent further disruption. After reviewing the edits that led to your blocks, the only way I'd unblock your account is if you were placed under a topic ban restricting you from all edits, to articles or talk pages, on topics related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, and specifically including List of largest empires. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC) revised 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I seriously do not understand the reasons for this block. I did not break any of the rules! I count two or three edits for the past 24 hours, and one wasn't even a revert! You had given me one revert, which had ended on the 20th September. I am really at odds to understand this here. Ppteles (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the first two paragraphs of WP:Edit warring. Your edits clearly fall within the definition. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, I did not break any of the rules imposed upon me. Then why are the other editors ok and I'm the only one being blocked? I would like to understand that. Seriously.Ppteles (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made." You know this. You read this previously. You know you aren't entitled to three reverts in a 24 hour period. You've literally been blocked for edit warring multiple times. You've previously agreed to wait for consensus before editing, yet here you are doing revert after revert after revert. Are you seriously not seeing the problem? Because if so, there's no hope for you being unblocked. And stop talking about other editors. That's not relevant; WP:NOTTHEM. --Yamla (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I know this? I have tried to call out the attention for people doing that, and nothing happened. I didn't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I thought that was the rule, as I have seen it applied to other. I was actually trying to help in that page. I am seriously at odds with what is happening.Ppteles (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the rules of functioning. I did everything by the book, considering the options that were available. I saw people doing reverts and the 3RR rule was applied to them, and they weren't blocked. I tried to be constructive and have been active on the talk page, and have tried to improve the article giving my opinion which I think has been valuable. It is very hard to be accepted in this community. I don't think my behaviour was disruptive, to be honest. Perhaps before but not now. I have actively contributed to this page in the past two weeks and believe I have improved it. I seriously do not understand why this indefinite block. Thanks.-Ppteles (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to please admit to the fact that you believed this was a revert when it wasn't? (see here: an ad was added to the article to provide a better definition for empire, which I did).You even reverted it. Given that you took that into account to block me, wouldn't it be fair to take that into consideration now?Ppteles (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more I can do for you or say to you, then. Good luck with your unblock request. I won't support an unblock but I won't oppose one, either. --Yamla (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Why can't you say something more? ThanksPpteles (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to understand the rules of functioning. To be honest with you I was a bit shocked by this block, because I have been incredibly active in the talk page, trying to improve the article. I did some edits which I believe were for the good of wikipedia. In fact this just reminded me of something I keep reading, shouldn't we assume good faith?Ppteles (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For instance, I tried to add something to this page which was also reverted. Does this mean that everything a newcomer edits ends up getting reverted? I'm just trying to understand the way this works. Thanks. --Ppteles (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I didn't revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I thought that was the rule…" So, have you not read WP:Edit warring, or do you not understand it? —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the limit was three times.Ppteles (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, and quoting "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.". I understand this to mean that the limit is 3 reverts in a period of 24 hours. 4 is the bright line, etc. I tried to comply with this rule.Ppteles (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you were edit warring but thought you were safe because you did not exceed a certain number over 24. This is a common misconception. You are clearly edit warring and I get the idea you intend to try to continue disruptively editing without discussing or seeking consensus. Nice try, but not. -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am trying to learn how this works. I see other people doing it and getting away with it. Why is what I did disruptive editing? It has been shown on that page that an arbitrary threshold is WP:OR (for general criticism of the page read the talk page as well as the AfD which is very informative). I added one entry, which is in fact in accordance with what is written in the text, so it is difficult to understand the revert, given that even user TompaDompa restored it to that value which I think is still wrong, but you get the point. I am not trying to be sly here. I thought we were encouraged to be bold. I don't know why it is always assumed that I am some kind of vandal trying to destroy wikipedia. My idea is to improve it. I admit to having been disruptive, but this is clearly not the case now. --Ppteles (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep reading to the end of the paragraph. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, then why are other editors treated differently? This is a genuine question. Also, Can I ask you if you believed an insertion was a revert, when it wasn't, and also, this - which is in fact in accordance with what is written in the text, so it is difficult to understand the revert, given that even user TompaDompa restored it to that value which I think is still wrong, but you get the point. I am not trying to be sly here. I thought we were encouraged to be bold. I don't know why it is always assumed that I am some kind of vandal trying to destroy wikipedia. My idea is to improve it. I admit to having been disruptive, but this is clearly not the case now.--Ppteles (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Other editors do not have your track record, nor have other editors kept repeatedly reverting the page like you have. I thought I had already acknowledged the miscount of the revert count, but it may have gotten lost in edit conflicts and the sea of text here. And you may not think you're being disruptive, but you seem to be the only editor of that opinion at the moment. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not true as can be seen here and here. Why is it different for them and not me? Really, I don't understabd. Also I believe other editors would disagree with you, such as Simonm232, FOARP and others which have also been active on that article. Finally, please denote that what you considered a revert had been previously acknowledged by TompaDompa, so I had consensus to make that change, although not entirely as I wanted. I believe in this case, this revert to be in fact more disruptive, EDIT: And in fact my revert was not really a revert, given that the 2% threshold had been acknowledged. SECOND EDIT: And what you considered a second revert was in fact an improvement. So now I count one revert in a period of 24H. Please tell me if this is wrong.--Ppteles (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, three clear reverts. If you are unwilling to admit your actions and are trying to push the blame on others, there's nothing more I can do. Come back in six months and try for a WP:Standard offer. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand the way I am being judged by you. In some instances it seems everyone is speaking in code and being really strict about what is written, and then in others it seems the contrary. I am not trying to put the blame in other people, I am trying to understand how this works. When I say that others did it, it's because I was trying to learn from THEM and see how I can do things in a way that is not considered edit warring. I clearly failed.  Ppteles (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am really honest about this, can you explain to me why I am being treated as a vandal? I am only doing what I see other people doing. Also can you explain why these are three clear reverts? Really this would truly help me. Ppteles (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you had given me a 1RR which expired on the 20th of September. I have been immensely active in this article's talk page, I have been looking to understand how the whole reliable sources thing work, and made proposals to this page, as well as improvements, as was told should do the trick, including by you. I tried to play by the rules believing that the 3RR was applicable to me. I think I don't know how else to demonstrate that I am not a vandal. I am trying to learn, although I must admit to having difficulties understanding, clearly, or I wouldn't be here.--Ppteles (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You were given the 1RR back on 13 September because your prior actions had demonstrated your inability or unwillingness the follow the edit-warring guidelines. The 1RR was meant to be a temporary but hard-and-fast rule while you got the feel for the policies. Quoting from my unblock message: "making an edit once is bold, [but] making it repeatedly—especially when multiple editors revert it—is edit warring and unacceptable." Your actions over the past two days demonstrate that you don't get it. Further, based on the way you've attempted to game out of 3RR in your discussion, a 1RR would just lead, I fear, to more attempts to game the system.

