User talk:Xander berkeley

Kanguole ( Ogress ) did harmful editing to the article "Princess Wencheng" and didn't discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Kanguole ( Ogress ) started edit warring. But Philg88 blamed and blocked me.[edit]

Xander berkeley (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between Kanguole and Ogress? What is the relationship between User:Kanguole and User:Ogress?[edit]

What is the relationship between Kanguole and Ogress? What is the relationship between User:Kanguole and User:Ogress? What is the relationship between Kanguole，Ogress and Ohnoitsjamie? What is the relationship between User:Kanguole， User:Ogress and User:Ohnoitsjamie? What is the relationship between Kanguole，Ogress ,Ohnoitsjamie, Philg88 and PhilKnight ?

I deleted the irrelevant content.Then I was unfairly blocked[edit]

I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".Then I was blocked by Philg88. Xander berkeley (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring was started by them,not by me. I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".Then I was unfairly blocked[edit]

They add irrelevant content into the article "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".I deleted the irrelevant content.I did neither persistent disruptive editing nor starting edit warring.They did persistent disruptive editing by persistent adding irrelevant content into the article "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan" and started edit warring. Xander berkeley (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between Philg88 and PhilKnight?[edit]

November 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Princess Wencheng 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Ogress _smash! 05:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice[edit]

While I understand that you are no doubt editing in good faith, there are certain guidelines here that you must follow. If you disagree with another editor, discuss the issue on the associated article's talk page rather than engaging in edit warring. Editing here is a privilege, not a right and your ability to edit the encyclopedia can be removed if you persist in ignoring established norms of behavior. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why blame me? Ogress (Zanhe,Kanguole may be his assumed names) is 3rr and reverting in what appears to be a problematic way on two pages:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Wencheng and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Taizong%27s_campaign_against_Tufan. He appears NPOV-breaking, at least that's how I read his edits: anti-China, pro-Tibet. Ogress (Zanhe,Kanguole may be his assumed names) 's recent editing history shows that he is currently engaged in an edit war. And he adds Irrelevant text into page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Taizong%27s_campaign_against_Tufan.

It is quite obvious from our contributions that User:Ogress, User:Zanhe and I are different people. I have opened a discussion regarding your deletion at Talk:Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan#Relevance – please respond there. Kanguole 11:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

check your IP?

The content you added into " Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan" is irrelevant to Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan.So it should be deleted.

Signing your posts[edit]

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88 Why are you ignoring the fact that they added irrelevant content into the article? Xander berkeley (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

When there's a requested move discussion in progress, the idea is that we have a discussion, which is then reviewed by an admin to determine whether there's consensus for a change of title. If you disagree with the proposed target, the appropriate course is to comment in the discussion making the case for your preferred title, not to modify the original move request or to move the page yourself. Kanguole 17:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xander berkeley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".I did not do disruptive editing. Xander berkeley (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you have a problem with a local consensus, you should use dispute resolution, as opposed to edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The edit warring was started by them,not by me They add irrelevant content into the article "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".I deleted the irrelevant content.I did neither persistent disruptive editing nor starting edit warring.They did persistent disruptive editing by persistent adding irrelevant content into the article and started edit warring Xander berkeley (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from blocking admin Removing sourced content without consensus or discussion multiple times AND moving a page before a requested move has run its course are disruptive. I gave you ample opportunity to amend your approach, but you chose to ignore my advice. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you ample reason, but you chose to ignore my reason. I delete the irrelevant content which they added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan" When they added the irrelevant content into the article "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan",where were You? Consensus? Their consensus by few ones can add the irrelevant content? Their adding the irrelevant content is disruptive. But you ignored that and punished me unfairly. Xander berkeley (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".Then I was unfairly blocked[edit]

I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".Then I was blocked by Philg88. Xander berkeley (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between Philg88 and PhilKnight?

*The edit warring was started by them,not by me[edit]

They add irrelevant content into the article"Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".I deleted the irrelevant content.I did neither persistent disruptive editing nor starting edit warring.They did persistent disruptive editing by persistent adding irrelevant content into the article "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan" and started edit warring. Xander berkeley (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Princess Wencheng. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
Wikipedia operates under consensus. You were already blocked once for edit-warring on this topic; you must discuss it on the talk page of the article instead of edit-warring. Ogress _smash! 18:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Princess Wencheng 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
So soon after being blocked for edit warring, I urge you to talk about this issue on the talk page and not violate 3RR Ogress _smash! 18:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Princess Wencheng. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
Wikipedia operates under consensus. You were already blocked once for edit-warring on this topic; you must discuss it on the talk page of the article instead of edit-warring. Ogress _smash! 18:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Princess Wencheng 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
So soon after being blocked for edit warring, I urge you to talk about this issue on the talk page and not violate 3RR Ogress _smash! 18:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Xander berkeley (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again[edit]

Please avoid a repetition of the behavior you were previously blocked for. Blocks on Wikipedia are escalating in nature, which means that if you continue down this road you will ultimately be indefinitely blocked from editing here. Please address whatever the issue is on Princess Wencheng through discussion or seek dispute resolution. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid unfair block. Ogress didn't discuss or seek dispute resolution,and his editing on Princess Wencheng is harmful to the article.Xander berkeley (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although you copied my edit summary, it does not describe your edit: the cited source does not mention a retreat from Tuyuhun or gold; in fact it dwells on the contrast between Tibetan and Chinese accounts. Other problems with your edit include duplication of text, removal of the Tibetan view, and deletion of the reference to the Tibetan attack on Songzhou, giving the inaccurate impression that the Tang army was sent to aid the Tuyuhun. You've pasted in some text from that article, but in an incoherent way. Kanguole 18:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact,the tibetans retreated from Tuyuhun and sent gold. The Tibetan View? The Tibetan historical records didn't mentioned this war. Xander berkeley (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring at Princess Wencheng. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xander berkeley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't do edit warring or violating the three-revert rule. Ogress did harmful editing to the article Princess Wencheng and didn't discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Ogress started edit warring. But Philg88 blamed and punished me. Xander berkeley (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Very obvious edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Very obvious edit warring was not started by me. Kanguole ( Ogress ) started very obvious edit warring. Why blocked me? Kanguole ( Ogress ) did harmful editing to the article "Princess Wencheng" and didn't discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Kanguole ( Ogress ) started edit warring. But Philg88 blamed and blocked me. Xander berkeley (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You were blocked 10 days ago for exactly the same thing. Instead of learning from that and seeking consensus or dispute resolution, you plunge straight back into edit warring on another article. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 days ago I deleted the irrelevant content which someone added into "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan".Then I was blocked by Philg88. Now Ogress did harmful editing to the article Princess Wencheng and didn't discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Ogress started edit warring. But Philg88 blamed and punished me. Xander berkeley (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]