User talk:BlueandWhite2017
Your recent editing history at Awdal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please use the talk page to discuss your viewpoint, otherwise you will be reported Koodbuur (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BlueandWhite2017 reported by User:Koodbuur (Result: ). Thank you. Koodbuur (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
DRN case closed[edit]
Thank you for seeking assistance with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Unfortunately, the case you filed had to be closed as it did not meet the minimum DRN criteria. There was not an extensive enough talkpage discussion. Please use a talkpage to discuss ways to improve the article. If, after a good collaborative effort is made, a dispute still exists, you should feel welcome to refile. Nihlus 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. regentspark (comment) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)- When you find yourself being repeatedly reverted, please learn to use the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
BlueandWhite2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been unfairly blocked, I have provided reputable sources for my edits. Instead of being objective and looking at the evidence. The moderators have sided with users Koodbuur and Ciiseciise007 purely because they have been on wikipedia longer then I have. WBlueandWhite2017 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring; you must learn to use the talk page to gain consensus for your edits. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- When you are in a dispute about content, edit warring (please see WP:EW) is not the way to solve it and is expressly forbidden. And it doesn't make any difference whether or not you are right - after all, every party in a dispute thinks they're right! Administrators have no power to settle content disputes, and the admin action in this case was to stop the disruption cause by the edit war. Content disputes are settled by consensus (see WP:Consensus), and the onus is on the party wishing to make the change to seek that consensus. So when you make a change and it is reverted, the next thing you should do is start a discussion on the article's talk page, and not reinstate your change unless and until consensus for it has been established. I hope this makes sense and is of some help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
BlueandWhite2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There can be no consensus, the USERS Koodbuur and Ciiseciise007 aren't interested in facts - instead only care for promoting their separatist propaganda, which Wikipedia is facilitating. Why does Wikipedia give credence to separatists editing Somalia related pages but not separatists editing Ukraine related pages? International law and the international community recognises Somalia's territorial integrity like it does with Ukraine's. How can I reach "consensus" with USERS like Koodbuur and Ciiseciise007 who reject facts and only want to promote their propaganda?
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.