User talk:Altanner1991

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

April 2016[edit]

For the List of fastest production cars by acceleration You claim that you were fixing inconsistent notes, "layout issues were fixed, fixed redundancies" but in reality you just deleted a lot of important text and altered the format and rules of the article that were already agreed upon. F-16 Viper (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are also using sources that are not reliable such as this one http://accelerationtimes.com/models/mclaren-f1-lm. F-16 Viper (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon if that one was to be considered as an unreliable source — it was a later addition and its unreliable nature had been unrecognized; you are welcome to address such source or just remove its listing entirely. The last several edits clean up the page to resolved numerous issues. It had been left in many areas somewhat of a desperate mess (incomplete row ending, inconsistent N/A or NA, outdated information, repetitive and inconsistent wording of columns...). Much more relevant important information has been added than removed in order to keep user contributions and a considerable amount of time has been spent discussing to keep the page in line which now it must hold. If you find a piece of important information is omitted you might incorporate it so that the page stays well-kept. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar thoughts on previous edits, from the article's talk page:
"Thanks for the cleanup! For what it's worth, this reader / occasional contributor is happy to see this list cleaned up to reflect actual production cars and verified results only, as above. There were far too many garbage entries about people's "pets" a couple of months ago. Thanks to those who put in the care and effort!"
Altanner1991 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC); edited 05:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A major change to the whole layout requires a discussion and a consensus, it was also never acceptable to add entries with unreliable sources and delete important notes. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listen buddy your edits changed the entire format of the page and involved mass deletions of completely valid and important text. You did not improve upon it in any measure. If you want to improve INDIVIDUAL things like sources or specific times (assuming there is something wrong with it) that is fine, just add a reliable source, but don't delete large amounts of important text and remove whole columns etc. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few notes and a single least significant column removed does not justify undoing significant amounts of so many other very viable edits, as a couple sentences worth of text could have most easily been re-added. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you still continuing to argue after you agreed to the block report? You're edits were in NO WAY VIABLE. Why is it taking you so long to understand this? You can't completely screw up a page and then cry about about how much work you put in. Sorry for seeming aggressive here but I'm getting tired of this. F-16 Viper (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edits which you didn't like took by far the least amount of time to enact compared to the rest of my edits, you could have easily re-added them instead of constantly undoing everything with a single button. Your arguing now needs to stop because this issue was unnecessary. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't wish to argue, but I am going to explain myself. It's not so much I didn't like them, it's that they go against Wikipedia policy and rules. Like I've said many times, you can't destroy a wiki page and then expect other people to go through all the work to save what might be acceptable. Instead you have to make an acceptable edit from the beginning. If you're a painter who is supposed to paint only the door, but instead you paint the whole house, then do you think it's homeowner's responsibility to repaint the entire house other than the door? Do you see the flaw in your logic here? It's not other Wikipedians job to go through all your work and fix it. If you do something drastically wrong (which is the case here) they're going to revert the entire edit. In addition to that 90% of the edits in question were not constructive so there wouldn't be much to save anyway. F-16 Viper (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright I'm actually sorry the edits cleaned too much without approval, so I will make sure it doesn't happen again. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's good to hear. Please see talk page of FCBA so we can edit constructively. I wrote a new section called "Latest edit" F-16 Viper (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Talk:List of fastest production cars by accelerationReply[reply]
Ok, thank you for being reasonable and for giving the page updates a chance. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the section title. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppetry within administrative accounts[edit]

This is posted in relevance.

Subject: Sockpuppetry within administrative accounts
From: [redacted]
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:55 GMT
Hi,

I was recently involved in a situation which shows clear evidence of the use of multiple accounts by one person. WP:SPI is not used with cases involving administrative accounts, and I have been informed this is the committee I should notify.

Please, review the matter in verification of the multiple IP addresses used by the accounts.

The accounts were used to transform a page in a matter of minutes, and after careful consideration of the evidence there is no doubt the user engaged in the use of the multiple identifications. The introduction of the case I filed describes the background of this issue, followed by a demonstration of the similar behavior patterns across the accounts.

Best of luck,
Alex

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohnoitsjamie

Altanner1991 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the follow-up.
Subject: Sockpuppet investigation
From: [redacted]
To: [redacted], arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:25 GMT
Dear Altanner:

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohnoitsjamie, committee members have looked at the evidence and agree with the close: there is not sufficient evidence to justify further investigation.

