Coming to Town.

Hi, FobTown, thank you for your contributions.— Precedingunsigned comment added by132.177.238.54 (talk)15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FobTown. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Ourintro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visitWikipedia:Questions orask a question on your talk page.:Noyster (talk),07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit toOliver Kahn does not have anedit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. Thesummaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by settingPreferences →Editing →Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.Thanks!Walter Görlitz (talk)21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit you made toOliver Kahn, did not appear constructive and has beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please usethe sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.The changes were again unexplained. The looked harmless, but it's not clear that they were, why the changes were necessary or why they were being made. It may be obvious to you what you're doing, but it's not to others.Walter Görlitz (talk)21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made toOliver Kahn, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have beenreverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use thesandbox. Thank you.Walter Görlitz (talk)21:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRussia national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMario Fernandes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just reverted your change atLev Yashin. It reverted a bunch of changes I made two days ago. I would recommend making your changes in smaller edits. That way the good changes don't get thrown out with the changes requiring improvement. Please be careful to properly format your references and to avoid copyright violations. Regards,Robby.is.on (talk)15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please seeWP:CITEWEB to learn how to format sources correctly. Thanks.Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★04:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Please do not just put URLs in the prose, read and applyWP:CITEWEB. --Jaellee (talk)09:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to achieve withthis? A lot of your other edits seem constructive so I am not sure why you made this one. Please don't do this again.AIRcorn (talk)07:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedHappy Together (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAmerican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add content to theTypes of tennis match article that is clearly out of scope, per the article title and existing content. If you intend to create separate articles for this content you can use yoursandbox page to build these articles before publishing them. --Wolbo (talk)16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit you made toTypes of tennis match, did not appear constructive and has beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please usethe sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Wolbo (talk)16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAmerican Chinese cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNew York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text fromInfernal Affairs intoThe Departed. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I began this article some year ago, because I felt it was an important story to tell. I might remove the label ofBlack Widow from the introductory paragraph. While it may be true that some consider her with this label, it has been often attached to women who murder their husbands. I did not see it as a universal label. If you have an attribution of who called her that, you might include it later in the article. I think its early prominent position seems to overemphasize her behavior in a way that other editors will find biased. I have no other concerns with you entries. Thank you for your contributions.Rococo1700 (talk)15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great job initiating the article, as it is of major significance as the case stretched 13 years and 3 countries. I agree, maybe we should move "Black Widow" and the NBC report to legacy.FobTown (talk)15:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text fromAllied submarines in the Pacific War intoTonnage war. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)17:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FobTown. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FobTown, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) toList of Huawei phones have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence ofpermission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate asmall amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with doublequotation marks (") and cite the source using aninline citation. You can read about this atWikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See alsoHelp:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all informationin your own words and structure, in properparaphrase. Following the source's words too closely can createcopyright problems, so it is not permitted here; seeWikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples,hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources toverify the information and to demonstrate that the content is notoriginal research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content isWikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to reviewWikipedia:Copy-paste.
• Ifyou own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, youmay be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable,to the world, into thepublic domain (PD) or under asuitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. SeeWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Invery rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) itmay be possible to include greater portions of a source text.However, please seek help atWikipedia:Media copyright questions, thehelp desk or theTeahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sourcesmay not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If youdo confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; seeWikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps inWikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See alsoWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must beblocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

All or nothing (armor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toTallboy

Rubén Amaro Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toTexas Rangers

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mAlanM1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,Enemy of the State (film), but you didn't provide areliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like toinclude a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see thereferencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message onmy talk page.

Wikia/Fandom is generally not considered areliable source perWP:RSP#Wikia.
Please also consider using edit summaries perWP:ES. Thanks!—[AlanM1(talk)]—18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriateexternal links to Wikipedia, as you did toTechnical support scam.Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. Seethe external links guideline andspam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses thenofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Additionally, YouTube generally is not considered areliable source for referencing purposes, especially if just posted as a loose link rather than a reasonable bibliographic annotation. Thank you.DMacks (talk)21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not filling in the source properly leaves it open to link rot. Add the title, publisher, date, etc.Rhys Mayall (talk)21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert non-vandalism without giving an edit summary explaining why you are reverting their contributions.StaticVapormessage me!21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.StaticVapormessage me!05:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Trillfendi (talk)18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPrometheus (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageXenomorph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited2019 Hong Kong extradition bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCBC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop addingunsourced content, as you did onBuick Century. This violatesWikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia.Vossanova^o<19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you addunsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did atBuick Century.SeeTalk:Buick Century#Unsourced content for discussion.Vossanova^o<16:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the addition, but I've rv'd it as per my edit summary.Ericoides (talk)05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge ofWikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmarkthis link for convenience. For more information, please seeWP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk)13:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look FobTown stop changing the article on championship ring. The MLS is not one of the big four I understand but soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States. The MLS Cup is an important championship game so please FobTown accept the MLS Cup championship ring here. It has to stay here in the article. Also I will never ever remove any other article here. I also believe that the MLS Cup is just as important as the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Championship, and the World Series.talkUser:NYC6x7x 14:25 28 October 2019 (UTC)

