User talk:Solaire the knight

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Trolls from Olgino. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

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

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not engage in edit wars. If your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and DO NOT try to add it again until the issue is resolved in the talk page. UCaetano (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. You already tried to push your edit 4 times, that's beyond the WP:3RR. You either cease with your edit warring or you'll be reported to the administrators. This doesn't apply just to the Trolls from Olgino article, but to Category:Anti-Russian sentiment as well. UCaetano (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two participants roll back my edits without any arguments , but the blame for the war edits why I. And it is a language profile that everyone in the Russian Wikipedia taken as an example . Apparently nothing Solaire the knight (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no arguments for you edit, except "What a sweet agitation of Ukrainian activists", which is by itself offensive and should not belong in WP. Please read WP:BRD, if your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and reach consensus. If you refuse to do so, you will be reported, and probably blocked. You have been warned. UCaetano (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the talk page article looked at all to draw conclusions about the level of my argument ? Do not take me for an idiot . Solaire the knight (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Solaire_the_knight reported by User:UCaetano (Result: ). Thank you. UCaetano (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought to let you know that UCaetano (talk) has been reported. It seems that he sits on specific articles and initiates Edit-Wars. He's been reported as he attempted to threaten myself as well as another user, making various accusations towards us as well. Lastly, he repeatedly erases properly cited sources and demands that you ask his permission to edit. Rodianreader (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring on Trolls from Olgino to restore the POV tag. If it's removed again, don't put it back or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

And that I still left to do , if the opponents are just walking in a circle on the talk page , delaying the time passing by quietly removed the template , refusing to lead sources are referenced at the rollback ? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continue the discussion, and if you really feel there's no way to reach a consensus, ask for WP:Dispute Resolution, but DO NOT engage in aggressive or disruptive behaviors, no matter how right you think you are. UCaetano (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" Aggressive behaviors " - I in response to a request from the secondary neutral lead sources , began to read a speech about " the lies of the Russian government " ? If you were to look at the discussion page , then you would do well to see the progress consensus when my direct questions are ignored. Even you can bet that if the "threat template nomination " lost and do not need to bother , they generally will not respond to my comments. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point: it doesn't matter how the talk page discussion is going. If you make a change and it is reverted, you need to reach consensus on the talk page before changing it again. That's the way WP works. Is it clear now? UCaetano (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is, you roll back any of my editing , and I'll prove to you till the end of time is something on the talk page , while you tighten the discussion as much as possible ? Solaire the knight (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter: you either provide a proposal and convince other editors, as for admin intervention, or the article stays as it is. Your call. Attacking other users won't make a difference. UCaetano (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Trolls from Olgino. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please stop with personal attacks such as:

• "trying to hide behind the links?"
• "pretending not to understand what it was about"
• "using such populism ignore the Wikipedia rules and powdering my brains demagogy"
• "Over rough demagogy I have not heard"
• "turned to walk around and demagoguery"
• "if you're too shy , I repeat"
• "or begin to engage in casuistry" UCaetano (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to translate arrows with this in the discussion , and you decide to copy it here in isolation from the context of these phrases taken out I'm more and more amazed by your efforts to torpedo discussion or attempts to tarnish the perception of me :) Solaire the knight (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Trolls from Olgino. Please stop with your disruptive editing. This is your final warning. UCaetano (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are now my every edit will be turned into a circus and unwind before the war edits and blocking threats to completely remove me from the article ? Well then, I really should write about your actions administrators Solaire the knight (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please use English when communicating on the English Wikipedia. This edit summary in Russian is inappropriate [1]. Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it clearly shows that it was a mistake . Earlier I deliberately made another edit to leave the same comment in English . Solaire the knight (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solaire the knight, you've been asked to not post any comments to this user's talk page. Please do not make any edits there per this editor's request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You saw with what comment he removed a dialogue with me ? And what kindergarten " forbidden to leave the posts " ? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I is not going to start war, I'm just interested in the logic of the people who are calling block me without discussions, and then and then asked resentfully " not to leave comments on their talk page ". Solaire the knight (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've both removed each other's comments from your own talk pages. It's best to just keep your distance at this point so you can avoid future conflicts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if party argues that the rules allow him to do anything on his talk page , I probably also will remove "trash" from my page too :) The only regret that I accidentally interfere you in our conflict. I am sorry to bother you. PS Sorry for my ugly english Solaire the knight (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Glossary of anime and manga page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solaire the knight. 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]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Yuri (genre) into List of yuri anime and manga. 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 an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking 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 at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2019 (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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 38.128.66.93. Place any further information here. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That IP belongs to a GTHost webhost, and is blocked across all Wikimedia projects. The block was made last November 19th, and you have edited successfully between now and then- if something about the circumstances under which you edit has changed(such as your location), changing it back should work to allow you to edit. Otherwise, the block log indicates that users affected by this block should contact a steward "at stewards@wikimedia.org should you be affected". This isn't something a local admin can lift, sorry. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2020 (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.

