Adn1990

October 2013

Please stop inserting false claims into the article Democratic Party (United States). Contrary to a myth which has arisen somehow, the Democratic Party never even considered joining the Progressive Alliance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLPCAT at the Amber Heard article

Regarding this edit you made that I reverted, I'm sure that you saw the hidden note. WP:BLP, which WP:BLPCAT is a part of, is policy; read it and defer to it, and do not violate it again. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party

Please provide a reference to support any assertions that the ALP remains a Democratic Socialist Party (or that it ever held this ideology). Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm Bluefist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Category:Liberal parties in the United States, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bluefist ^talk 20:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Category:Liberal parties in the United States has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; instead, use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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. --SineBot (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at UK Independence Party, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at UK Independence Party. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at UK Independence Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberal Democratic Party (Turkey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Adn1990. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just in case you weren't aware of it, Category:Tea Party movement is under discretionary sanctions - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Freedom Party of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Objectivism

List of libertarian political parties (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Objectivism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Israeli political party template

You are correct that the parties are currently in a coalition, but they are still separate parties. Moreover, the template is more useful with the separate links, as someone wanting to get to either page would have to click through twice. Anyway, please discuss on the template talk page rather than reverting again. Thanks, Number 57 22:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political international, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Objectivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Congress of the New Right

Hi. Why did you revert it? The leader of the party calls his party as "far-right" Tashivana (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Constitution Party (United States)  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't edit war.... discuss!

Hi, at Constitution Party (United States)‎ you restored one of your edits after I reverted it and you did so without discussion. That is the first step in an WP:EDITWAR which could get you blocked. Instead of restoring your reverted edits unilaterally, you are expected to DISCUSS them... see WP:BRD.... at the article talk page (see WP:TALK). Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced

I find it very strange that you would remove sourced material because you don't like the sources and at the same time add unsourced material, evidently because you think you know it's correct. It suggests that you haven't read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR which are core policies. It would be a good idea to read them. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

Why do you continue to remove large amounts of long standing sourced content? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Republican Party (United States)

Your recent editing history at Republican Party (United States) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 29, 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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.  Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This includes your continued removal of sourced content with no justification and specifically[1] where you claimed that sourced content was unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

Adn1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No, there is a mistake, Dougweller has blocked me for unconvicting reasons, I was removed this edits because are poor referenced, not necessary and even biased edits, my removal is absolutely justified and of course there are other good reasons that i should be unblocked immediately. Adn1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block reasons are very convincing. Until you can accept that sources that you do not agree with can nevertheless be totally valid I see little chance of you being unblocked. As to there being "of course" other reasons to unblock, unless you specify them they do not exist.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:43, 29 June 2014 (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.

ADN1990, you should have used the unblock template but I've fixed it so other Admins will see the request. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

Adn1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

And again, i was removed some edits of the Republican Party article because in introduction and trends section there edits are unnecessary, poor referenced or minor edits so i want to be unblocked, can one help me? despite one administrator is refused i'm sure that other administrators will be accepted. Adn1990 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2014 (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.

I fear we have a case of extreme incompetence, which includes gross failures to understand our policies. This user should not be unblocked, possibly ever. Please change the block length accordingly.

The damage they have done has occurred over a long period of time, and we need a team to go over their edits to fix the damage which has not been caught. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, he lies they must not change the block length, plus i merit to be unblocked, very possibly, and i call you to reject his request, thanks. -- Adn1990 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller and Anthony Bradbury, the block has expired and the user has immediately resumed his previous activities. Please see comments above (and sections below) requesting a lengthening of the block (preferably indef) of the user. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at New Azerbaijan Party

Your recent editing history at New Azerbaijan Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey what do you talking about? what do you waiting for? a edit war which you claimed is not a edit war, this party is clearly not a liberal conservative. it's ideology is Azerbaijani nationalism, Secularism and Social market economy so did you see the official website of this party was said it's a liberal conservative? of course not, it's like was edited that this party is considered itself as a pro-european which is not. So stop receiving there another messages again. Adn1990 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Resumption of edit warring over practices which just caused a block

You really deserve an indef ban. You lack competence and understanding of our policies, and you edit war, immediately after a block for disruptive editing/edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Congress of the New Right

Your recent editing history at Congress of the New Right shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of edit war at New Azerbaijan Party

Moved from my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey what do you talking about? what do you waiting for? a edit war which you claimed is not a edit war, this party is clearly not a liberal conservative. it's ideology is Azerbaijani nationalism, Secularism and Social market economy so did you see the official website of this party was said it's a liberal conservative? of course not, it's like was edited that this party is considered itself as a pro-european which is not. So stop giving false or inaccurate claims again. Adn1990 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I made no claims about the party. You need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page and not edit war about it. So far, some of the reasons you have given for your various changes don't fit policy. Most of the time you don't even give a reason in an edit summary. That's all very bad form. Always use an edit summary. If your edit is reverted or resisted, then follow WP:BRD and calmly discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Don't use the editor's talk page or attack the editor. Use the article's talk page and reach a consensus decision. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And again i'm not edit warring in this article, i'm not attacking anyone, you claims again i'm edit warring which is not and there are the cases are not edit warring such reverting a vandalism, reverting unsourced like you was reverted that is a liberal conservative in ideology infobox and etc, and i call you to require this administrator to review his decision immediately. -- Adn1990 15:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 30, 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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.  Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You ignored the reason you were blocked and immediately started the same pattern of edits. If you do this again after you come off the block you are likely to face either an indefinite block or a topic ban. Dougweller (talk)

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).

Adn1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear administrators, i'm not edit warring and there are the cases are not edit warring according to wikipedia law, this administrator are blocks me again in 1 week period which is wrong, i call to administrators to unblock me immediately. Adn1990 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. You were previously blocked for edit warring, which was a correct block, and when that expired, you returned to exactly the same edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 30 June 2014 (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.

Adn1990, once again I have fixed your edit - you made it appear that your block had been reviewed and an unblock declined, so no one would ever see your request. I've fixed it so that other Asmins can see it. However, I suggest you read the link on edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• You were blatantly edit-warring at New Azerbaijan Party (against three other editors), after coming off a previous block for edit-warring - so the new block is valid. I strongly suggest you read and understand both WP:EW and WP:Consensus, and adjust your behaviour accordingly. Yes there are cases where multiple reverts are exempt from edit-warring policy, but a content disagreement is not one of them. If you continue to insist there was nothing wrong with your approach, instead of being unblocked you are likely to end up blocked for longer — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, i'm not edit warring at New Azerbaijan Party and this case is not about a content disagreement but it's about vandalism and unsourced edit, and i want to answer my question: which is three other editors? What do you mean three editors exactly? so it's likely not edit warring in this case exactly and if you defends this administrator or there editors so stop defends them without knowing what's going on exactly. Adn1990 17:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • As I say, you can stick with your current attitude and continue to insist you're right if you want - but you're extremely unlikely to be unblocked that way. (By the way, I would also suggest you have a read of WP:Vandalism too, as you do not appear to understand what it means in Wikipedia terms) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No i was readed the WP:Vandalism and i clearly understand what's means, and i could be unblocked, sorry. Adn1990 18:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • @Adn1990: OK, then can you provide us with one example of an edit of yours that was reverting clear vandalism? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Very simple, Congress of the New Right before i was reverted it was edited that political position in ideology infobox is a far-right which is absolutely incorrect and New Azerbaijan Party it was repeatadly editing that it's ideology is a liberal conservatism which is not, that's very simple exemples, did you understand now? Adn1990 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

Adn1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I call again other administrators who possibly want to unblock me or unless minimise the block, this time especially i'm sure that is not edit warring and there are abuse by some administrators. So i hope you to understand, Thanks. Adn1990 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per WP:NOTTHEM, and that your block history (and failure to understand why you were blocked) suggests that you need at least a week to educate yourself on Wikipedia policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:09, 1 July 2014 (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.

I'm real curious what you think edit warring is, since you're so sure that what you've been doing is not that. Please explain; maybe we can clear this up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good question. I'm wondering too. This editor has been editing here (under this username) for over a year, and from the looks of this talk page has done nothing but cause trouble, and apparently hasn't learned from it. As I've said above, we're looking at a case of extreme incompetence. Their learning curve seems to be negative and worsening. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When i was reverted this two last articles (New Azerbaijan Party, Congress of the New Right) in the first revert such new azerbaijan party i was reverted in just ideology infobox which was included liberal conservatism which is not true and not sourced but was reverted by BullRangief and after that i was reverted in second just in second, despite being unsourced he was reverted again that's all and you can see view history in both there articles, i hope you understand now, thanks. Adn1990, 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What he says BullRangifer that he was directly responded your question and wrongly claims that i have nothing done i just causing trouble. He is just now calls immediately the administrators to block me, he has refused to explain him and understand exactly what has happened in latest two days and he know what was going on. But that is due after my removal of Republican Party in some of introduction and trends section not to in ideology infobox, the problem was not in ideology infobox the problem was in introduction and trends he was reverted in all them after my removal of some introduction and trends section which i was said that is poor referenced, unnecessary or harmful edits,so that's it Adn1990, 03:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey what do you talking about Ohnoitsjamie? why are you slut speaking ?! I'm just giving an explanations in the last hours with Jpgordon because he asks me and i respond to BullRangier answer, so you are biasly refused to be unblocked, You don't have the right to act like those and blatanly ignoring what was going on and i do not need at all to educate myself and i'm very educated person. Adn1990, 04:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "slut speaking" is, but I've extended your block another week so I have time to figure it out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm mean why are you speaking in slut manner or offensive manner, that's all and i hope you to review your last decision, sorry. Adn1990, 15:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What does "slut manner" or "slut speaking" mean? Obviously English isn't your first language; whatever you're trying to say is coming across as extremely rude toward Ohnoitsjamie, who has been nothing but polite to you (although strict). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You know very much what's i mean, a person who someone speaks in offensive manner that's was happened, a person who uses a very rude language it was very rude against me just because i was gived an explanation when you question me and i answer that's a right, no one has a right to offend me and i have the right to defend myself and i was said i'm very educated person and i don't need to be educated myself. Adn1990, 17:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very wrong. You have a very high and misguided opinion of yourself. That is not helping you here, nor will it help you in life. There are at least two areas where your knowledge is severely lacking:

1. Your English language skills are extremely poor, and that makes it hard for us to understand you, and for you to understand us. This does not excuse your failures to accept advice and learn from more experienced editors who have been trying to help you. Lack of knowledge can be fixed, but your attitude seems to be beyond fixing at this point.
2. Your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and customs is also very poor, so poor that you seem unfit for this place.

Maybe you should stick to your own language's version of Wikipedia. By the way, what is your mother tongue? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting you need to educate yourself on Wikipedia policies is somehow offensive? OK, I'm done here; trying to help you seems pointless. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And also was said your block history and failure to understand why are you blocked by a provocative manner, i will never accept this provocation! Adn1990, 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And on that note, I doubt anyone will ever accept your unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie and Jpgordon, I think we've provided enough rope for this editor to have climbed to safety, but he has used it to repeatedly hang himself in embarrassing detail. Therefore I suggest the block be changed to indefinite and talk page access be denied. We don't need to waste anymore time here. This editor seems beyond hope in regards to both incompetence and poor attitude. It's not our job to fix that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey what do you talking about? there are absolutely false, your call is totally unacceptable, you blackmail me and your claims are untrue, i'm speak english fluently, if you don't understand me that's your problem but i understand you, i don't merit anyway to be indefenitively blocked and i urge there two administrators to not do it. Adn1990, 05:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's put that into proper English: "Hey, what are you talking about? That is absolutely false. Your statements are totally unacceptable. You are blackmailing me, and your claims are untrue. I'm speaking English fluently. If you don't understand me that's your problem, but I understand you. Anyway, I don't merit an indefinite block, and I urge the two administrators to not do it." THAT'S proper (at least much better ) English, although I had to guess your meaning in a couple places. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's my speech style. all people have there speech style, there meanings, so don't give me absurd things, sorry. Adn1990, 06:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you, but it's not proper English. It's broken English, some form of Pidgin English, or just plain bad English, I'm not sure which. A British or American English teacher would flunk you. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe currently i edit in heterogenous edit often, sorry about misconstruction. Adn1990, 07:10 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough. Blocked indefinitely, talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.68.197 (talk)

But you indeed were edit warring. This and this and this...On this article you've been doing this since November 2013, without once using an article talk page to try to get consensus for your change. That is quite exactly edit warring, albeit slowly. You very much need to use the article talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok i'm sorry but in my last edits in this article i was reverted two consecutive, i should be blocked when i was reverted three consecutive or more in this situation, BullRangier immediately call the administrators to block me and that what's happened indeed. Adn1990, 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No. You are absolutely wrong. BullRangifer was quite aware of your long-term edit warring, and was correct to ask for assistance in stopping it. You have no right to three reverts; rather, exceeding three reverts in 24 hours will generally lead to an automatic block, but there are other ways to edit war, one of them being your long-term actions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adn1990: If, as you claim, you have read and understood WP:EW, what do you think these words from the second paragraph mean - "...it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't really understand, i was talked about blocking me and i was explained what's was happened before i currently blocked. Adn1990, 15:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to help by offering you the benefit of my knowledge and experience here, but if you won't listen and you insist that it's me who doesn't understand, then I'm afraid I can't help any further - so goodbye — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No,it's not what i mean exactly i don't say that you don't understand at all, i was said you don't very understand what i was said. There are difference and i'm sure that you clearly know that, i want and hope that to help me which is very thankful, that's all Adn1990, 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

Adn1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just mean it was some unintentional errors in my last edit (my talk page) this administrator has wrongly blocked me now (this indefinite block). I hope anyone help me in this intolerable situation, thanks.

Decline reason:

You have a very poor command of the English language, and have given no convincing reason to unblock. In addition to the edit-warring problem there is a major competence issue. I suggest that you edit in the Wikipedia of your own language.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:05, 16 July 2014 (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.