User talk:FNAS

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Netherlands in World War II has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Netherlands in World War II was changed by FNAS (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876508 on 2016-06-24T13:51:52+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Netherlands in World War II with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Did you even read the text on the poster? FNAS (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but too late, sorry. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at European Graduate School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 23:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is by way of a warning shot. I have reviewed your edit history ad find much that is tendentious. Your comments are belligerent and take no account of the vast disparity oin Wikipedia experience between you and many of those with whom you find yourself in dispute. Please use talk pages more and aggressive edit summaries less. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not exactly sure why I got blocked, since the blocking administrator doesn't cite specific examples of my "aggressive edit summaries". In those summaries, I try to formulate the reasons for my editing, which are often faults I find with articles. If there's a way of pointing those out that is considered more polite on Wikipedia, I'd love to get some guidance rather this type of "warning shot".

(I did try to contact JzG directly as recommended on Help!, but got a big red banner stating I couldn't edit the page, so I chose this route.)

Accept reason:

Vanjagenije (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @JzG: Can you give some examples of aggressive edit summaries and tendentious editing? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4] (there were others); seems to show evidence of m:MOPV. Tendentious edits: [5] was the most obvious. That's an article where we have a loooooong history of people being solicited by the subject company to "fix" Wikipedia's "bias". However, on reflection, I think this was over-reaction on my part, so I have unlocked, with apologies to FNAS. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for unblock request. FNAS is not edit-warring. According to WP's policies, an edit war consists of more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. The only alleged "edit war" mentioned in the warnings on this talk page was on European Graduate School. In the edit history of European Graduate School it says that FNAS made on edit on September 22, and two edits on October 13. Certainly not an edit war, according to WP's policies. Looking at FNAS's contribution history, I don't see anything else that could be called an edit war either. This block was made in violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.113.184 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, three reverts is an absolute limit not an entitlement. One revert can be an edit war. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for over-reacting, I am afraid this was a case of confirmation bias - looking for bad edits and interpreting what I found in an unnecessarily harsh way. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. The question of my edit summary style still stands, and I would like to make some comments to which you (or others) might want to reply:

• Regarding [6], I maybe shouldn't have used the word "ridiculous", but the tagging struck me as lazy and destructive. It's quite obvious where the quotes originate; if they're not found, they should be removed rather than tagged.
• In [7], check out the old version of the paragraph's text:

Antonella Stirati disputes the attribution of the law's idea to Classical economists other than Malthus.[7] notes that Joseph Schumpeter claimed that Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot first formulated the concept. Some (e.g., John Kenneth Galbraith[8]) She credits the idea to David Ricardo, who supposedly justified it on the basis of Malthus's theory of population.

• This is truly garbled text: parts of sentences have been moved around without regard for grammar. Should I make a more detailed summary next time?
• Please also see Talk:How to Read Donald Duck. FNAS (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is because of your battleground behavior at WP:ANEW — you make a report about another user, admit that you didn't attempt to resolve the issue at the talk page, and bring in unrelated attacks on the other user. This is completely out of bounds if you want to help build an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

What the blocking admin says is that I am not allowed to cite evidence of a user's overall display of contempt and abuse aimed at the Wikipedia project as a whole, his fellow editors and reliable sources; instead, I am expected to reason with such a user, who has already displayed a fair amount of contempt for me personally, so I don't see what use that is. I may have violated a rule pertaining to the specific notice board, but I do not agree with Nyttend's qualification and I have acted in good faith wrt. the Wikipedia project as a whole. FNAS (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close The block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for bringing that excellent source to a page that needed expansion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marxist historiography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Capitals00 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FNAS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FNAS. Voting in the 2018 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at [[8]] when you have the time. Thanks, JS (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]