User talk:Rob.HUN
Welcome
|
Warning
Hello, I'm
SPI
FYI, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob.HUN. RashersTierney (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
September 2014
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- As soon as you can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- As soon as you can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.
September 2014
Your recent editing history at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
- I have no stake, interest, or care in the page. You have been warned over your edits and repeatedly asked to take place in discussion on the talk page with those who are interested in the page and who have been editing the page. Your lack of respect for their requests and POV pushing is what will end up resulting in your block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusti (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)]
- As soon as those reporting can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.
- @Rob.HUN: That is, for better or worse, not how it works. Multiple experienced users have undone your edit and told you to get a consensus before making it again. You can not continue to revert everyone like this regardless of your belief on their lack of reasoning. That is what the talk page is for, I do not care what the end result is but it's going to require consensus on the talk page before it happens at this point given the back and forth that has already ensued. In order to give you as good of a chance of seeing this and not doing something that will get you blocked I'm going to take a couple actions: First I'm leaving this now, Second I'm going to start a conversation on the talk page about your edits to the cause section, Third I'm going to come here and link you to that discussion, Fourth I am going to undo your last two edits too Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. After that if you revert me you are going to be immediately blocked for at least 24 hours. If, before I undo your edits, someone else does that then you must not revert them again or I will indeed block you. We can not allow this cycle to continue, I strongly encourage you to engage on the discussion I am about to start on the talk page and to wait until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached before you attempt to edit that section of the article again (and to respect the consensus that is reached, whether it is in your favor or not). James of UR (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've started this thread on on the talk page , I'm going to revert the last edits as well now. I see (below) that another admin has actually already blocked you while I was doing that. I'm going to alert him to this discussion but if he wants to keep you blocked (which is completely reasonable) I'm not going to challenge it. If that's the case I urge you to take the next 48 hours to calm down and then to engage on the talk page thread when your block expires. James of UR (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Rob.HUN: That is, for better or worse, not how it works. Multiple experienced users have undone your edit and told you to get a consensus before making it again. You can not continue to revert everyone like this regardless of your belief on their lack of reasoning. That is what the talk page is for, I do not care what the end result is but it's going to require consensus on the talk page before it happens at this point given the back and forth that has already ensued. In order to give you as good of a chance of seeing this and not doing something that will get you blocked I'm going to take a couple actions: First I'm leaving this now, Second I'm going to start a conversation on the talk page about your edits to the cause section, Third I'm going to come here and link you to that discussion, Fourth I am going to undo your last two edits too Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. After that if you revert me you are going to be immediately blocked for at least 24 hours. If, before I undo your edits, someone else does that then you must not revert them again or I will indeed block you. We can not allow this cycle to continue, I strongly encourage you to engage on the discussion I am about to start on the talk page and to wait until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached before you attempt to edit that section of the article again (and to respect the consensus that is reached, whether it is in your favor or not). James of UR (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- As soon as those reporting can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Dusti (Result: ). Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- As soon as those reporting can give a reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
- @Acroterion: I'm at three reverts on the page that's being edit warred on - would you be willing to revert to the last stable version prior to Rob's edits so talks can begin/continue on the talk page? Thanks :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, I blocked and that's all I'll do. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'll revert, looks like Acroterion was faster then I was on the block :) (see the ... 2nd... September 2014 notice above). James of UR (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: Though @Jamesofur: finally managed to open a section on the Talk page, being blocked I surely won't be able to discuss anything there. So much for the spirit of WP. :D --Rob.HUN (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't justify reverting six times. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- You will be able to take part in the discussion when your block runs out (it's relatively short). Please remember that in the end it is NOT necessarily the 'other sides' responsibility to start the discussion. They certainly can but it is not mandatory. The idea is Bold, Revert, Discuss, you were bold and made the changes, they reverted the changes and then it was time to discuss. Either side could start that discussion on the talk page but the discussion part was necessary. It is not ok to continue reverting back and demanding that they give you a reason not too, that will always get you blocked in the end sadly. James of UR (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)]
- You will be able to take part in the discussion when your block runs out (it's relatively short). Please remember that in the end it is NOT necessarily the 'other sides' responsibility to start the discussion. They certainly can but it is not mandatory. The idea is
- That doesn't justify reverting six times. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I commend your efforts to instill some objectivity into this article, it was never going to happen. It's too tightly controlled by half a dozen system-gamers. Any attempt to divert from the official narrative was always going to be stomped on. Meanwhile, during your enforced down-time you might like to look at an alternative version here 82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Orbanomics
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.to help you create articles.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by