SorryUser:NYC6x7x, its not what you believe, but rather it has to be consistent withMajor professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, where MLS and CFL are mentioned but not accorded the same status.FobTown (talk)03:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong FobTown I will continue to edit because you are 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with the MLS Cup ring here. Also the MLS will grow to 30 teams or even higher within the next several years before the2026 FIFA World Cup. Soccer ⚽️ 🥅 is the fastest growing sport in the United States 🇺🇸. So let us keep it to my format. Restricting to the big four leagues is wrong.talkUser:NYC6x7x 10:05 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mEagles247. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have aneutral point of view. Your recent edit toGregg Williams seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Eagles 24/7 (C)16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedHorse-collar tackle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDrew Pearson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)10:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- can you correct an error on theBill Belichick coaching tree? There is an error as to the number and name of coaches he worked for. The article lists the number as 5, but it is actually 6.Rick Forzano is absent, but he was the coach of the Lions in 1976 before resigning after starting the season 1-3.Tommy Hudspeth took over for Forzano. Seehere for more info. Thank you.108.21.182.146 (talk)21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do on2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. As has been said on the Talk page, you need to participate in Talk, as you have been invited already, for the edits you've repeatedly tried to enter on the page.You can reach the talk section here.Sleath56 (talk)04:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Sleath56 (talk)21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN process was specifically opened to prevent this sort of edit warring. SeeWP:NODEADLINE.

This is not 'my' policy. This isWP:DRNA.Sleath56 (talk)21:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Sleath56 (talk)04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk)11:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use ofgeneral sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are describedhere.
Broadly,general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behaviour, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is loggedhere. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently made edits which are pushing a POV (WP:NPOV), using sources that don't support or weakly support your statements and have even went to twist what the sources say simply to push that POV. For example, you've tried to say that the Russian "regime has a history of 'manipulat[ing] medical statistics for political purposes' in which your language obviously shows that you're intentionally attempting to avoid NPOV (thanks for that) while you twist the person's words, as she said "the state is ready to manipulate medical statistics for political purposes" while the source has nothing about this apparent history you were trying to claim. You've also tried putting this under the "misinformation" section where this does not belong - alleged cover-ups by the governments in their response still belong in their own place which is appropriately named. But, despite explaining the issues with your edits, you simply revert without any reason.

You've also made contributions not supported or very weakly supported by a source, tried establishing "facts" with questionable sources (using only a single opinion/analysis pieces) or you've included a source but that source doesn't support anything you've written. You're removing my valid edits without giving a reason or poor reasons, such as something along the lines of 'this is state media which is completely banned from WP' (in which you would be lying), and even though I've added an additional reference, you somehow still think there's justification in removing it in its entirety. Not to mention that your edits have at times consisted of poorly worded sentences with broken grammar/spelling.

Your talk page shows you have a history of troublesome edits and edit-warring, in which you've even been blocked from editing recently due to it. Yet, somehow, you have not learned and are still engaging in the same behaviour that these warnings and bans were supposed to deter. I am not going to edit-war with you, however if you're going to continue this kind of behaviour, I'll have no choice but to report this. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia guidelines and ensure that you are familiar with them.Mellk (talk)15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you have made are not explicitly stated in the article. Therefore it isoriginal research. Please stop making changes or an administrator will have to intervene. --Acefitt19:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —MarkH₂₁^talk02:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atCOVID-19 pandemic in mainland China shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.
You have been given a final warning after your recent EW block. Amidst an ongoing discussion and without consensus, you have re-inserted the content that you were edit-warring over previously. —MarkH₂₁^talk15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Citobun (talk)01:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. —MarkH₂₁^talk21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested thatyou be blocked for editing against the result of the RfC. Perhaps you can respond and make some promise about your future editing that would make a block unnecessary. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)00:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I've had to deal with you. Stop being combative and adding irrelevant information, it wastes my time having to revert your edits until you give up and go find some other page to troll and other editors to annoy until you are blocked. It's tiresome. --Ace*YYC15:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSwallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageKorean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to nominate the page,COVID-19 pandemic, as aGood Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to thestatistics, you have added 30% of text on the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible.Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the reception section added by you in the mentioned article, as briefly explained in the edit summaryhere. As I found you to be an experienced wikipedian and myself being a new one here, I thought it to be my duty to inform you. If you think I am wrong, I will request you to first discuss on the article'stalk page before reverting my edit because I am very firm on my stand that the section should not be there as it was with only those sources andpuffery tone. If you think I made a mistake, please point it out with suitable reasons. Thank you.-ink&fables«talk»09:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLucky iron fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCambodian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPhoenix (2020 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLee Jae-woo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:BRD, your additions to the article were Bold, but other editors have Reverted them. (Multiple times, in fact.) The news step in the BRD process, is to Discuss atTalk:Stack interchange if you want to restore them. As they are not full stack interchanges, I don't see there being much interest in restoring that content, which is why it has been removed five times now.Imzadi 1979 →04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your changes regarding Highway 7187:

1. Even as you mentioned in your revert, it "is" (was) an internal designation. It does not merit theWP:UNDUE weight of mention in the lede,bolding (which FYI should almost always only be done in the lede), or repeated referencing, because other than a handful of MTO employees and us highway geeks, nobody has ever heard of it by that name.
2. As I mentioned in my revert, Highway 7187 was a temporary number for the section of freeway between Highway 401 and King Street. It no longer exists, as evidenced by not being in the mileage logs (link to "current" (2016 tables)), and by the Ontario Highway Network GIS files, which can be viewed atthis link or downloadedvia ArcGIS.
3. You're inserting unsourced material.Highway 401 is a featured article and must be kept to a higher standard.