For the committee,

Drmies/[redacted]
Altanner1991 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orders of Succession[edit]

In response to your question, every entry on the list has a line of succession for who can succeed to the monarch/president/pretender. The term order of succession implies a list. The Yugoslavian and Hawaiian pages simply refer to the former dynasties and only mentions the head of the house, not who's in the line of succession. This is in direct contrast to every entry currently on the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to send you a reply⁠—thank you for explaining, I now understand your rationale. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of conspiracy theories; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try 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's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | tålk 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated apologies. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Bishonen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Really? An edit warring warning for having undone you once? And signed with her signature rather than yours? Meters (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the signature—I copied the template and forgot to change the signature. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Bishonen, you may be blocked from editing. Do not restore that again. She undid you once. That is not edit warring. Your warning is inappropriate. Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I interpreted edit warring when you contribute in edit warring, so I apologize if that is not the case. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi Altanner1991! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Australian bloke (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So sorry about the lack of edit summaries; that will no longer be a problem. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The genealogy charts were no longer accepted so I wanted *both* consistency and just some awareness. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Louis VI of France does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries 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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. This and many other articles you've edited. Eric talk 02:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So sorry about the lack of edit summaries; that will no longer be a problem. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just discovered at WP:ANI#User:Achmad Rachmani that we are actually not required to fill edit summaries or mark minor edits, but I will still try to be cooperative overall. Thank you for your message, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the McLaren F1[edit]

Why can’t you understand that the McLaren P1 is the real successor to the McLaren F1? Big Drake 305 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the page for explanations—thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholicism redirect[edit]

Please do not make unilateral decisions about such redirects. Discuss and get consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually it's not expected to discuss before making a normal edit like that one, but since there is possible contention, I will add a talk page discussion for it. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please wait for consensus before making such changes. Sundayclose (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll have to make some kind of argument because I was making a very obvious fix. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is "obvious" to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone. You are making major changes that require discussion. And the burden to get consensus is on the editor wishing to make such changes, per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now understand the redirect issue, thank you for your patience. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't modify your replies in a significant but non transparent fashion after they've been replied to[edit]

Hi, with reference to this edit [1] while it's generally fine to delete your own replies if no one has commented on them, especially if it's been a relatively short time, please do not modify replies after they've been replied to. WP:TALK#REVISE explains the process you should use when modifying replies after they've been replied to. Frankly in a case like this since you're not correcting an error nor removing a personal attack but instead just trying to improve the tone etc of your comment, it would IMO have been better to just not modify it after it's been replied to. Instead just leave a follow up comment apologising for your comment and explain your point in a better way. The problem with what you did is fairly obvious in a case like this, as it's quite likely the tone and specific comments of Psychologist Guy's reply was based on what you said when they replied. For that reason I've re-added your original comment but marked it as deleted while leaving your modified reply intact except for dating it accordingly. I've also left a reply below explaining what I did. If you'd prefer to not have a diff of your older comments in the discussion, I'm fine with you replacing my reply with one of your own explaining the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have come to love proper techniques of redaction—thank you so much for your patience with me. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies and best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GMOs and pesticides[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

KoA (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I have grown quite *vehement* against edit warring, so hopefully I don't run into any issues with that topic's ruling. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Altanner1991 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I thought we could have three reverts, but now that I know I won't do it again. For as long as I edit Wikipedia, I will never edit war again. Thank you for your assistance. Altanner1991 (talk) 8:07 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

looks like good faith. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller Hopefully this still allows me to use WP:3RR appropriately like anyone else. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always best to stop at two and then use the talk page. Except when it’s clearly vandalism and not a content dispute. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not true. The policy says three. You're talking about WP:3RRNO, which says that vandalism, copyright issues, or other content issues actually have unlimited reverts. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I agree; sorry about my comment as I honestly did not read your comment properly until now. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop edit warring[edit]

On July 18, I reverted you at White supremacy (diff). After that, you accepted my explanations on the article's talk page, writing, "I agree with everything you have said" (diff). And now you are reverting me again, claiming that I didn't explain why I reverted you ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I really thought it was disruptive/vandal behavior on your part especially because you weren't answering on the talk page for a very long time and even after I pinged you. So I really though I did not edit war because I reverted to stop what I honestly thought was vandalism behavior. I am sorry for any perceived rudeness, it is not what I would want. Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did  on User talk:Altanner1991. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please remove it. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the statement; my words were not intended to be rude so I am sorry if it came across that way. Sincerely, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't retroactively edit your old comments[edit]

This is just a warning, but it's very bad taste to retroactively edit old comments in a discussion, I've reverted them for this reason. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was typos and very basic clarity issues, no content was changed. This should be allowable. Please allow such innocent grammatical corrections to help the future discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok—I have made one change as more properly; thank you for telling me about the policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to Wikipedia space from Main space[edit]

Hi, the reason why I removed that link in the multiple issues header was because it's typical not to link to Wikipedia space from Main space. Andre🚐 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a rule that mentions this, including for discussions on project pages? Maybe it could go on the talk page instead. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it's discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, or Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts: Don't link to user, project, draft, or talk pages in articles. The talk page would definitely be fine. Andre🚐 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I have placed the link in the talk page. Thanks, Altanner1991 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Thanks! Andre🚐 04:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Edit warring. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try 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's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I now better understand the policy against edit warring. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon Hi Altanner1991! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Wikipedia:Verifiability that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong again! Help:Minor edit clearly says "Spelling, grammatical, and punctuation corrections". Altanner1991 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Does not have a source" has different meaning from "needs a source", and "must be removed" has completely different meaning from "may be removed". Don't edit policy pages without explicit consensus on the talk page. Given your false claims about these edits, I think you should let someone else do it. Zerotalk 12:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How dare you repeat empty information. I'll go ahead and be the one who explains further: The preceding paragraph had just made it clear that *all material needs a source*. What do you have to say against that, Zero? Altanner1991 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll say that you don't know what you are talking about and are begging to get blocked. Zerotalk 13:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jerk. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The level of rudeness by Wikipedia administrators is worthy of public outcry. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Admins? You aren’t replying to one. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Zero is an Admin. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I guess my script didn’t work but I should have remembered. Still, not a good call. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you are right, I agree. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Altanner1991 I think what you are missing here is that you have escalated tensions in these discussions, rather than helping approach a consensus or collegial sense of interacting with you as a user. Phrasings like "What do you have to say against that..." and "How dare you..." and "Sorry, but you're wrong again!" are not going to make anyone want to work with you. You should strive to de-escalate tensions with those you disagree with, or at the very least, not escalate them.
It has been described to me that Wikipedia is like the most stringent HR-infested corporate cubicle farm workspace. And everything you have ever said on here is recorded in the record of page histories. It's a pretty apt analogy. Overall, it's a bad idea to give others reason to snipe at you, or to believe you are escalating disputes to become worse, because such things will inevitably come back to haunt you. — Shibbolethink ( ) 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel I have been kinder than anyone else on Wikipedia. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would tell you to read WP:1AM which perfectly encapsulates the feeling of believing everyone else is wrong, or that you are the sole person who is being kind or genial. Everyone can be a dick on here, but if you're being a dick and against consensus, it can be a lot more evident and more likely to get you into trouble. — Shibbolethink ( ) 19:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen that essay and it is perhaps the best summary, I have put something similar on my user page because no other "3RR" rule was as clear as the concepts in the link you gave. Thank you Altanner1991 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the words. It seems like things just aren't working out with anyone on Wikipedia, but I will keep trying to do what I can. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Human genetics. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try 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's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How dare you say I am edit warring when clearly it goes both ways. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see now that I was edit warring because it is discretionary and not based on 3RR. Sorry it took me so long to understand that. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Referring to your words, "And Rsk, your contentious stubbornness is frankly worthy of a sitewide block." Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought your comment was even more of a personal attack... Altanner1991 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Altanner1991 I would tell you that WP:ASPERSIONS applies, and you should not resort immediately to insinuating another user should be blocked upon first discussing a topic in a new section. It's a bad look and adds to an appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Additionally, the phrasing you used your contentious stubbornness probably violates WP:AGF. Wide latitude is given in such discussions, but repeated insinuation that other editors have bad demeanor is a bad idea.
@Jpgordon@Doug Weller@Zero0000
How many disputes must this user engage in on wiki talk before the block is extended to these spaces? The user has been doing quite a bit to dissuade anyone that they understand the nature and intent of their current block. It seems their argumentative style has actually driven other users away from contributing in these areas: And since I had some experience with Altanner1991's way of discussing, I will also add that I'll stand by my view even if I won't take part in this discussion any more - @Rsk6400 — Shibbolethink ( ) 18:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rsk's comment against me was uncalled for and was very much a personal attack. I was trying to respond like admins or perhaps experienced editors. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ASPERSIONS tells us that one should not resort to suggesting others should be blocked when disagreeing on talk pages, especially wiki talk. Rather, if there is a bad pattern of behavior, you should just bring it to the user's talk page or directly to a board like WP:ANI or WP:AE. Talking about other users in this way during a discussion discourages them from participating in a way not conducive to collaboration. If they've done something wrong, do something about it, don't threaten them with interventions. — Shibbolethink ( ) 19:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I will do my best to remember that. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning[edit]