I nearly made the conditions of that prior unblock a 0RR rather than a 1RR: no reverts allowed whatsoever. However, because I thought at the time you were still learning the rules, I feared that was too harsh; 1RR would give some leeway of making one revert and quickly pulling back.

I do not see the growth in your editing. I'm concerned that it's because you're dealing with a topic that you have too much vested interest in: as I noted before, all your blocks have come about from edits to the list of empires or articles related to the Portuguese Empire. That's why the only relief condition I feel is acceptable at this time is a topic ban. Find new topics to edit that you aren't so invested in, or step back and observe the discussion process across a number of other areas and see how it works. Then, at some point in the future—and I think a month should be the least amount of time before that would happen—you can appeal to have the ban removed, based on your actions over the intervening time and your explanation of how you now have a better understanding of the edit-warring rules and will abide by all of them, in spirit and in letter (and not just stay within the bright-line restrictions of 3RR). —C.Fred (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I accepted and did not break the condition. I have made contributions to the page in question, as can be seen here and here. I have also contributed a lot in the talk page,  tried to settle a debate on reliable sources to be used, requested mediation, and contributed to the AfD for this page with valid points. I would be ok if you gave me an indefinite 1RR (I'd prefer to have an indefinite one, so rules can be very specific), but I think there is growth in my editing and I think I can still make valid contributions to the article in question in the talk page.Ppteles (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way and just to warn you that you deleted the contribution of Agent 86, which I think is completely unrelated to this.--Ppteles (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Letter to administrators concerning my current block
Dear all,

I write to you in regards to my recent blocking for an indeterminate amount of time by C. Fred. I honestly do not believe I have breached the rules set by the administrators in this case.