Regards,Floydian ^τ_¢22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Highway 7187 in the Highway 401 article was meant to clarify the confusion, since the Highway 8 designation moves to King Street (with its traffic lights) instead of continuing on the freeway to Highway 401 eastbound (to Toronto). I also made it clear that 7187 is clearly mentioned as the unsigned freeway bypass.

In theQEW article it mentions that Highway 451 is the internal MTO number.

Highway 7187 does exist for internal administrative purposes as recently as 2004.

That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 401 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 8 and the roadway known as King Street.13. That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 8 in the City of Kitchener lying between a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7187 and a point situate at its intersection with the King’s Highway known as No. 7.[1][2]FobTown (talk)23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it existed until between 2008 and 2010. You can access old mileage tables back to 2004 using the internet archives. It's there in 2008, but gone by 2010. The 2010 tables have a new entry for Highway 8: "8 | HWY 401-M/C FRWY IC -END OF NA | 6.0 | NEW". The QEW article makes a single mention of the internal designation (although it shouldn't be bolded in the article). -Floydian ^τ_¢23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't conclude that the MTO has stopped using Highway 7187 for internal admin. Contrast to Highway 400A which was eliminated as an internal admin since that segment was redesignated as the southern end of Highway 11.

I'm okay with not mentioning Highway 7187 in the Highway 401 article to avoid details, but it is important to mention Highway 7187 the Highway 8 article since Highway 7187 terminates at Highway 401 while the Highway 8 designation continues on past Highway 401 via King Street and Shantz Hill Road to Cambridge.FobTown (talk)17:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... you're using the exact same source from an earlier year to try and claim that it is still used for internal purposes (by the way... do you know what those purposes are? Nobody is walking around in the MTO offices saying "Hey can you send me the drawings for Highway 7187?", it's for ledgers and tables, inventory purposes). You have been provided with plenty of proof to the contrary, and have none to show that it is internally designated beyond 2004. It is not important enough to mention 5 times (two of which you've used 7178 incorrectly), it's barely important enough to mention once. It deserves a redirect. I've given you the link to download the GIS (or KML for Google Earth) of the official MTO highway network for 2020!This is what "Highway 7187" says. The Shantz Hill/King Street/401 interchange is part of Highway 8, the portion through Cambridge is not. -Floydian ^τ_¢19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,here are the distance tables for each year from 2004 to 2012. 2008 is the last year it appears. -Floydian ^τ_¢07:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suggest explaining when/why Highway 7187 was in use for internal admin purposes, and then when/why Highway 7187 was no longer needed (in a similar manner to Highway 400A) once Highway 8 though Cambridge was downloaded to local authorities.FobTown (talk)15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not important enough to go into a history about the designation that was never used, never posted, appears in no newspapers, history books, contemporary articles, etc. etc. etc. Highways under construction get temporary 7000 designations routinely in Ontario. I can see you have a very strong attachment to this number, but your efforts would be better spent improving the topic at large rather than focusing the article onto some minute detail. -Floydian ^τ_¢17:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a minute detail as Highway 7187 existed for over 20 years. Highway 400A has its own separate article.FobTown (talk)18:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing isn't much of a case, especially when you compare a 7000-series designation with a 400-series designation. This is an issue ofgiving undue weight to the 7187 designation... I could go into how the rest of the edit you are reverting is unsourced but that's beside the point. -Floydian ^τ_¢19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to chime in if you will. Unless I'm incorrect, (or my chartplotter is) the road designated as 7187 is today around 2 km in length from where the off-ramp of Highway 8 joins King St. E. to the interchange of the 401. AAMOF, that distance isn't even mentioned in the Highway 8 article. ("...a short distance"). Seeing as how that 7187 information is used internally by the Ontario DoT and isn't afforded any longer to the public at large, I don't believe that the piece of road designation to be of much encyclopedic value at all. Regards,  Aloha27 talk 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to inform that I have reverted your edit with the same reason as explained earlier.Here >User talk:FobTown#Flower of evil. The way you have written the reception section is not not a correct or I would say a good way. Please see articles likeCrash Landing on You,It's Okay to Not Be Okay, andHospital Playlist for your reference. Thank you.-ink&fables«talk»09:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were reverted again without any explanation or discussion for the second time is quite rude on FobTown's part. I'm getting the impression that asking nicely is a foolhardy approach unfortunately. -Floydian ^τ_¢14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Floydian ^τ_¢23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atOntario Highway 427 shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.  Aloha27 talk 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text fromAir raids on Japan intoNorth American P-51 Mustang. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —Diannaa (talk)14:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you mind letting me know where you gotthis information from? Thanks!JediMasterMacaroni (Talk)00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you andFloydian have had disagreements about content added to Ontario highways, most recentlyQueen Elizabeth Way. If QEW were not afeatured article, I personally would not have issue with your additions about types of interchanges. But it is, so extra scrutiny is needed to make sure every fact is cited to areliable source and that includes interchange configurations. While I have no reason to doubt that what you added is true, you have to cite it. –Fredddie™04:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The interchange descriptions have been in the article since 2019, and there was no loss offeatured article status for the intervening time. In addition, I've noticed in other highway articles that they have usedstack interchange andparclo interchange without having to source, this is just describing the highway.FobTown (talk)14:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parclo is a fairly generic term for any partial cloverleaf interchange. "a hybrid of aparclo and aSemi-directional T" is not a generic description. Just because your additions went unnoticed for a period doesn't mean that they are acceptable, and"other articles do it" is not a valid rationale. At any rate, I'm happy to deal with unsourced statements elsewhere with the same lack of prejudice. -Floydian ^τ_¢15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is clear what type of interchange it is, then being descriptive is better than using the generic interchange/junction label. As a matter of fact, I actually prefer some of the detail that you've used in other articles as long as it isn't contentious:The Highway 427 express lanes and ramps connecting to Highway 401 are constructed around the Richview Memorial Cemetery.[7][8] Highway 427 passes through the sprawling Highway 401 interchange and becomes displaced approximately 1 km (0.62 mi) to the west. That is why I mentioned QEW's split carriageways at the Highway 420 interchange.FobTown (talk)22:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't being descriptive, you're adding original research. Your points, while duly noted, have been repeatedly refuted and you continue to just revert. Therefore,what you are adding is contentious! -Floydian ^τ_¢14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On theOntario Highway 400 article, regarding the segmentThe 400/407 junction is the only four-level stack interchange in Canada.[9], the Road Atlas does not actually support this statement nor the type of interchange but I'm not planning to dispute it, nor do we have to go to the MTO to compare the 400/407 design with all other 400-series interchanges or stacks from CALTRANS to prove it is a stack interchange.FobTown (talk)15:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we need to list road fan interchange terms in general. Your edits are contentious, numerous editors have pointed out the issues with these edits, and numerous policies and guidelines have been provided as reasoning. Tossing out other vaguely similar examples is not making a case for your edits.

As an aside, as a civil engineer I have never even encountered the term "semi-directional T", so I will certainly argue that it is aWP:NEOLOGISM. Even CALTRANS doesn't use the term.(PDF, page 8). -Floydian ^τ_¢16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop yourdisruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did atOntario Highway 420, you may beblocked from editing.  Aloha27 talk 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedA Man Called God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRomance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you support or oppose adding politics section onChina page, you are welcome to join thediscussion in order to help reach consensus. Please also note that the disputed section has already been rewritten, rearranged, and added inConcerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, hence previous disputed version of the section onChina page is by no means suitable to be reverted back since it was not in good form in first place. --阿pp (talk)05:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.阿pp (talk)15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 week foredit warring and violating thethree-revert rule, as you did atChina at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk)16:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isChina at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Thank you. – Rummskartoffel15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep trying to include information that is clearlyundue. The entire "disappearance" has been proven to be untrue, yet you insist on having opinions of Sports Illustrated journalists and a random lawyer demonstrably being completely wrong without any opposite angle. This is undue. And I have asked you three times to discuss it yet you haven't. All my warmest wishes,ItsKesha (talk)07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent organizations have still not been able to verify Peng Shuai's status as of 23 November 2021, in particular the IOC call has faced skepticism, so her disappearance/detainment isn't resolved yet.FobTown (talk)14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to find and add sources to incorporate the opposite angle, but if you don't succeed then don't take the lazy way out and claimundue.FobTown (talk)14:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove paragraphs of reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion first. Please do not say one thing in your edit summary but do something else, or say one thing only but go on to do 9 other things in silence. I find your unreasonable changes to be very disrespectful and disruptive.GeorgiaDC (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Your reversion[3] deleted about 4835 bytes, that's almost 4000 more bytes than my edit of the intro; in the process you removed references such as Deutsche Welle, SET News, United Daily News, their corresponding sourced edits, as well as souced edits referencing the New York Times and the Guardian.GeorgiaDC (talk)23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have done nothing of the sort. BTW your edit obfuscated the situation (and removed reliable sources, citations, and legitimately sourced edits without discussion), of course I had to revert it.[4]FobTown (talk)22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were in the body already.GeorgiaDC (talk)22:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriateexternal links to Wikipedia, as you did toKawasaki disease.Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. Seethe external links guideline andspam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses thenofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.Nick Levine (talk)16:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repeatedly reverting edits without good reason and inserting non-NPOV content. What would Wikipedia do without you? Best wishes,CurryCity (talk)20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't get the hint, here's youredit changing the intro in ways that violatedWP:BLP and adding statements that amounted tosynthesis. Moreover, these attempts were not disclosed in your edit summary, which also misrepresented the previous edit when it already characterized Peng's appearance as in state media only and her denial as apparent.CurryCity (talk)22:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert wholesale[5][6]. Change only the parts you need and write edit summary accurately, thanks.CurryCity (talk)19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FobTown, why do you constantly remove all edits without even a single reason given?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062312460

I Added in the The timing of her writing the post immediately after her break up, which explains trigger of her Post and type of situation she was in, where she felt prompted to make that post. In only a short sentence. You keep reverting without giving any acceptable reasons.I added in to Talk for you to discuss.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peng_Shuai#Add_in_timing_of_her_post_or_not,_in_lede?