Altanner1991, you need to calm down before you're blocked. This post is completely unacceptable, both parts of it, as I think you understand. And stop scolding Mathglot on their page. It's a problem that the two of you are the only people who have shown interest in the infobox question on the talkpage, and I suggest you use some form of dispute resolution to get more eyes on the page and form a consensus. WP:3O seems to me the most appropriate method, since only two editors are involved. But you may want to just step away for a while first, until you're in a better place. Bishonen | tålk 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I swear to your people the this NPOV violating has to stop. Please, do ban me from Wikipedia, it would make my day!!!!!! Altanner1991 (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very upset with this disregard for bias. Mathglot, no matter how experienced, has no right to destroy a page. You should have warned Mathglot instead of me. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bishonen: Forgot to ping. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White Supremacy[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Please self-revert your latest changes, the material is quite obviously sourced and you need to gain consenus on the talk page first before making large edits like this. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No way. Just block me. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry—I now better understand 3RR and so I will self-revert. Thank you for your patience. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring in policy space. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This block applies to the Wikipedia main space, where you have edit-warred in two different policy pages. You remain able to edit articles and you remain able to discuss policy issues in the Wikipedia talk space. If you repeat this behavior when the block expires, I will make it indefinite. Zerotalk 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. Thank you, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Altanner1991 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I only made two reverts, per WP:3RR policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR (which does not give an entitlement to three reverts, anyway.) You're blocked for edit warring now for the fourth time; you're lucky it's as short as it is. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor correction: it is not the fourth time that I am blocked for edit warring. It is only the third time; the other block was termed "vandalism". Altanner1991 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

You were also edit warring (although not violating 3RR) at Template:Human_genetics and at White supremacy. I got the impression that you changed WP:V because you wanted to justify your opinion that mentioning "White Australia" should be removed from the latter article as unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." - ZLEA T\C 14:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess 3RR is only for newbs, the administrators, and their friends. Fine. But I have advocated on the policy page that this potential for graft be eliminated. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don’t seem to know our policy and are failing to show good faith or be civil. Bad idea. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors, since I think that is the only solution. That will cement my interpretation of the policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment from blocking admin. The number of reverts was not the point. This user made a substantive change to WP:Verifiability while marking it as minor and claiming it was a grammatical fix. On the edit being reverted, s/he reverted back claiming it was someone else's job to get consensus. Then s/he made a second substantive change, again marking it as minor and falsely claiming it was about grammar. Then after being reverted again, s/he reverted again, even though by that time two people had explained on the talk page why it wasn't acceptable. This editor edit-warred at WP:Edit warring only a few days ago. It seems from the responses above that this editor just doesn't get it. I think a more appropriate sanction would be an indefinite ban from editing policy articles. Zerotalk 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was making honest edits. The others have never once given an explanation as to why they were being reverted. I feel that behavior is edit warring, and not mine, since I use rationality. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I now truly understand that 3RR occurs on a friendly basis and so I will be more careful. Thank you and best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the sake of posterity, this user has continued to make disruptive edits in wikitalk space which may run afoul of policy, e.g. "American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups" at WT: No Nazis. [2]. This is in the setting of an ongoing discussion about how the "non-endorsers" list on that essay is a great honey pot to locate editors who will likely become disruptive in the near future. This is nothing if not a great example of that phenomenon. @Zero0000@Doug Weller@Jpgordon Do I think the edit I linked is a blockable offense? No, probably not. But do I think it's extremely on-the-nose? Yes.
    If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...All you need to do is give it a few days before it starts quacking loud enough for anyone in a hundred miles to know what it is. — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, it came as too angry so I have retracted the comment. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's "too angry", and there's "Implying either that liberals support genocide, or that supporting genocide is comparable to cancelling people on Twitter or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing". Striking the comment doesn't really address the problem that you appear to hold at least one of those two attitudes toward genocide. I was going to come here to suggest (as an involved editor, admin hat off) that the p-block at the very least be extended to WT-space... But, seeing that Shibbolethink has had a similar reaction and that it's not just me, I'll go a step further and suggest that this is siteblockable. To me it conveys an editor who has a profound misunderstanding of what it means to support killing one's fellow humans (and thus one's fellow Wikipedians) on the basis of their ethnicity—a viewpoint that I find is only slightly less disruptive than actually supporting such killings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The motives of my comment were pure, and only to end hatred. I am so sorry if that was misunderstood. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You made that comment 42 minutes after saying The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors. If you can't see why a comment like that is not going to come off as "friendly", perhaps this isn't the right environment for you to be contributing to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps you misunderstand my comment: I go beyond the normal desire to bring peace. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I had meant it as even further left, if that makes sense. But I will try to word my comments more carefully. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First of all, hatred is worse than killing, and I do neither. Second of all, you want to block me for upholding the anti-war principle in outstanding amounts? Liberalism shouldn't become just a way for savvy urbanites to drastically purge socially-awkward 'simple folk'. "Anti-Nazism" was fine but it has recently been going too far, becoming another way of being cool by getting rid of purported "losers". In sociology, disregarding personhood (dehumanization) is the first step that has led to genocide.
    At this point the only sense between the U.S. Democratic Party's history and the 2016–ongoing U.S. Democratic Party is by the undercurrent of hatred. They should all be called "Hateful Democrats". This is the country of people that instituted the most serious forms of White Supremacy and Nordicism besides WWII and some Commonwealth countries. Not to mention, the Civil War was even bloodier, even in total numbers, than either WWI or WWII. I need to speak out against these things. Hate and aggression is never the answer. I would rather repeal the 13th Amendment!
    Disclaimer: I have always been a registered Democrat, and I will continue to be a registered Democrat. My only other political affiliation has been with the French Communist Party, which was for most of 2021 and the early part of 2022. I was likewise in the early 2010s a notably very liberal UC Berkeley undergrad. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Me, I'd be inclined to make the block sitewide just so Altanner1991 could avail themself of the Law of holes. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I want to make improvement, if that is at all possible. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree to sitewide block. Altanner1991, my script which marks Admins didn’t work again. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a non-endorsement, excluding the mention of American politics & liberalism & the genocide comparisons, would suffice? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I changed it to endorse because it's closer to my view. Thanks though, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best behavior[edit]