I have thoroughly disagreed with an article on wikipedia called 'List of largest empires', which stated something that I believed was incorrect, and since I have a strong opinion about wrongful spread of information on wikipedia, I tried to change. This was immediately reverted, and ended up in a series of edit warring for which I was blocked and then unblocked. I have tried to call out the attention of the other editors in the talk page, to little or no avail, although I believe that my previous actions may have cooled them down a little bit in regards to me. However I was trying to learn, and did try to improve my standing and general behaviour as well as improving the article in question, not only with the things I disagreed with but in general. I have come to some fierce disagreements with some of the editors in that page though, and this has led to a small debate concerning what I believe is a somewhat stubborn refusal to acknowledge that adding an arbitrary threshold to such a table is clearly original research.

I noticed today that I had been blocked indefinitely, although it is unclear to me why this has occurred. The last administrator (C. Fred) to unblock me wrote: "Since you have acknowledged that you broke 3RR, I am granting your unblock request. You need to understand that edit warring is not a substitute for discussion, and while you could argue that making an edit once is bold, making it repeatedly—especially when multiple editors revert it—is edit warring and unacceptable. As part of the terms of your unblock, you are also under a restriction of no more than one revert within a 24-hour period ("1RR") until 02:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC). If you were to violate that restriction, you would be subject to an immediate block without further warning. Please do not violate that restriction, so we are not faced with blocking your account long-term. Please do engage in talk-page discussion with other editors so that consensus can be reached about the best wording for articles." I believe to have followed this to the letter. I did not violate this restriction. Moreover I :


 * 1)  I have been very active in this article's talk page, and I have been looking to understand how the whole reliable sources thing work, which lead me to make questions on that notification board.
 * 2)  I made proposals and edits that improved the  page, as well as improvements, as was told should do the trick, including by the administrator who blocked me, and which I tried to take as seriously as possible.
 * 3)  I tried to play by the rules believing that the 3RR was applicable to me, as I have seen it applied to others and believed this was the right way to do it.

As such I'd like to know what can be proposed to me to change this situation - which I believe to be unfair. I am open to understanding how exactly my behaviour can be considered disruptive as it stands. I have also noted that C Fred believed some of my edits to be reverts, when they were not. I do believe though that he was acting in good faith. I truly did want to help with the article, and believe I have made valid and adequate contributions in the talk page as well as in the article itself.

It should be said that despite me being a user since 2016 I am rather new to wikipedia and therefore not entirely certain about certain policies. This is to explain that my saying that xx did that or yyy did that is not to take away the blame but to understand what is acceptable or not, because I believed, that what other editors can do, I can do too. Therefore, I'd like to understand :

1 - The reason why my actions are considered disruptive. 2 - The block was indefinite, when I fulfilled the obligations set out to me. 3 - How can this be reversed.

This is not because I agree or disagree with my current predicament, but seriously because I am honestly curious as to why this is so.

Thank you in advance. Ppteles (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Some remarks considering my current predicament.
Dear all,

How does wikipedia really work? Really? Some of you may believe that this question is ill-intentioned. However, I am honestly curious about the actual functionings of this project.

Some personal remarks. It is true that I started my journey on the wrong foot in the English wikipedia. But I truly wanted to contribute to it. It all began when I tried to point out to the editors in List of Largest Empires that some of the content in there was incorrect. I admit to have been a bit hot tempered. However, this is because I am a strong believer in that we must fight against the spread of false information, which I identify as one of the greatest threats to our times. Being somewhat new to wikipedia, I didn't really know much of the jargon used, and the rules in general, however, since the beginning I tried to learn. From what I kept reading in the wikipedia pages, from what I saw others doing, and from what others explained to me. I clearly didn't do it right or I wouldn't be in this current situation. However, I did try to do it in an encyclopaedic way.