And when the China watcher made a claim. Which btw is largely unverified claim that's borderline pov pushing. But that's another matter. I wrote that the China watcher "claimed". To give readers an understanding that it was a claim. Yet you revert that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peng_Shuai&diff=1062195973

Also I expanded Peng's quotes. The information is well sourced and nothing wrong with that edit. Yet you reverted that too.

I have warned you multiple times before to give a reason when reverting my edits. Otherwise it appears you are gaming the system on 3 RR rule. I don't wish to report but settle this on Talk civilly or on here. But I will have to report your edit warring if you continue to simply revert so much edits and real information, without giving any reasons.WesternChristianitytestballi (talk)22:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you copied or moved text fromLondon, Ontario intoEaton Centre. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.DanCherek (talk)21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedEaton Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSudbury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a blatant disregard for the truth. He never called plays. No LB coach calls plays in the NFL!108.2.144.28 (talk)00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop yourdisruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did atEaton Centre, you may beblocked from editing. Please stop adding unsourced statements... you've hadWP:RS,WP:UGC, andWP:V pointed out to you multiple times now. —Joeyconnick (talk)02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peng Shuai: SinceFeb 21, you've moved an important paragraph from the intro and made changes to wording and meanings that reverted edits by multiple previous editors, a version that had been stable since Feb 9. Use discussion instead of trying again and again. Don't leave all the work to other editors to open Talk discussions for you again.CurryCity (talk)05:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several other editors don't agree with your restoration of the Feb 9 version, as it places undue weight on the Winter Olympics interview.FobTown (talk)01:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your story is that none of the "several other editors" exist so far. You're the only one insisting on inserting your new version of significant changes to the intro.CurryCity (talk)06:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries have been misleading, especially[7], where it somehow suggests that you supposedly reverted new changes, when in acutality you have been the one making changes to stable version.CurryCity (talk)04:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed mention of censorship from the lead, all while trying to give undue weight to two staged interviews.FobTown (talk)14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain your drastic changes removing an entire paragraph. The sentence caught by mistake when removing redundnat refs from the intro has been restored.CurryCity (talk)04:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CurryCity (talk)07:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editingPeng Shuai for one month for persistent edit warring and battleground editing. You are free to edit the article's talkpage. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.Bishonen |tålk12:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

You have beenblocked temporarily from editing from certain pages (Peng Shuai andMeToo movement in China) forabuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   --Deepfriedokra(talk)16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits here look like the sort ofWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on MeToo movement in China as you've shown at Peng Shuai. You seem to be following CurryCity around. Please discuss your appearances at theWP:ANI thread. --Deepfriedokra(talk)16:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Deepfriedokra(talk)16:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMá vlast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCzech.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you that a 3O has been submittedhere.CurryCity (talk)06:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April 2022,In the news was updated with an item that involved the articleGuy Lafleur, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on thecandidates page. – Muboshgu (talk)18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit toHuawei has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have addedcopyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence ofpermission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please readWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofcontent, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policywill beblocked from editing. SeeWikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —Diannaa (talk)13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to2022 Sri Lankan protests, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use yoursandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page.TheWP:ONUS on adding content falls on the editor that adds it. If you wants to add anything its up for you to use the talk page and prove it. Reverting removals to forcefully push content is not going to work.UtoD14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources in my contribution, see these links here suggesting that China's debt trap caused Sri Lanka's economic crisis and resulting protests.[8][9][10][11] You are free to also make a case that China's lending was not a debt trap.FobTown (talk)15:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to protest page. Its not an analysis of debt source by countries, only a background and debt includes all countries thus it isWP:UNDUE and irrelevant to go after specific countres or cases specially considering none of the protests here involved China. Allegation of Chinese debt trap is already mentioned in the economic crisis page and there is no need to bloat it further, maintain due weight. The page is also not about the existence or countering of a Chinese debt trap. Avoid misinformation like Sri Lanka leasing Hambantota port because it was unable to pay its loan. We had immediate maturing ISBs in 2019 which was why the government decided to lease it. It is already mentioned in multiple foreign sources like thissources. Thus avoid adding debunked misinformation. Thank you. -UtoD15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting it is a debt trap isn't misinformation, and its important to have both points of view if they are available. You only provided one source which was the Lowry institute.FobTown (talk)16:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is misinformation to claim that Hambantota port was leased because its loans couldn't be paid. It is alsoWP:UNDUE and irrelevant to the Protest page due to multiple reasons I mentioned above. I did not add the Lowrey source or the content it adds, however I believe the existing section addresses it enough specially considering what you call "both sides" is misinformation about the Hambantota port lease its justWP:FALSEBALANCE. These pages are NOT about China or "both sides" explanation on existence of Debt trap. AvoidWP:POVPUSHING about China in these pages. -UtoD16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. And in this case we have reliable sources for one side suggesting it is a debt trap. But you are not permitting other views other than the one that supports your desired conclusion.FobTown (talk)17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.UtoD17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of31 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is atthe edit warring noticeboard.EdJohnston (talk)04:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you haveresumed the edit war at2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis since your May 28 block. Due to your extensive prior history of blocks, some for as long as a month, I am considering an indefinite block of your account. Is there any reason why I shouldn't go ahead with this?EdJohnston (talk)14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also the further comment byUser:Qiushufang atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: Both blocked).EdJohnston (talk)14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting frustrated withUser:UtoD because they considered the opposing viewpoint I was trying to add to be misinformation, even though that view is backed by ABC, Guardian, NYT, etc. Also note thatDebt-trap_diplomacy#China looks at both viewpoints, butUser:UtoD says that only one viewpoint is valid for the Sri Lanka articles based on the CBSL report. The Talk discussion is going nowhere asUser:UtoD claimed the high ground with theWP:ONUS andWP:UNDUE tags.

Suggest thatUser:UtoD and I stay off Sri Lanka articles for 2 weeks, while the previously-uninvolved editors look into these.FobTown (talk)15:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is any point to a temporary article block for Fob, whose behavior is consistent and tendentious. Prior history on other articles (ex. Sri Lanka, Peng Shuai) per above and below indicates that Fob has no issue returning immediately once the current block or issue has been addressed.Qiushufang (talk)18:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing anything outrageous nor controversial. As inTalk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments:, I had agreement from the majority who voted not to highlight select interviews to avoid POV pushing.User:Thriley saw that my "edit is sourced from two reliable 2022 news reports" and supported it[12].FobTown (talk)20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I was edit warring withPeng Shuai which started as a one-on-one with another editor, but that was resolved thanks to bringing in third-party editors on the Talk page to build consensus. Right now the Sri Lanka edit war and Talk page is a one-on-one withUser:UtoD, which isn't constructive in resolving things. I feel that I should get a chance to participate in discussion with other previously uninvolved editors giving their views, and this is more likely to reach a consensus.FobTown (talk)16:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An observation from a previously uninvolved editor on the edit warring noticeboard in response toUser:Qiushufang:Actually, I think that FobTown tends to edit in subject areas that are often full of editors pushing non-neutral point of view. There really needs to be more truly neutral editors involved in these controversial topics.Thriley (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)FobTown (talk)20:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I don't really feel like adding more to this user's Talk page but certain things need to be said. Just look at the beginning of this section(wlink 2). Right off the bat they went straight back to arguing points that had been resolved already as if no previous discussion had taken place, not to mention the fact that even the ones they choose to engage in are mostly initiated by the other side first. Constantly re-hashing old points, misrepresenting facts or mischaracterizing the nature of the argument, in effect stonewalling but without appearing so. What eventually follows or occasionally serving as the opener(diff 1) during a discussion about content is always the shift of focus toward the other editor's person(diff 2)(diff 3), as if repeatedly quoting unsubstantiated or out-of-context comments from third-parties is not frowned upon as much as coming up with their own aspersions. As for the above quote(diff 13), I wonder whether so many editors that have showed up to this Talk page actually have an issue with POV or whether the real reason lies elsewhere. Of course FobTown don't quote the other side of the story(diff 4). I'm both duely impressed and jaded about all of this, but had there not been this latest row over Sri Lanka articles, it wouldn't have surprised me if they were to double-down on their reverts(diff 5) with minimal or superficial Talk engagement.CurryCity (talk)11:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute over the lead ofPeng Shuai was resolved once we got other editors to give their view inTalk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments:, where the majority voted not to highlight select interviews in the article's introduction since it was potentially POV-pushing.2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis seems to be a more serious case of POV-pushing, asUser:UtoD refused to include a viewpoint supported by reliable sources (ABC, Guardian, NYT) and has characterized it as misinformation, even when another third party editor saw nothing wrong with it.[13]FobTown (talk)12:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"once we got other editors to give their view" - you mean when other editors stepped in to stop the perpetual edit warring? Until the page was locked on March 18, your last edit to the talk page was on December 28 (diff) -Floydian ^τ_¢11:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the content at all but reverted[14] just because you had past disputes with me. That intro paragraph highlighting the French interview was potentially POV-pushing, so the onus was on its backer to justify it on the Talk page. The intro paragraph removal was confirmed by the discussion/consensus atTalk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments:.FobTown (talk)13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're deflecting. The ends do not justify the means that you go about to achieve them. And despite several editors reverting your changes, you still kept reverting to your preferred version until the protection of the article finally forced you to not discuss your opinion solely in edit summaries. Is unsourced information that you constantly add and restore to Ontario Highway articles for weeks or months also part of your supposed fight against POV pushing? -Floydian ^τ_¢11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Ontario Highways, I don't mind if you tag one of my facts with a source required (as inOntario Highway 427), as you have access to ProQuest and other historical Ontario Ministry of Transportation archives (as inOntario Highway 402), I merely want other readers to be aware that these upgrades happened to the road.FobTown (talk)12:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a source, post on the talk page, or ask me like you did with Highway 402. You can't just add stuff to good and featured articles without a proper source! -Floydian ^τ_¢12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By their logic, FobTown added "potentially POV-pushing" material as well(diff 12). Onus and rules apply to us but don't apply to them ... another major deja-vu.CurryCity (talk)07:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong...this edit[15] removed the two alleged interviews in the introduction (which was potentially POV pushing), and this was upheld by consensus in theTalk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments:.FobTown (talk)20:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for you to add "in response to foreign inquiries" and the citations already in the body(wlink 5). Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you're using an Rfc about one element to justify all your re-wordings of the intro. This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about, misdirecting, gaslighting, conflating ... I didn't even want to join in at first, but FobTown's denialism has enabled them to double-down, and their ad hominem (implied or stated) is just no longer acceptable.CurryCity (talk)03:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have to fact-check FobTown. On Feb 21, they removed an intro paragraph from Peng Shuai without discussion or consensus(diff 6), starting an edit war over Wp:Due. There wasn't an Rfc until April 13, which somehow began with FobTown's changes as the base version. They're now re-framing their months-long involvement, under Pov as a fictitious excuse. They also went on to revert a different part unrelated to the Rfc(diff 5), again without discussion or consensus. Double-check the Sri Lanka issue, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss all editors who have disagreed with FobTown as POV-pushers. FobTown makes various attempts again and again, mischaracterizing arguments along the way, until one sticks, as if that makes up for everything else being called out.CurryCity (talk)07:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That intro paragraph highlighting the French interview was potentially POV-pushing[16], and its removal was confirmed by the discussion/consensus atTalk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments:. For the body truncation[17] this was the work ofUser:Fyunck(click) with the agreement ofUser:Horse Eye's Back after discussion atTalk:Peng_Shuai#Body_overbloat,_again, and I've endorsed it.FobTown (talk)13:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one at the Rfc said the there was any POV-pushing though, except perhaps by you. Maybe the problem is that you see other editors as either ideological opponents to be discredited(diff 2)(diff 3)(diff 7)(diff 8) or as potential recruits to your cause, to be pinged at the very last minute to help you out with Talk(diff 9)(diff 10). Do you have agreement yet or not? Is it another gaslight like with Peng Shuai(wlink 3)? Or maybe you know that once again support would somehow show up for you down the road?CurryCity (talk)07:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also reverted me in Feb at another BLP(diff 11) over a reason that a meticulous editor like FobTown shouldn't have mistaken about. Who's the one pushing POV I wonder? After I opened Talk for them, again, they were nowhere to be found(wlink 4).CurryCity (talk)07:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing all my edits? You are pushing your pov that Chinese debt trap is real despite the lowly institute have argued there that it wasn't a Chinese debt trap. So you have to be impartial and not push your pov. I see on Talk you are also arguing with several other commenters on that issues, which means you don't even have consensus.Simpleshooter99 (talk)02:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have plenty of sources suggesting that it is a Chinese debt trap so that viewpoint should also be included. The Lowry Institute viewpoint can remain but its POV to say that viewpoint is correct.FobTown (talk)03:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made on2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.UtoD18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: ). Thank you.UtoD18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removedmaintenance templates from2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Please seeHelp:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has beenreverted. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. Thank you.Chanaka L (talk)16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not remove maintenance tags without resolving the issue,

