User talk:The193thdoctor

Welcome![edit]

Hello, The193thdoctor! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at COVID-19 pandemic. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to stop edit warring. You've made the same edit multiple times and it has been reverted because it is against consensus; see [1], [2], and [3]. If you disagree with the result, take it to the talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that this is my first time to meet with such a situation. I was once informed that this kind of dispute will be sent to an administrator. But I guess that this is not the case. Moreover, my edit was not against the consensus because you do not count the majority of the Chinese population who cannot use Wikipedia. I was trying to find a middle ground between the prevailing nationalism in China and the strong anti-China emotion prevailing in western countries.

Generally, if your edit is reverted by four different editors ([4] is another example), then it is likely against consensus. Feel free to take it to the talk page when your block expires. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators deal with things like edit-warring, which is what you were doing. Administrators do not adjudicate content. There is no process to "send to an administrator," by design. You have to work it out and find consensus, not edit-war. Acroterion (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that I was edit warring until now. I feel sorry about that. I do not edit Wikipedia very often. As a result, when the last ban came effective, I didn't realize it completely. Moreover, I was living in China, which is in an entirely different time zone from many Wikipedia English users. As a result, when you left a comment, I was sleeping. When I left a comment, you are sleeping as well. For example, it is 3:52 a.m in China right now, and I am usually sleeping at this time. After this ban is over, I will try to leave some comments on the talk page of the COVID pandemic and add "exactly" on the page of triple points in a way that will not interrupt the sorting function.--The193thdoctor (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr warned you and you continued to edit-war. Kinu kindly reinforced the warning, but having already been warned once, there was no excuse for your last revert to your preferred version. This is a short block. Please be prepared to seek a broad consensus - what you are doing can't be strictly associated with Covid-related topics. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any of the warnings until now because I didn't access Wikipedia that often. I literally didn't know both the fact that I was edit warring and any information regarding edit warring. I really didn't know anything about this rule. I have never asked for any cancelation of the ban. Instead, I was trying to explain this situation because I constantly feel terribly bad for being misunderstood. I literally swear I am telling the truth. I am not unreasonable, I just didn't know. You are really hurting my feelings. --The193thdoctor (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to Kinu after he reinforced VQuakr's warning. In any case, your block will expire soon. Please seek consensus for your changes on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 pandemic; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Kinu ^t/_c 19:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Triple point; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. You've been asked to stop edit warring before. Please seek consensus for changes that are potentially controversial. Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said my edit interrupted the table's sorting function, so I fixed it. Why did my fixing count as edit warring? Can you explain this warning to me? --The193thdoctor (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The193thdoctor: Please explain why I should not block you, for longer this time, for going right back to one of the articles where you were edit-warring and doing it over again? The rationalization that you "fixed it" isn't a valid exemption. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not perform any reverts. Because I did not change the article into any preexisting version. Instead, I created a new version, and you can confirm it all by yourself. I do not have any hostility to you, but it is you that is being unreasonable.

You made this edit [three times before your block [5] [6] [7] and then did exactly that again after your block expired [8] - repositioning it doesn't make any difference, it's substantially the same edit. Your response is extremely disappointing. Please explain how you will change your approach to editing, rather than complaining about sanctions arising from your violations of the edit-warring policy, and other editors who enforce the policy. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[9] [10] and [11] [12] are changes made in two different tables. The table of the latter two does not contain any sorting function, which is the reason why the conflict regarding first two modifications happened. In other words, arguments regarding the first two modifications are different from arguments regarding the latter two modifications. Therefore, they are completely different issues that need to be counted separately, despite the fact that they seem to be. Even if you do not agree with this statement and believe all four modifications are of the same issue, then [13] [14] will be different because if the related table is sortable, putting "exactly" afterwords will not break the table's sorting function, at least I once believed.(I later realized that this table does not contain any sorting function at all, then Kinu explains the reason why he undid the versions I made in [15], and he is mostly correct. Thus I neither set up a new discussion nor did any more related revision.) I understand that usually, this seems really likely to be edit waring from the appearance, but due to the above reasons, I can swear that it is really not. --The193thdoctor (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have noticed that I haven't blocked you - but you need to be a lot more careful, and to explain yourself clearly, preferably on the talkpage, first. Revisiting the site of an earlier series of reverts right after coming off a block for edit-warring is a very bad look. Please be more careful. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I apologize for being too angry with you. Thank you for your advice as well. I will be more careful and think from others' perspectives.--The193thdoctor (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please remember that we're working together, and the idea is to have fun building the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]