For instance, I did demonstrate why I believed the source being used in that article was wrong, countless times. I tried to point out that I believed the article was too focused on only one author. This was later corroborated by other editors, the last time really very recently (although this was later reverted by C.Fred, although I believe this was accidental), but my point was corroborated on other occasions too, like here, as well as throughout the AfD process, read for instance, what Iridescent wrote, among others.

Also, I did call out the attention that one source was in fact reliable, and this was shunned by my fellow editors, after which I opened a case in the notification board (as recommended to me by EdJohnston), which, again, seems to have demonstrated that my concerns were correct, and the source is currently being accepted in the article in question.

I did also give more than 14 sources to demonstrate how Taagepera's value is incorrect, including a primary source, an encyclopaedia no less, from 1807, which is the same time as the measurement should be taken. Also I demonstrated that Taagepera was using simlpe maps to make detailed calculations, which seemed awfully inadequate to me.

Also, and per C.Fred's recommendation, I decided to reorganize the talk page and summarize my findings. Please note that at this time, there was already a AfD going, with many of the editors raising similar questions to mine. Especially related to the concern that this article bases itself too much on only one source, which was my problem with it in the first place.

Throughout this process, I did not edit the page, knowing that I was under an 1RR ban (until the 20th of September). After the ban ended, I did edit it once another problem which has been cited as problematic on this page had been, at least from my perspective, settled, which has to do with the abritrary definition of a threshold for inclusion (again, see here). There had seem to have been some kind of compromise reached, which enabled my addition here, perhaps making this revert more disruptive than mine.

Also, I don't think this behaviour by this user is being very constructive either, he is basically at odds with something that has been settled by the rest of the editors of that page. And hence why I pinged C.Fred. I thikn C. Fred, although acting in good faith, was a bit hasty in his assessment of the situation, as demonstrated by both assuming an improvement was a revert, and having deleted an insertion by Atom 86. Please note I am not trying to make judgements here, just describing the situation as I see it, and moreover, as stated previously, I believe C.Fred acted in good faith. Also, I had been given the 1RR which I followed strictly, and believed that the 3RR rule applied to me, which I also tried to follow. I know that in some situations this rule is overlooked, although I do not understand precisely why it is so.

As such I'd like to ask for two things. The first is that I am ok with only having 1RR for an indeterminate amount of time. This is clear, and is a rule I can understand and follow. The second is basically a question to the wikipedia community overall, and to the administrators, is my behaviour really that disruptive? If so why? I truly did try to do everything by the book.

Thanks in advance Regards, --Ppteles (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop pinging me. I have nothing more to add here. --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry.--Ppteles (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT
Maybe it's time to consider removing TPA. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that?--Ppteles (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I offend anyone? Have you read what I wrote? All I am asking is that someone explain to me some things, with which I have doubts. How is this disruptive?--Ppteles (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem as I see it is that you need to figure out these things yourself. They've been explained several times and you don't seem to understand.  If that's true, then you shouldn't be permitted to edit until you do. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you say I don't seem to understand? I already said and stated taht I believe I didn't act appropriately in some occasions, I am even proposing a permanent 1RR on myself. Asking questions does not equate to not not understanding something. I am just curious about how this works. I believe some questions have not been appropriately answered to me, and hence why I am asking this questions. I'd be happy to talk to someone . --Ppteles (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the last offer to you was not 1RR but a topic ban. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The last administrator wrote "Your comments both here and further down the page show that you still do not understand the reason for the block, which is pretty much a prerequisite for unblocking. As such, we're pretty much obligated to decline this appeal. At this point, and given your history of edit-warring blocks, I would consider that a voluntary 1RR restriction would probably be a condition of any unblock".See, this is one of the things I don't get . Ppteles (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 331dot, can you please read what I wrote here, and give me some feedback. Thanks. --Ppteles (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * C.Fred above twice mentions that a topic ban is a condition, "the only way I'd unblock your account is if you were placed under a topic ban restricting you from all edits, to articles or talk pages, on topics related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, and specifically including List of largest empires". 1RR would be in addition to that restriction. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe that is necessary, I accept, and I will not break this rule, h(as I did not break the previous 1RR rule). However, I don't understand why he believes that, and I was trying to convince him that my contributions have been positive in that article. If possible I'd like to propose another offer, which would be a 0RR on all pages but access to that talk page where I believe I was making progress as shown above.--Ppteles (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I skimmed your passage but, regardless of if you have good intentions, you have edit warred and been disruptive. You also talk about others' behavior, which isn't relevant to your behavior.  I think those that have suggested that you use the standard offer to be unblocked(waiting six months) are on to something.  I have nothing else to add to this line of discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What does this mean exactly? --Ppteles (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I am not focused on other people's behaviour, I think my description bases itself on my behaviour: I respond to my behaviour, albeit, my behaviour may be influenced by the behaviour of others, which makes it difficult to talk about my behaviour without mentioning other people's behaviour. I'm not judging just saying that I will respond to some thing in certain ways. Also I don't understand why first you mentioned a topic ban, but now mention a standard offer. What has changed in the meantime? --Ppteles (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you are so easily influenced into bad behavior by others, then you have no business editing.  Only you can control your behavior. Nothing has changed.  It was suggested that the standard offer might be useful here.  OK.  I really have nothing more to add. I strongly suggest that you take a break to reflect on this matter. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, I said that my behaviour, as anyone's, is affected by the behaviour of others around me. I do mention other people's behaviour so I can make my behaviour clearer for those reading this. I am not accusing anyone.--Ppteles (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (EDIT) 'When he says that' I mean when he wrote above that he didn't see any progress, which I believe there is. Ppteles (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Sorry to intervene here. I just wanted to let you know that i'm the one who reported  two times for edit warring few weeks ago and he was blocked for that. This time, he pinged himself some users (including admins) on the talk page at list of largest empires expecting to get me sanctioned, but he got blocked again. However, i don't think that  deserves an indef block, i think that he deserves another chance and i support his demand of being able to edit talk pages with a 0RR (since the disruption comes from edit warring on list of largest empires, not talk:list of largest empires). Since he said above that he could not understand why he's blocked, i think that he needs to read wiki rules and i'm ready to help him to better understand them if he accepts (i'm not a very experienced user, but i think i have enough knowledge about basic rules of Wikipedia). Take care. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  17:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikaviani, thank you and yes, I would accept you offering to help me. I think it's very nice of you considering some differences we've had in the past, which, at least for me, weren't personal. I understand the block, although I don't understand exactly certain functionings and how certain rules apply or not, in what seems to me is a bit arbitrary, but maybe I'm wrong. So I welcome you trying to help me, and accept it. I wonder though if any administrator is still reading this. Thanks.Ppteles (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, i try to help you because i still believe that you can be a net positive here with a little help. I met many disruptive users here, on Wikipedia, and reported them in order to put an end to the dsruption. You are not like them, i mean you try to understand and improve your editing behaviour, not like the majority of them. More, you have some knowledge about the articles you try to edit, not like many of them who often try to push a POV because they want to take pride in some ethnicity/historic figure/dynasty/empire etc ... I think that you've been quite harshly blocked this time beacause of your track records (i.e. blocked several times for edit warring at List of largest empires). I sincerely hope that you will be unblocked. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no quarrels just trying to figure it out as it goes. Thanks for the assist. Ppteles (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what is your view on an unblock with 0RR, a topic ban as you described above, and the involvement of Wikiaviani as described? I'm still forming an opinion and would appreciate your input. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact what Wikaviani and I propose is to have 0RR but still be possible to discuss the article in the talk page as explained above.Ppteles (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. I believe that can be useful at Talk:List of largest empires. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  23:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I think that if Ppteles is willing to accept advice and guidance from other editors, that's a good thing—whether it's from Wikaviani providing assistance or from the formal assignment of a mentor. The thing is, Ppteles has to actually accept and follow the guidance. We got here because even with repeated reminders and warnings not to edit war, it kept happening. In other words, I blocked this account because of a pattern of disruption, and it's indefinite until such point as we can be satisfied that disruption will not happen again. So I see four possible ways forward:
 * The standard offer. This is the harshest of the paths, as it means a six-month break from the entirety of Wikipedia. I don't think we've reached that point. I think that Ppteles' interactions in this section show that they are able to edit collaboratively, although they definitely need guidance.
 * A revert restriction, either 1RR or 0RR. We tried 1RR in the past, and while it worked okay during the time of restriction, the edit warring resumed within a week of expiry. My fear with 0RR is that there is no margin for error, as any revert would be grounds for an immediate block; I do not want to set Ppteles up for failure on their return to editing.
 * A topic ban. Looking through edit history, it seems that every edit that led to a block was to the list of empires or to an article that mentioned the Portuguese Empire. The idea of the ban is to get Ppteles involved in editing in "safer" areas, where there's less likely to be a strong reaction. Hopefully that will make it easier to get accustomed with Wikipedia guidelines and standards of behaviour. The topic ban is still harsh, but it's a neater bright line: it's easier to avoid a topic than to avoid incidental reverts.
 * An article ban. This would prevent any direct edits to the affected articles by Ppteles, but it would allow them to participate in talk-page discussions and indirectly edit articles if they can convince other editors of the merits of their claims.
 * Wikaviani said it above: "Ppteles can be useful at Talk:List of largest empires." I'm inclined to agree: they show an understanding of the sources for sizes of empires and would be valuable in that discussion. This would allow them to continue work in that area and give a good opportunity to show that they're a net positive to the project.
 * So my recommendation would be an article ban on all articles related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, and specifically including List of largest empires—but specifically excluding article talk and user talk pages, so that they may discuss potential changes and work with others on getting them made. I'd suggest a duration of no less than one month but no more than six. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I accept those terms. Just so it is clear though, I will not be allowed to edit any articles broadly related to Portuguese Empire but would be allowed to participate in the talk pages? How is this 'broadly' defined? In doubt can I ask Wikaviani? Also, this does mean I can edit other pages? I would like to be limited a specific amount of reverts, just to be safe, would it be ok if this would include a 1RR? This way this condition would be explicit. I work better with explicit.Ppteles (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I say I accept because I believe this is part of the unblocking process.Ppteles (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Broadly construed" means if the article—or the portion of the article you're editing—mentions the Portuguese Empire, it's off limits. You could still discuss on the talk page. And yes, when in doubt, ask for guidance! —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! I agree to these terms, ban on all articles related to Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, specifically including List of Largest Empires, with exception of talk pages. I will self-impose a 1RR condition on myself too, probably in longer periods than 48 hours. -Ppteles (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of skirting the edge of the topic ban, since it's adding the Portuguese king and a Portuguese general and colonial governor to an article about a war fought by the Portuguese Empire?

I'm a bit conflicted here because these edits also have value. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not skirting the edge of the topic ban. It's explicitly in blatant violation of the topic ban. I have indefinitely blocked this user for this violation and will note this below. --Yamla (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a topic ban but an article ban. -Ppteles (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True, Ppteles, but unfortunately the terms were an article ban on all articles related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed—and that article is very much related, surely? ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An article about the Spanish War of Succession is hardly about the Portuguese Empire. Portuguese Kingdom yes but not Empire.Ppteles (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Pantaleon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Armenian and Saint John ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Saint_Pantaleon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Saint_Pantaleon?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) 09:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for violating your topic ban
As noted above, these two edits were in blatant violation of your topic ban. You knew you weren't allowed to edit in this topic area, yet here you are, adding the flagicon of Portugal and adding one of the great Kings of Portugal right during the golden age of the Portugese Empire, to an article. You've also violated your topic ban here, with an edit about a saint, discussing actions from the time of the Portugese Empire. In fact, as far as I can tell, all of your article edits since your block was lifted were in violation of your topic ban. There's literally a long, drawn-out section on this talk page entitled WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I can't tell if that's still the case here, if you legitimately don't get it, or if you are outright trolling at this point. Either way, you are now blocked. Any admin is free to unblock you if you can show my math is wrong. The Portuguese Empire stretched from 1415 to 1999. Your edit to Saint Pantaleon discussed activities during and directly related to the Portuguese Empire, in 1453. And your edits to War of the Spanish Succession discuss the leader of the Portuguese Empire, in 1707. If I misunderstand the duration of the Portuguese Empire, you are free to point out the error in my math and request an unblock. But, even with only one coffee and not much sleep, I'm pretty sure both 1453 and 1707 fall between 1415 and 1999, and that your edits were clearly related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed. This is all I have to say on this topic so please don't ping me. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * this is wrong. It was an article ban not a topic ban. I fail to see how a page about a saint and another about the war on Spanish succession relates to Portuguese Empire. i would also like to appeal against this block. THANKS. Ppteles (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked you not to ping me. Don't do that again. "I agree to these terms, ban on all articles related to Portuguese Empire, broadly construed". " I will not be allowed to edit any articles broadly related to Portuguese Empire." Go ahead and ask for an unblock if you like. It won't be me reviewing it and I oppose your unblocking on WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR grounds, but any admin is free to override my objections if they disagree (this is not always the case, some admins don't like this but I don't mind here). --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your harshness. You state that this was in violation of a topic ban when this was never a topic ban, but an article ban, referring to Portuguese Empire, broadly construed. I fail to see how an article on St. Pantaleon and on the War of Spanish Succession refer to Portuguese Empire, which relates to colonies and/or colonial expansion. Also, my contributes were positive. I am pinging you the last time, because I'd like to understand why you are being so harsh. --Ppteles (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now asked you three times not to ping me. I won't ask you a fourth time, I will revoke your talk page access. I have explained my reasoning below. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you haven't. Why are you being so harsh? Ppteles (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yamla, Yunshui - Can one of you link me to the discussion, location, or diff where this user's ban was discussed and imposed? I was looking for in in order to address this unblock request, but I couldn't locate it. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Directly above, under the heading WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Yunshui 雲 水 10:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yunshui - Ah, right in front of me the whole time... forgive my stupidity, and thank you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries; it's a big old wall o' text up there. Yunshui 雲 水 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yamla, Yunshui - Just responding with an observation and what I read, and maybe with some questions or information that may need to be cleared up for me (if you don't mind, of course):
 * What Ppteles understood and agreed to appears to be from the condition stated in this edit, which defines the ban as an "article ban on all articles related to the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed, and specifically including List of largest empires—but specifically excluding article talk and user talk pages" (I think that C.Fred meant to state "topic ban on all articles...")? On top of this, "broadly construed" was also defined in this edit. Was this wording corrected later that I do not see? Or was this condition accurately stated? If the wording was meant to reflect a topic ban, I could maybe start to understand Ppteles's possible confusion. Regardless, if user was believed to be under an article ban - where is the list of articles that the user was given not to edit? In conclusion, I believe that it's possible that Ppteles might have been given the impression of being under an article ban and not a topic ban given the diffs I provided, but such confusion wouldn't give the user the excuse to make the edits they made unless these articles were explicitly listed, which I didn't find. Please let me know if I missed or overlooked something.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've summed it up appropriately. Given the discussion (particularly, the "broadly construed"), I understand this to be a topic ban (not an article ban) but grant your point on possible confusion around article vs topic ban. Regardless of which it is, it appears we both believe the edits were inappropriate. Oshwah, I don't believe you are leaning toward an unblock but I say again, I'm okay with any action you take here. That would include leaving the block in place, unblocking without adding further conditions, or unblocking with a clarification around the specific restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, if you want to wikilawyer your way into unblocking this use, go for it. Myself, I think the spirit of a ban should trump the exact wording of it, but YMMV. Yunshui 雲 水  11:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, why do you say I broke my article ban? Can I please ask you to explain it to me? Ppteles (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yunshui - Though I'm sure I'd be a great Wikiattorney at law (lol), I'm not attempting to wikilaywer anything at all :-). I'm just trying to read and make sure that I didn't miss anything and that I understand the context. I agree that the block is good and that what was meant to be explained in the ban and unblock condition was mostly clear (at least clear enough for the user to understand where it applies and where it doesn't). I'm simply stating my observation to express some degree of understanding (though it is small). While the possible confusion may explain the edits Ppteles made and in violation of their ban, it certainly does not excuse them. I apologize if my previous comment implied any sort of attempt to wikilawyer or apply only the wording of the ban and not the spirit of such. It was not my intention at all.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oshwah thanks for trying to understand. I honestly don't believe I broke the spirit of the ban. The article ban specifically relates to Portuguese Empire, which is a colonial Empire, therefore I have refrained from editing or even reading articles related to Portuguese Empire or colonies. Ppteles (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (EDIT: ban=blockPpteles (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC))
 * What I meant was what I saw at WP:ABAN: "An article ban forbids an editor from editing a specific article or set of articles." The spirit of the ban was to prevent the edit warring that was going on in articles and get the user to interact at the talk pages. Hence, I wanted to make clear that the user was welcome, if not encouraged, to engage in constructive, collaborative discussion at article talk pages, including talk pages of articles within the scope of the ban—but the user was forbidden to edit any articles within the topic of the ban. —C.Fred (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear C. Fred do you think I have broken the block? I know I should have asked for help, but I had been away for a while and tried these minor edits. I was trying to be bold. Thanks (and sorry).Ppteles (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I tried to interact on the talk pages of the articles. Ppteles (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Ppteles, for clarity, here are your last 50 edits to article talk pages. Just FYI. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I have tried not to interfere in List of Largest Empires. I did also leave a message on the talk page of another user. This was last night when I made all these edits.Ppteles (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (EDIT: I tried not to interfere in the talk page of List of Largest Empires because I think for now it is too 'hot' for me, and I wish it to be so for another while.--Ppteles (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC))


 * Comment Hi everybody, i asked for mercy about weeks ago, therefore, i find it quite normal to offer my help, if needed, in order to solve this case.  : please let me know if i can help in any way. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  12:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * HELLO, thanks again for your help. I should have contacted you first but I thought these edits were meritory. Also, really, the addition to the Saint Pantaleon page has nothing to do with Portuguese Empire unless any article on Portuguese History is included in this ban? As for war on Spanish Succession I was trying to help, also this article's topic is not Portuguese Empire which as I understand it relates to colonies. I should have asked but I thought the explanations given by C. Fred are clear enough. Also I don't understant why Yamla is being so harsh to me.  Ppteles (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A proposal
To all involved admins, i'm not pinging you again because i don't want to bother you : i think an indef block is quite a harsh sanction here. , while being disruptive, has also been a net positive for the project, therefore he should be allowed to edit all talk pages and also all articles with no relation with the Portuguese Empire. I share Oshwah's concerns and therefore, i suggest a mentor for Ppteles in order to help him to better understand Wiki rules. If no other user than me wants to coach him, then i agree to do so, however, i'm not the most experienced user on Wikipedia. Of course, i'm not an admin and all i said above is just a proposal. Take care everybody. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Wikaviani: An indefinite block is not an infinite block; it is a block of sufficient duration that we think the problem will no longer recur. I also think Ppteles is showing signs that they understand what they did wrong. I agree that a mentor would be a big help in this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear C.Fred, could you please be so kind as to clarify whether this ban was an article ban or a topic ban? Also, I have not been engaged in any kind of edit warring, especially not in relation to the article that led to my block in the first place. Thanks (both Wikaviani and C.Fred)--Ppteles (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The ban is on the topic of the Portuguese Empire, broadly construed; any and all articles that relate to the Empire, specifically including List of largest empires, are within the scope of the ban. However, the ban is limited to article space, so that you are allowed to participate in discussions on article talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. As I said, I have now understood that I should not edit articles related to Portuguese Empire, which include, broadly speaking, articles related to Portuguese History. It will not happen again. I will seek counsel next time with Wikaviani before editing any article.--Ppteles (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for clarifying. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese empire issue
Hello. I saw the various topics of discussion about the size of the Portuguese empire in the "list of largest empires". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires Unfortunately, the wrong information remains the favorite among users like TompaDompa. All your efforts have been in vain, since the wrong information remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.93 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)