1. Bloomberg article doesn't say anything about a debt trap. There it failsWikipedia:Verifiability.
2. "Various commentaries" is a clearWP:WEASEL.

I mentioned this in my edit summary. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk)16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources I placed in the article did support "debt trap", while various commentaries is because there is a wide range of sources using that term (ABC, Bloomberg, India times)FobTown (talk)16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you can easily reference those articles, I am sorry, what is stopping you from citing them? If you do not provide sources it still fails verifiability. Your words of saying so are not good enough for the readers. Please, cite those articles then.--Chanaka L (talk)17:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references/citations were already in that paragraph, although closer to the bottom. Have directly added the citations to the ends of those sentences.FobTown (talk)19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fob has displayed similar behavior in other areas as well in trying to diminish the authority of sources which they disagree with while wording others to be more authoritative. See[18].Qiushufang (talk)20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating the Debt Trap article content, even other causes of the Sri Lankan economic crisis don't have that big a section.FobTown (talk)21:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the points made here and others in the talk discussion at the article to perpetuate argument is calledWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Qiushufang (talk)22:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't ignoring, you two are making that section so bloated so itsWP:UNDUEFobTown (talk)23:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored 1) suggestions to section the content or create a new article 2) Simple's offer of third party dispute arbitration 3) your behavior as mentioned in the above comment related toWP:WEASEL. Instead you deflected to a comment on the length of the article, which is neither the topic of this section or a new topic that has not been covered at the talk page of the relevant article. Your reversionshere andhere feigned ignorance of a suggestion I had made at the talk pageweeks ago and only implementedafter yourcontinued edit warring with Simple. You neither acknowledged this nor stopped your edit warring. Your response was feigned ignorance and acopy paste response. This is textbookWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Qiushufang (talk)00:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.Simpleshooter99 (talk)21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley is one of the third party editors that volunteered to look over the dispute last time.FobTown (talk)22:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given how we have already extensively talked about this some time ago. It's apparently unlikely that we can ever come to an agreement that Sri Lanka's port was not at all leased to pay off Chinese loans..so I suggest we settle it via third opinion. Because you are not willing to even compromise in calling it a claim/opinion and just adamant it is a fact. Despite I keep telling you that too many reliable scholars now debunks it. Hence I think it's best to resolve this with a third opinion.Simpleshooter99 (talk)22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs several experienced editors with long histories of NPOV to oversee it, especially now with the current situation. FobTown isn’t canvassing, FobTown attempting to seek those kinds of editors out. I think both of you should attempt to get new eyes on the article in the coming days.Thriley (talk)03:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for defending me, as well as avoiding taking a stance this time as well as last time.FobTown (talk)03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley:, Fob has ignored other users like Simple seeking third party dispute resolutionhere. They have run into disagreements with multiple users on the same article and over multiple articles. They ignored my suggestionon creating a new article or section for the disputed topic and then did not comment until I had done so. No other editors took issue with the change until Fob reverted it twice[19][20] while feigning ignorance of an ongoing discussion and consensus making process at talk. Fob copy pasted their arguments with different users at different parts of talk:[21][22]. Also displayedWP:OWN by stating what version of the article they are willing to keep[23]. This is not the behavior of a user acting in good faith and I am confused as to what basis you lean in supporting them. Even if Fob is not convassing, I do not see any other editor in the article's history going to another user's talk such as mine to specifically ask for their aid. Such behavior is probably indicative of their standing relative to other users.Qiushufang (talk)21:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to the article2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must beverifiable throughreliable sources, preferably usinginline citations. If you require further assistance, please look atHelp:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at theTeahouse. Thank you.Qiushufang (talk)02:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you are were supposed to be a neutral third party like Thriley, guess you are in cahoots with Simpleshooter99.FobTown (talk)02:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how adhering toWP:UGC on a contentious ongoing topic is being "in cahoots" with another user? You have mass reverted on2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis:[24] in response to removing a blog as a source. Being a "third party" does not mean ignoring anything one party does that is obviously detrimental to Wikipedia and against WP. I am firmly in the camp of an indefinite block for you as you have not shown once that you are acting in good faith and have continued the same tendentious editing behavior as described several times by multiple users on this talk page.Qiushufang (talk)02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think about it you've been quick tenatious inWP:COATRACKING onDebt-trap diplomacy battles[25][26], similar to what you've done on2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis, so I could report you for such behavior on both articles.

To avoid accusations ofWP:COATRACKING, all we just need on2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis is a short summary of the external debt and debt trap[27].FobTown (talk)02:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACKING is an essay opinion, not a policy, and you are deflecting from your behavior again.Qiushufang (talk)02:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LikeWP:UNDUE, you can't just ignoreWP:COATRACKING if you are getting reverted repeatedly by different editors onDebt-trap diplomacy.FobTown (talk)02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to report me forWP:COATRACKING and see what the result is.Qiushufang (talk)03:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FobTown, your last revert is very disruptive, undoing a lot of copy/edits, and grammar fixes by other users. Please be thorough in reverting.--Chanaka L (talk)03:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, have retained most of the current article but placed Debt Trap back inside External Debt, to avoidWP:COATRACKING andWP:UNDUE. This will preserve most of the other copyedits and grammar fixes, without going overboard on the debt trap debate which can be linked to itsown page directly. All of the other causes like tourism, agricultural crisis are much shorter.FobTown (talk)21:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Qiushufang (talk)01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis for a period of2 weeks forabuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk)18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war  according to the reverts you have made on2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made on2022 Sri Lankan protests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLilAhok (talk •contribs)04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have beencanvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. Whilefriendly notices are allowed, they should belimited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect aneutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certainpoint of view or side of a debate, or which areselectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle ofconsensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Amigao has a unreasonable tendency like yourself to remove any well sourced information that is positive on China. She or he had even removed BBC surveys of African perception in this article.[28] You have a tendency to do just about the same on that page[29] and currently been blocked for edit warring on a very similar topic. Do not canvass and call editors to join discussions when you are aware of them sharing the same bias as yourself. You are however free to use (third opinion) noticeboard if you want someone to join the discussion, which I welcome and encourage you to do so.Simpleshooter99 (talk)02:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this looks like canvassing. FobTown, please be careful not to give the appearance of selectively soliciting participation from people who you expect will agree with you. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)09:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atSino-African relations shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.

You mass reverted my edits with a single sweeping reason.[30] You then proceeded to do the very same[31][32][33] and also my last edit was appropriate for lede yet you keep constantly reverting.[34] If you are going to revert or remove my edits in that article, discuss at Talk[35] but don't just revert or alter my edits constantly, and engage in edit warring.Simpleshooter99 (talk)03:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLilAhok (talk •contribs)04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing foredit warring, as you did at2022 Sri Lankan protests.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk)01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I do expect to serve a ban but it shouldn't be indefinite; a couple users have defended the content that I've been trying to restore.[36][37]FobTown (talk)19:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violatingWP:EW, after being blocked over and over and over again for edit warring, but have not addressed this in your unblock request.Yamla (talk)19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may beused abusively per the evidence presented atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FobTown. It has beenblocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts areallowed, but not forillegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may bereverted ordeleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review theguide 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 theUnblock 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 byadministrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation'sprivacy policy. Youmust not loosen or remove this block, or issue anIP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committeemay be summarily desysopped.

DreamyJazz^{talk to me |my contributions}09:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices