Beyondsweetful
Thank you
edit- Thank you for your message with the full information about the edits to Lake Sevan. It would have been helpful to have summarized the information in one of the edit summaries or referred to the talk page of the article with a full explanation. Nonetheless, based on your later message on my talk page, I can see I made a mistake and I am sorry about that. If the previous notices from me were still on this page, I would have stricken them. Since you have deleted them, I cannot do that (without reposting them which would not be useful) so I am leaving this message to acknowledge that I would have done that. I hope this will not discourage future editing. Donner60 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit war at History of Wine
editHi, I noticed the edit war going on at History of wine, and wanted to make sure you're aware that edit warring can lead to a block even if your version is right: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.
If your version is right, the best way to ensure it's accepted is to take it to Talk. Edit warring is a near guarantee that your version will never be accepted. I've seen many articles where an editor had a valid concern, but because of their edit warring without discussion, their concern never gets addressed. Everyone loses and Wikipedia ends up with worse articles.
So just start the conversation at Talk:History of wine rather than debating in edit summaries. POLITANVM talk 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Later resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondsweetful (talk • contribs)
Unsigned comment added a few hours ago, after the 2nd unblock request (diff). Beyondsweetful, please sign all of your talk page submissions. While this is relatively minor, and while I realize it likely isn't your intent, when you neglect the when, the context becomes more challenging to parse. Which has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Thank you. El_C 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite block
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 04:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Beyondsweetful (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Without proper evidence, I am blocked from editing. I believe this is unfair due to my corrections from other users whom edit warred typos. I edited one section at a time due the heavy vandalism. Please check the editing log as evidence.
Regarding my block, I indeed reverted vandalism inputed by various users on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia page. If you look at the edits made by me in the editing log (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&action=history) and look through them, you can clearly see I edited the deliberate typos from the user @Funtoedit1212 and the erasure of text by the user @Moxy. When @Moxy deleted 179,746 bytes of information, the text actually provided useful information. Although "vandalism" is not surely the correct word here, Moxy's choice to remove such a large chunk of text was indeed unnecessary. The least Moxy could've done was rewritten it or shortened it down without erasing the entire text. As regarding @Funtoedit1212 edits, this user deleted and added SINGLE words multiple times. This is no acts of "contributing" nor "editing." Deliberately adding grammatical errors and typos is no act of editing. Clearly, this user loves to edit in mistakes. This user took stronger vocabulary and replaced them with weaker words, added typos, and other further grammatical errors. And besides, this user has no history with editing other pages. Therefore, I conclude that the ban to my account was indeed unfair. If you look at Armenia's edit history, it may appear that I edited multiple times, but if you actually click on them and seen the revisions, you can see I edited the typos added by @Funtoedit1212. Whereas you claim I "have a history with using the word 'vandalism,'" occurred when a baised user kept on edited dates until it was later resolved. This current issue is different, and I actually have proof, please look into the links and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&action=history 's edit history
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2021 (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.
- You have a habit of calling edits you disagree with vandalism, even when they are clearly not vandalism. While there is an exemption from edit warring whenever reverting vandalism, you've continually misused the term, often with combative rhetoric to boot. El_C 04:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Beyondsweetful, only one unblock request at a time is permitted (merged). Please don't accuse users in good standing of vandalism. That counts as a personal attack. If you have evidence, my suggestion would be for you to submit it in the form of diffs. Simply linking to the revision history is unhelpful (and linking to it twice is just odd). It might also help if you were to review WP:NOTTHEM, since in my view, without some reflection and introspection, and a commitment toward correction, the chances of this unblock request being granted isn't great. El_C 14:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)