Altanner1991, I wonder if you aware that you have attracted the attention and comments of five different admins, just in the last two days. Scary. In my opinion, you're at the very edge, and you can't afford a single misstep. I'd be very, very careful, and stay on your best behavior—now, and for the foreseeable future if you want to continue editing here. And I'm pretty sure you do want to, because the best thing you have going for you, is that you are clearly WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia based on what I've seen of your edits at List of monarchs of France. You've had some serious hiccups which I won't belabor here, but if you can manage to avoid a repetition, you just might be able to avoid falling into the abyss. This will require a change in your previous pattern, and it probably won't be easy; I hope you can manage that. If you want to discuss this, feel free to contact me at my talk page, or if you prefer to discuss privately, click the 'Email this user' in the left sidebar of my Talk page. One tip right off: if you're not sure what to say in any given situation, don't say anything; silence will hardly ever get you in trouble. (Including now.) Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the inspiring words. Indeed, it has been a crazy experience. Hopefully it will get better, but unfortunately, it looks like sheer discipline (and occasionally, "hateful" liberalism, as opposed to good liberalism) has replaced "just finding results". Wikipedia was a good place, but it is not a good place anymore. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Law of Holes. I'm sure you know about AgF, you don't seem to mind violating it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, we have been dealing with this crap for the whole six years that I've been on Wikipedia. Maybe it's time for the sitewide indef? Altanner1991 (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, maybe, or alternatively you could use our processes. I was disappointed that you completely ignored my suggestions for dispute resolution at List of French monarchs above. Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I took the suggestion to step away from that issue, but will consider such means. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch. Sigh... Regarding, "was a good place", do you know about the parable of the two travelers? Best, Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right back on you. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A feller just has to be as relaxed as possible in any 'content' dispute. If things appear to be getting 'too intense'? practice silence or merely walk away from the dispute (since one's already made their stance), entirely. Take for example the List of French monarchs page. IMHO, the coat of arms should be restored, in the top infobox & all maps discarded. If the consensus there, is to do the opposite? Not a problem to me, as no matter what happens, my toes are still tappin'. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed—WP:NODEADLINE Altanner1991 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry[edit]

I am sorry for my spontaneous aggression throughout the past. I was concerned about corruption, but I promise that my spontaneous aggression will not happen anymore, because I have the desire to be a good editor, and to be a good person. Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your heart is in the right place, and you clearly have the ability to contribute good content, but you sometimes get into the oddest of dust-ups, occasionally comical, like the one you had with EEng recently at Talk:Harvard University, or one you had with me further back that started acrimoniously (at my TP, here and here), went on in the same vein at the article TP for a while (here and here), before ending quite on a friendly basis (diff), which was good to see.
Being a good editor is a good goal, and if you continue to pay attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular behavioral ones, and strive to maintain your equanimity when interacting with other editors especially when some kind of content disagreement is involved, you should be fine. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be better to not continue raising disparagements (see: your edit summary). Altanner1991 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]