M60a3tts

December 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at T-90. Using sock puppets is not acceptable; your IP has already been reported for edit warring. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Things would be much more helpful if you used the article's talk page to discuss any issues instead of doing so in edit summaries. Please do so. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at T-90 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. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:M60a3tts reported by User:331dot (Result: ). Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days 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.  Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 11 December 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).

M60a3tts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Although I started this edit warring, it is now Khazar who is vandaling the page. He told me to bring the credible source which suits to Wiki standards, so I gave him the reasonable source for backing up my opinion. You can see this in the talk page, Talk:T-90#T-90 armor but he did not admit the FACT and didn't stop undoing the page without any source but also deleated the talk page several times. Although there are 3 reference for his claim, among these 2 are proving my opinion is right. So what left is BTVT, but this is a personal site(like a blog), so it is not compatible with Wiki standards. So if I have to be blocked, Khazar also should.

Decline reason:

Not a valid unblock request. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 13:37, 11 December 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.

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for disruptive editing and sock puppetry. 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2015 (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).

M60a3tts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was the one who had the credible reference which is appropriate in Wikipedia standards, and I didn't even revert the page 3 times. Why should I be blocked even when I did the right thing? And why there's no penalty given to Al Khazar?

Decline reason:

In future, I suggest you cooperate with other editors and establish consensus on the talk page, instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2015 (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.

Based on the string of IPs editing the article trying to push the exact same version as you did with various personal attacks as well as an edit summary stating Who gives a fuck. My objective was to keep the article, but now I'm focusing on wasting your time.; You are the one who is disregarding the fact, and also a dumbass who claims that you have better knowledge than Steven Zaloga and Christopher Foss., I have extended your block to indefinite. Bjelleklang - talk 22:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)