User talk:History21st

Welcome!

Hello, History21st, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abd al-Mu'min. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Abd al-Mu'min, you may be blocked from editing. Aṭlas (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Expedition to Mostaganem (1558). M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton... you cannot do whatever you want in WP --History21st (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nur ad-Din al-Bitruji, you may be blocked from editing. Wikaviani (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you said you wanted to report me, I told you to do so. --History21st (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.Wikaviani (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

finally you did it. "you have to let us do whatever we want or we report you." --History21st (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Number 5 7 19:07, 1 June 2018 (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).

History21st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked? these guys are trying to edit by force something that has been written since 2016 and it is me who gets blocked for edit warring? they had to start a discussion first on the subject before doing any edits. One of them asked for a source, i brought him 2 and I can bring many more. the article should be left as it is until we all decide wether to edit it or not. They cannot force something just because they think it is uncorrect. Thank you --History21st (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked because of what others did, you are blocked because of what you did. You clearly edit warred. Being correct, if you are, is not a defense to edit warring. If you are in a content dispute with others, it is up to you to deal with it in the proper manner, without edit warring. You can only control your own behavior. Until you admit to what you did and explain how you avoid doing it again in the future, you will not be unblocked early. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2018 (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.

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).

History21st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@331dot, I don't really understand how this encyclopedia works. for me the article should stay as it is until a consensus is found. they were forcing the edition. they tried to block for the same reason days ago. Now, when I try to edit an article (Like I did in caliph Abdelmumin, the same person comes and reverts my modifications and asks me to go to talk page, I start a discussion, noone answers, nothing happens, nothing is changed and noone is blocked...fine...But when they try to edit an article( like in Nurdin al Bitruji), they edit and when you undo their modifications, they start an edit war and threaten to report you, and at the end you get blocked. it seems that the new members are always wrong. don't really get it --History21st (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Please do not use the unblock template to continue conversations. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 1 June 2018 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

History21st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have any problem in using the talk page to discuss and bring the sources that support my argument (and that's what I always did in WP not only WP english), even though I find it preferable to leave the article as it is until a consensus is found.--History21st (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below, you are on 0RR for a week. If you make a revert on any article in the next week, you will be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am would be willing to unblock if you agreed to 0RR (no reverts on any article for any reason, even if you are right) for the next week and if Number 57 has no objection to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I don't mind about that. I also think it would be better for the encyclopedia that the rules be applied on all members regardless of their seniority, because the moderators should not tolerate that a member edits info that has not been changed since 3 years, (in this article for example), starts an edit war and then complains to the moderators to get another member blocked. an article should not be edited until a consensus is found in the talk page.--History21st (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Number 57 is fine with these unblock conditions, I will unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: No problem. However, another revert will result in an immediate reblock. Number 5 7 10:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, someone has created the new account HajarHabchaoui (talk · contribs) to continue making the same edits as History21st, so I'd like to see a clear WP:SPI report before an unblock happens. Perhaps Bbb23 could confirm if the two accounts are related? Number 5 7 11:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: The two accounts are

Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They’re on 0RR on every page on Wikipedia, so a revert equals a reblock. Unblocking now. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2018 (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).

History21st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

well in linkiI've started a discussion but noone answered, after 10 days I edited and then those 2 members arrived, they waited until I edited to participate in the discussions. also I don't see any 3RR breaking, i've reverted once after my edits because there was no consensus on the previous edits(done in June). I was also asking the administrators to restore the article to a prior version( before the edit warrings.) History21st (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can boldly edit to bring others into a discussion, but you can't break our policy on edit warring. Use dispute resolution steps. Since the discussion below seems to have ended with no understanding of why you are blocked, it does not seem like a good idea to unblock. Kuru (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2018 (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.

This is 4RR on one article, and this is returning to edit-war on the article you were previously blocked for edit-warring on, and accepted a 0RR restriction to be unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the first one no consensus was found why was the article edited? what should you do in a situation like that? ask administrators to intervene(like I did in the second) which they never do? I don't really get it. On the second I've said that they only participated in the discussions(which was initiated since 10 days) after I edited, no 3RR breaking there, and sometimes I feel you have to edit to bring them to participate in the discussions.--History21st (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come "Wikaviani" is not sanctionned for breaking 3RR in this article(link)? there is an involvment of Morocco, as Morocco and Spain were allies at that time against the Ottoman empire. --History21st (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they didn't. 3RR means more than 3 reverts. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --History21st (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

History21st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

will it be possible to participate in the articles' discussions? --History21st (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Please keep to the following conditions. Only edit talk/discussion pages. You may appeal this condition a month from today, say Oct.11, 2018, at WP:AN. Please avoid Wikaviani's talk page. Feel free to ignore them and to continue to revert them on your talk. Feel free to ping me if they give you any problems. Discussion of edits is acceptable. Harassment, haranguing and rudeness are not. Welcome back and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here before. If no one objects, I'd unblock you tomorrow on the condition that you only talk. Any article edits and you are blocked again. If anyone can see their way clear to unblocking sooner, great. I guess the TBAN would be appealable in 1 month @ WP:AN. Any other admin can reblock w/o discussion or drama until then. Ping me tomorrow if no one unblocks sooner.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, stop being childish. you deleted my comment in your talk page, don't see why i should leave yours here. plus I think admins are better suited than you to give their advice here.

you also say it's a waste of time to discuss, why are you discussing then? don't do it. I feel like you're trying to help (M.Bitton) by all means. you even left a comment in his talk page to receive a "thank you" from him. your plan is to attack an article in group so you force edits without breaking the 3RR rule.

you're not interested in the subjects, which are related to Moroccan history, your only interest is to intervene wherever M.Bitton goes. that's trolling for me.

I've posted nearly 10 sources, they can't all be unreliable, this is ridiculous. --History21st (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: No objection from me (as a passing admin). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will also add that not posting to Wikaviani's talk page is probably a good idea. ANd I would ask them not to post on your talk page. I remind both to discuss content and sourcing, not say mean things, keep it civil and all that. Seek broader consensus before making changes and seek dispute resolution. I remind History21 to only edit talk pages for the first month.

Seeking input from all the other admins who have blocked or declined or discussed. @Black Kite, Kuru, TonyBallioni, Bbb23, 331dot, and Number 57:. (Gad. I had not known there had been so many.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to an unblock with that condition. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the situation that led to this particular block. My unblock was my standard offer for most first time edit warring blocks, and I haven't kept track of this user since. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proximate cause for the disruptive editing block was presumably preventing the edit warring; the proposed condition would alleviate the concern for now I suppose, at least in mainspace. Non-sequiturs like "I've posted nearly 10 sources, they can't all be unreliable" give me great concern that we will be back here soon enough. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also have no objections as long as they stick to talk. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: