OnikageTenchu
September 2024
edit
Hello, OnikageTenchu, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Lustigermutiger21 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. – notwally (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk
- I created my account 22 days ago in Tokyo. I have no conflict of interest and no connection to any other Wikipedia accounts. I just noticed that you're removing content about Mark Karpeles without providing any reason or explanation. OnikageTenchu (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mark Karpelès shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Response to Edit-Warring Concerns Regarding the Mark Karpeles Article
- I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding the recent edits to the Mark Karpeles article.
- Since September 10, 2024, User @Notwally has removed substantial content multiple times, without prior discussion or consensus, as seen in the edit history:
- On September 18, 2024, @Notwally made significant deletions, such as in this edit [23:22, 18 September 2024], where approximately 1,489 bytes were removed from the 'Mt. Gox' section, citing a need to remove promotional content without adequate discussion on the talk page.
- Additionally, on September 17, 2024, I restored content in the [07:22, 17 September 2024] revision, as I had referenced an entire archived talk page section that discusses the content in question. Despite this, @Notwally reverted again shortly after, at [06:58, 17 September 2024], without engaging in any discussion.
- Notably, User @Notwally has also violated the three-revert rule on multiple occasions, such as in the series of reverts on September 14 and 16, 2024, where they reverted my revisions [06:26, 17 September 2024] multiple times within 24 hours.
- When I noticed these repeated deletions, I reverted the edits and requested that User @Notwally discuss these changes on the article’s talk page before removing content. I specifically referred to the archived talk page discussion, which contains detailed explanations, research, and sources supporting the content.
- Despite my efforts to initiate a discussion, @Notwally has continued to revert approximately 10 times over the past seven days, often without providing a clear rationale. While they claim that the content was added by a sockpuppet (@Akihawaranabiak), this explanation does not account for the removal of a large body of material contributed by multiple other editors.
- To clarify, I am not engaged in an edit war. My objective is to ensure that substantial changes to the article are made through consensus. I have repeatedly asked User @Notwally to engage in discussions to resolve the matter collaboratively, but this has not occurred. I remain committed to following Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process and encourage proper discussions before making further changes. OnikageTenchu (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mark Karpelès shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
[1] [2] [3] – notwally (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.