But how could this happen? Using a proxy from under an official account simply does not make sense, and since the site was not blocked in my country, I have no reason to use them in general. Yes, I edited some articles through an unofficial wiki application, but how could this affect the address in the browser? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

This IP range belongs to a mixed service provider. The company also provides internet access services for home users. My ip is 185.16.30.244. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I apologize for the delay. I do not believe that this range is a webhosting range. After no reply from the blocking admin in over a month - I have unblocked it. SQL^{Query me!} 23:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 - Would you mind taking a look at this block, please. SQL^{Query me!} 23:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help! Solaire the knight (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My address was blocked again due to suspicion of hosting Solaire the knight (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of lesbian characters in anime. Most of your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page at Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not engage in edit wars. If your edit was reverted, take it to the talk page and DO NOT try to add it again until the issue is resolved in the talk page. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What war edits? You literally made the first rollbacks in order to return the original research and unauthorized sources to the article without any arguments. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my recent edit, please discuss this on Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute before making any further edits. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I will open the topic on the anime project talk page. If you continue the war of edits, then I will bring up the topic of depriving you of the rollback flag. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Good luck with that. The page is your responsibility now. Your edits make me regret making it in the first place, back in June 2020. Historyday01 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that Wikipedia is not a battlefield or author's blog of any of the participants. If the information does not correspond to reality and simply broadcasts someone's pov, then it cannot remain in the project just because its very personal for you Solaire the knight (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounds like you are treating like a battlefield. Anyway, please discuss your issues on Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime#Content dispute and not here. That will be all.Historyday01 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The community has already made it clear to you that reviews cannot be used as confirmation of plot interpretation. What else do you need? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think there was any major consensus there, from what I could tell. Historyday01 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You were directly told that reviews can be used as opinions on content, but they cannot be used like Word of God. For example, you may well write about yuri bait in Saki based on reviews, but use that as a source for the "they're all lesbians" statement, no. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Whatever, fix the page yourself, man. I don't want any part of it. I only added one word in my comment to clarify what I was saying. That's it. Please, do not try and involve me in this topic again. Thanks.Historyday01 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man (sorry, I don't know your gender), if this is so personal for you, then you can remove the template. But I'll still check the list from time to time. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

The stable version of the article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_Ukraini&oldid=1144772349 . Please find a consensus first on a talk page before returning new edits into article, thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if this consensus is not one-sided. At the moment, I'm the only one who wrote about this on the talk page, while other participants call it a POV violation to mention the strong association of the slogan with the Ukrainian far right. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Staberinde (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Slava Ukraini) for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus are you talking about? My opponents directly participated in the edit war, only formally participating in the discussion and only after I paid attention to it. Moreover, the new user obviously took part in this to provoke me into further kickbacks and to get the other two users out of the fire. They're not going to reach consensus, they're just going to continue to provoke edit wars in an attempt to turn the discussion into a quagmire.Solaire the knight (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you yourself have seen how my opponents do not care about this at all and are even ready to use provocateurs to put out an uncomfortable conflict. I mean, the last user is so arrogant that he is literally trying to portray a neutral viewer of the conflict while having a controversial slogan on his own page, lol.Solaire the knight (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the complete avoidance of any doubt:

This 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 Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Courcelles (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... a partial block was an attempt to get you to discuss and reach consensus and stop reverting... given you are continuing to disrupt ANEW, it clearly failed. So, you're now completely blocked for 3 days. I highly suggest dropping the battleground mentality or you are likely to find yourself indefinitely topic banned, at a minimum. Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I'll ask you again what kind of mentality should I have when users literally recruit friends to provoke me into new violations, abuse their numbers to pass off their position as a community consensus, or directly ignore the entire list of sources on the talk page, just leaving formal messages for the appearance of participation in the discussion? For example, the last user is trying to look neutral, while his page literally talks about ideological involvement. And you only block me, completely ignoring any action on their part. I would like to try to reach a consensus, but these users literally make it impossible and do not even hide it. And the admins are doing nothing to change that. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and not to get provoked is not an option? Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally keep trying to shift the responsibility for the provocations of my opponents onto me? After provocations were transferred to the discussion itself? Just don't tell me that there was nothing provocative in this remark and the user did not even expect to provoke an emotional reaction from me. Although I think it's useless to ask after [2] how you literally once again ignored my answer in favor of repeating his thesis and a mocking proposal not to use sources before the start of the war. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bright line rule. WP:3RR. I can see above plenty of evidence you know edit warring is not allowed here, yet chose to make 7 reverts today. Who is right does NOT matter. Being right is not, and never has nor ever will be, a valid defense to edit warring. Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally don't see a single justification for my edit warning on my part. I even directly wrote that I am aware of this. At the same time, my opponents also participated in this edit war in the same way, and one quite openly provoked me to participate in it in order to get my block more likely (they began to participate in the discussion only after I drew attention to this. It is also obviously prohibited. Why were the measures imposed only on me? I'm obviously not asking you to deal with this "morally" or to ignore my transgressions. But why do THEIR violations remain without any reaction, despite their obvious intentions?Solaire the knight (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, in a comment on his most recent edit, Ermerich almost literally writes that my edit warning justifies him returning his version. Speak "ho is right does NOT matter. Being right is not, and never has nor ever will be, a valid defense to edit warring"? No response from you. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 reverts, 3 reverts... then, you, way more than 3 reverts. That's the difference. Not the content. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because a third user appeared in the article, both provoking me into further violations and saving these two from crossing this line. It's literally right in front of eyes and they don't even try to hide it. Don't you see this? I do not believe that the most primitive strategy of provoking opponents to edit wars has been known and banned in the Russian Wikipedia for many years, but is completely unknown in the more strictly and bureaucratic English Wikipedia. Hell, the original essay about this appeared originally here. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are bringing up Russian Wikipedia as a positive example, when you appear to be indefinitely blocked there: [3].--Staberinde (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked there because I spoke rudely to a user whose regular NPOV and rudeness were covered by a number of administrators due to ideological consent. What one of them told me almost directly (and was even called out by a number of other admins and users for this revelation). This is first. Secondly, since you continue to use my talk page to further provoke me into further conflict, I will remove any of your new remarks here as trolling. Thank you and goodbye. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... because they were reverting to a stable version as per WP:CONS? Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is, he literally justified the continuation of the edit warning by the fact that he considered himself right (not to mention you keep passing off one side's opinion as consensus just because of the larger number of users involved, or keep calling it stable just because it didn't have an edit that bothered you)? Seriously, from now on it's hard for me to understand if you are trying to troll me in the most brazen way or just so hypocritical that you do not realize how you directly admit to illegal actions. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying here to your emails as I do not reply to emails from Wikipedia editors from my own account except in exceptional circumstances. To get consensus in the talk page, you need to give persuasive evidence, sources for your edits, and be civil. The UPA did not exist in the 1920s, so claiming the UPA used the symbol in the 1920s was never going to get a source. That it was used by the OUN was a stronger case, and so this is now in the lead, with a source in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fight strictly for this wording. I do not like the approach itself, when people try to either remove or minimize inconvenient information in any way. Especially when, until 2014 (does it surprise you why they insist on the sources after the start of the war?), it was one of the most famous contexts for the use of the term and was the reason why many people opposed its popularization. I won’t even talk about the opponents’ attempts to pass off their numerical superiority as the opinion of the majority and the consensus of the community, this has been discussed many times. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury shows that you are currently engaged in an edit 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 the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyScythe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, do you understand that I will return anonymously deleted information with sources without any reason? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are both edit-warring, but the other editor did provide reasons in the edit summaries. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. That the other editor is an IP does not change that in any way. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons? Seriously? Are you making fun of me? Not to mention the fact that you are grossly distorting my argument, turning it into a scarecrow. The user for several days under different ips deleted important and nothing violating information with dry "irrelevant information", and then began to delete information with sources, arguing that the reaction to the localization of the show outside of Japan supposedly had nothing to do with the show. And he wrote some kind of justification, very general only after the 4th rollback. It's not even just an edit war, it's politically motivated vandalism, given what page and why this anime has been banned in the past. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. CandyScythe (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I'm locked out of an edit war because I deleted vandalism?! Solaire the knight (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review WP:NOTVAND. That wasn't vandalism, in any way, and the edit summaries said why they had removed that material. You should have discussed, not reverted. Courcelles (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was literally vandalism. Anonymous, without good reason, deleted information supported by sources, ignoring warnings or comments. If we discuss every vandal edit with an anonymous person who refuses to discuss it (be sure he will continue this after the end of the block. He already continued this after the warning), then Wikipedia will simply fall apart. Did you even see his edits? They have literally removed source-corroborated criticism of the show's English voice acting, claiming it has nothing to do with the show. I require the total to be reviewed by another administrator. Moreover, he was the first to break the rules of three cancellations. Last time, my opponent escaped any punishment by pointing out that I broke this rule earlier. Why am I banned now? All the rules here are respected depending on the mood?

The template tells you how you can appeal the block. And both sides of this edit war have been blocked by me. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the idea extremely ludicrous that I should appeal the block when I rolled back anonymous vandalism and prior to your action, I was told that I should apply for an anonymous block when I asked to protect an article from anonymous edits. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you never answered me why last time my opponents avoided any punishment, saying that their cancellations do not count because "he started it first", but now I am literally banned despite the fact that anonymous is waging this war edits with the authors of the article for several months? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was mistakenly banned for violating the rules of 3 rollbacks when I rolled back the vandal edits of an anonymous person deleting text with sources without any clear argument. Moreover, the user and the admin who complained about me are the only ones who found my edits erroneous, and I’m even more than sure that after leaving the blocking, the anonymous person will continue to monotonously delete information. (other authors of the article removed the anonymous edits in the same way and even added sources to the text he removed) Solaire the knight (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Very obvious edit warring. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. You and the IP editor disagreed over content and you both edit warred to keep your favorite versions, and you're both blocked (not banned) for a short period. You can very easily get unblocked by showing you understand our policies about edit warring and committing to not doing it again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:05, 8 May 2023 (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.

OK. Then how do you explain that such anonymous edits have been deleted for several months by different users themselves (not to mention that half of the addresses were blocked in other articles due to various political violations)? All this time he uses the same language, ignoring the regular reversals of his edits, including the direct warning I left on his talk page. And this version is far from "my favorite", this text was added by another user during a dispute with me. But as it turned out, I was too stupid and decided that you should not talk to an anonymous person who monotonously deletes information with sources without any reference to the rules. I just can't promise you anything because your politics are so mood-driven that I could get banned for rolling back vandalism, or being banned for something that, in a past conflict, on the contrary, served as a reason for saving others from a ban. How do you explain that the same admin bans me despite my opponent being the first one to break the 3 undo rules, but in the last conflict, being the first one to break that rule serves as an excuse for not punishing my opponents? You can literally read it above on this same page. In general, I can promise you something only if you explain to me how the monotonous, unsupported by arguments for several months, removal of information with sources cannot be considered vandalism (Which is especially intriguing to me, given your banner for removing vandalism). Solaire the knight (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solaire, I got your message. It's a bit late for me to do anything with regards to this block so I'll just give some advice for the future. Except in painfully blatantly obvious cases of vandalism, do not exceed WP:3RR for any reason, even if you think you are correct. (Also note that accusing or implying that the person you are multi-reverting is 'vandalism' and it is determined not to be, then that's worse for you because it could be considered uncivil.) If anyone else agrees with you, then they can also revert and therefore force the other person to hit 3RR first. In this case, the text was developed in collaboration so there's nothing wrong with putting a message on the talk page and {{ping}} the other participants to make them aware of the issue. Since this appears to be a case of persistent vandalism over the course of months from unregistered users, you could also make a request for page protection using examples of diffs from the edit history to show a pattern of abuse.

And one more thing from an oldhead who's been around the block on Wikipedia for a long-ass time: it's ok if the article is wrong for a little while. In the grand scheme of history, it's not a big deal that something is missing or incorrect about an article for a few hours due to vandalism. You don't need to instantly revert a persistent vandal, and in fact, instantly reverting may motivate them to be more persistent than if you let it be and let them lose interest. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and it won't be destroyed in a day either. If you're finding yourself get heated over anything wiki-related at all (vandalism, content dispute, whatever), it's fine to just step away for a time and come back to it when you're feeling calmer, clearer, and better. Yesterday's problems will feel a lot less urgent and a lot more insignificant with time. Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply! I'm just quite upset that I previously asked to protect the page from anonymous edits because of this, but I was told "this is not a problem, warn the anonymous person and write to the admins if he continues." But in the end, I hurt myself. And it seems that no one even studied my request, since no one even mentioned it, not the very fact that an anonymous person for some reason was blocked from discussing a couple of political articles (from which I concluded that they are deleting information due to a conflict interests). But anyway, thanks for the kind words. I finally caught up with ongoing and calmly rest these two weeks, not worrying that something that I don’t even suspect can be added to the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw your request at RFPP after looking into it. It's borderline and some admins might have granted it and some might not have. Look for times when it's multiple IPs (one person hopping to different IPs, or just multiple people) making trouble. That's usually enough to get a request through. At any rate, live and learn, and try not to engage with people WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia. And enjoy your time off! Axem Titanium (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, after the end of the blocking, they continued to delete information in the same monotonous way . If that's not vandalism, not even borderline vandalism, I don't even know what is. But thanks for the friendly advice, I'm just not going to get involved. If the community is intentionally punishing for trying to prevent systematic vandalism, then I'll just stop doing it. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It got reverted shortly thereafter. I think overall you're being too 'reactive', in the sense that you're reacting to every edit, every reply, every single thing as soon as it happens. You could stand to be a little less responsive and let others comment or edit or revert. Turn off notifications for certain things, check your watchlist a little less. Focus on things that you enjoy, with respect to improving the encyclopedia, instead of getting caught up in the rat race. Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to tell me this. I just have quite a few sadly negative experiences with issues that were either stubbornly ignored because no one was paying attention, or because no one wanted to deal with it. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solaire. Your behavior, at least toward me, has been WP:UNCIVIL. I understand that you were upset by the edit warring report and subsequent block, and didn't mention it or take any action then. I must now, however, as you are still continuing that behaviour.

You have accused me in a short period of time of "persistent obsessive attempts to accuse me of an edit war", targeted harassment, protecting vandals, having a conflict of interest and a "negative attitude towards information". You have done this on this page, 3RR-noticeboard, my talk page, G-Witch talk page, and the blocking admin's talk page. Making a snarky comment about a bot-delivered notification on my talk page was also really unnecessary. -- CandyScythe (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CandyScythe I did this because you literally covered for the vandal and even got me banned after that, just because you wanted to keep their edits. You did not participate in the discussion, nor did you try to provide your version, you just complained to the administrator about me. Even portraying me as the author of the conflict. Writing after that that you understand why I'm upset is just insulting. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CandyScythe (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as documented on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility_and_claims_of_harassment_by_User:Solaire_the_knight, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you will be blocked from editing. Note that I am referencing your harassment of CandyScythe with this warning. SouthernNights (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My harassing? And when a user intervenes in my conflict, which does not concern him in any way and achieves my blocking, complicating the conflict several times, is this not harassing? Please study user behavior carefully. This is the second time he has intervened in my conflicts with other users and added fuel to the fire, trying to complicate them and achieve my block. Who is harassing whom? I wish I didn't see him. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Solaire, I closed the ANI complaint against you with a formal final warning. I'm sure you noticed it, but just in case you haven't, this post is to make you aware of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my formal confirmation is required, but yes, I am aware of it. Thanks you. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only discuss Wikipedia matters by email when there is a compelling need for privacy. That is not the case here. Wikipedia is built on transparency and review of almost all disputes by any editor. If by "rules", you mean policies and guidelines, then please be aware that all editors are obligated to pay attention to them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't explain every little thing about the rules to me, like I said, I've been on wikipedia since the late 00s, I'm familiar with it. I sent you an email because I want to communicate more freely, without being forced to have a formal conversation and without scrutinizing my messages for new complaints from certain users. Not to mention, chatting would just litter the request page. But if you fully agree to talk here, then I do not mind. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from how you behave, your actions on reverting edits here and there and thinking you better know about the anime itself makes me thing you're being more than uncivil. I don't give a serious F on how you view some show's revealing plotlines but if you still kept on trying to interfere with editors who were just minding their business, then I guess I can describe you in one word: a Karen.

Keep this up and I'm pretty much sure admins won't forgive you. Just let us edit in peace and not being a spoiled brat. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit 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 the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed after placing this that you self reverted, thanks for that. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it suspicious to try to remove even the hidden text bypassing the discussion on the talk page, but keeping it in the article all the time during a potentially long and tedious argument just seems pointless. In any case, while the user is clearly trying to use wikipedia for justice, I find attempts to discount the source by linking to its right views rather questionable. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have Clamp no Kiseki but on Spanish so it's hard to reword it. Clamp revisits every series in these book while highlighting the biggest events. When it comes to Sakura's relationship with Syaoran. It basicaly seems to say that after Syaoran confesses Sakura his feelings, she feels kinda tormented about how she should react so the most of the first series' final volume involves Sakura getting confidence from all the relationships she has. It's kinda similar to what Clamp no Kiseki says about Subaru Sumeragi who also takes some time to react to a declaration of love. I'm not sure if Sakura's previous experiences when dealing with love constitute a major thing in her character, but it sometimes seems that Toya saw it coming before the climax when Yukito asks him why does he keep calling Syaoran a brat or something like that. Eriol's knowledge about a relationship is kinda ambiguous as he instead believed Sakura would end with Yukito so yeah I'm also confused. Hope this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to envy Sailor Moon's fandom in the sense that their author quite often and openly comments on fan headcanons and answers questions. Although she still seems to be ignoring attempts to turn all the characters into Haruka and Michiru lol. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a common trend in Clamp works. While Subaru at first admits he has a crush for a girl, he later realizes he fell for Seishiro. In X, Fuma's mother was actually in love with Kamui's mother but due to certain traditions they had to end with different people. In xxxHolic, at first Watanuki is only interested in Himawari but later chapters imply some sort intimate relationship with Domeki who marries Kohane, a girl in love with Watanuki. So yeah, no idea what to write.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This intrigues me even more in the context that their mainstream works like Kobato have a rather wholesome but straight relationship at the center. But yes, you can also find the motif of repeating gay affection generations later in CCS when Tomoyo actually serves as a mirror of her mother's affection for Nadeshiko. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at D4DJ, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:RSP, Know Your Meme is not reliable. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that I don't know the rules just because I used one source of dubious authority? I literally helped write a section in this same article based on sources earlier. But returning to our topic, how do you propose to confirm the existence of memes, if not through KYM? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew the rules you wouldn't be edit warring to return obviously bad sources (or unsourced content, as it was after your latest edit). Find a source that actually meets guidelines or leave it out entirely. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at D4DJ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit 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 the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is obvious to you is not necessarily so to others. Also, refrain from further provoking conflict. You literally deny the existence of a request for sources, without even giving me the opportunity to put the request. And now you're trying to intimidate me so I can't question your actions. It is unacceptable. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit warring twice before. You should know this is not how Wikipedia works by now. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I will write to the administrators. I will not tolerate such a crude edit war and open opposition to attempts to find another source for information. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to do anymore. I do not consider myself a saint or an innocent victim of circumstances, but I have a feeling that anything I say is instantly interpreted against me, even if I am ready to meet and admit mistakes on my part. There was a mentoring mechanism in the Russian section, and ScottishFinnishRadish you yourself mentioned that I have the opportunity to improve situation through some kind of dialogue with the administrator. Could you mention what it was about? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to make an unblock request that convinces an administrator or the community that you understand how your editing is disruptive and how you will change. See WP:GAB. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to create it, but this is my first time doing this, so I hope that you will help me at least somehow correct this or advise something. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Since the administrator who blocked me offered to carry out a similar procedure, I will try, I apologize in advance if, out of inexperience, I made some mistakes in filling out the template. Also please forgive me for any mistakes or misunderstandings as English is not my native language. I fully understand the reasons for my blocking, and I want to say that regardless of the real or imaginary attitude towards me, this does not negate the fact that I participated in outright edit wars and studied the differences in the rules between my and the English section only after the fact. I admit that I was driven by some resentment due to the actions of opponents, but in the end I myself was to blame for this outcome, as I got involved in a senseless edit war despite the warning and built the entire argument on complaints about the behavior of opponents instead of making some contribution to the solution of the issue itself. No one was obligated to coddle me, especially when past experience should already have taught me that my thinking or direct actions were could break the rules and I had to think especially hard before each action. I also had to study the rules in more detail and behave in accordance with them, instead of building the whole argument on trying to appeal to the conscience and morality of my opponents or observers of the disputes I started. Accordingly, I also had to study the rules regarding sources and discuss this with my opponents before starting an edit war or replacing it with accusations of conflict and hostility against opponent. I ask to be unblocked, giving me a second chance to contribute more consciously and carefully, as well as to learn the rules better through communication with more experienced users or advice on the forums intended for this. I also promise to drop my moralistic pattern of behavior, henceforth promising to communicate in a civilized and rule-based manner, rather than treating the wiki forums and talk pages as a public court and a place to seek "justice". Solaire the knight (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for multiple reasons: edit warring, adding unsourced content and refusing to get to the point (clarified at the ANI by ScottishFinnishRadish that this is referring to not heeding the previous warnings).

This request starts to address the edit warring, but more specific information is needed to determine that you understand what you did wrong. In future unblock requests, please describe what edit warring is, why your actions were considered edit warring, and what you will do in the future to avoid this mistake again. Considering that you have been warned multiple times about this, you will need to give a very good explanation of what you will do in the future to avoid this behaviour.

This unblock request doesn't address adding unreliable sources, so you will need to describe what a reliable source is (WP:RS) and how you will ensure that this mistake will not happen again.

As for the warnings, you will need to address how you will address editor concerns in the future to ensure that your editing improves. With the conversation below and the fact that warnings did not seem to change your behaviour, I think there is a WP:CIR concern (possibly because of a language barrier?) and you will need to ensure future admin that you understand why your behaviour was wrong. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2023 (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.

Z1720 Thanks for the detailed answer. Since the continuation requires a more detailed and thoughtful answer, I will take some time to think it over and give a more reasonable and informed answer (since I am indefinitely blocked, I understand that I have enough time to answer), but I want to let you know, that I actually read your answer and took note of it. If you also want me to additionally comment on something, then you can ask any questions, I will answer. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I apologize for the delay of almost a year, I had difficult life circumstances. I wanted to ask if my opportunity to reasonably ask for an unlocking in accordance with the rules and conditions you specified is still relevant? If yes, then I will try to prepare a request according to the requirements you previously specified in the coming days. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this happened over a year ago, an unblock request would be fine to pursue to edit Wikipedia again. Please read the instructions I left in the decline. Your unblock request should address each one, and open a new unblock request below when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, I will try to answer within a week or two, so as not to delay this and not to rush with thoughtless answers. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG Could you explain what you mean by boomerang? Did I understand you correctly that you agree that discussions in this format are problematic? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They meant WP:BOOMERANG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understood which rule you were referring to, I didn't understand which part of it you meant. I was indeed blocked as the requester, but you seemed to be referring to the discussion format as well. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand? You reported someone for behavior you didn't like, but then exhibited behavior that the community didn't like, and got blocked for it. That's a boomerang. Part of the behavior you show that the community doesn't like is WP:IDHT, which you seem to be continuing. Do you need to have your talk page editing rights taken away as well? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? I literally mentioned that I understand this part of the rule and don't protest my block or claim that I was blocked for no reason anyewhere. I just asked you to clarify if you also meant the part of Boomerng about the observers, stop this hostility in the end, please. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be as a result of your English skills, as you indicated, but it should be noted that referring to editors with whom you disagree as "opponents" isn't appropriate. No one is each others' opponent here; we're all trying to build an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Uhai (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. But I just don’t know with what word I could single out people who occupied the side opposing me in this or that dispute or conflict. Perhaps "people who disagree with me", but it sounds too cumbersome and official. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

After additional consultations and conversations with administrators, I decided to submit an additional request, answering the necessary questions asked of me by the administrator Z1720. : An edit warring is when users revert other people's edits, especially repeatedly, rather than trying to reach consensus within the project's rules (this is objectively bad and prohibited because edit warrning destroys constructive work on the article and turns it into battlefield between users). My actions were rightly defined as a edit warring, because instead of opening a topic in the discussion of the page and showing reasonedly, with authoritative sources, why I think my edits are correct and reaching consensus through mutual discussion, I simply canceled the edits of my opponents and appealed to them " morality and justice." In the future, If my edit is reverted, then I will refrain from such actions as destructive and create a thematic thread on the talk page to discuss the conflict that has arisen and how it can be resolved within the framework of the project rules. Once the discussion is over, I will need to ask a neutral administrator to summarize it in order to approve consensus and avoid new conflict due to different views on the outcome of the discussion. : A reliable source is an authoritative source who and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative resources and can confirm the information I add. For example, if I want to add a claim that a scene from a show has become a meme, I need a source that directly describes this meme and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative sources on a given topic. If other users express doubts about this, then I should also initially create a topic on the discussion page, where convincingly demonstrate authority of the source or provide new authoritative sources, instead of using any emotional reverts. This can be done by showing that the source is considered authoritative in its field (for example, it is widely quoted and recognized as authoritative by other objectively authoritative sources), is not in the database of prohibited sources on Wikipedia itself, and is not engaged in the dissemination of unauthoritative or biased information such as conspiracy theories, etc. : I accept your reproach. Instead of drawing conclusions from the warnings of administrators and other users, and correcting any identified problems in my actions, I simply began to argue and complain about other users, although the topic of discussion should have been my behavior, and not transferring blame to other users or or another links to “justice and morality.” Now I understand that in such situations I should have at least adjusted my behavior and discussed in a polite and reasonable tone how I could correct this in the future. As a last resort, consult with familiar users. But definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me. To sum up the above, I ask you to unblock me by demonstrating that I recognize and understand the problems voiced and leading to my blocking. In the future, I promise to resolve any conflicts through constructive dialogue with authoritative sources within the rules on the talk page, avoid any edit wars, and take warnings as an opportunity to stop and correct problems in my actions instead of reacting hostilely to them. I hope that I have adequately answered the questions asked of me and can expect the block to be lifted. But of course, if any additional questions arise for me, I can always answer them.Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Appeal accepted based on the consensus reached at WP:AN-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Solaire the knight, as your appeal has been sitting for some time without review, the blocking admin has agreed to have it moved to the admin's noticeboard for further review. Is that something you would be interested in?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, thanks for your answer! Last time the answer was a few days later, so I was already starting to worry a little. I'm not against it in principle, but will this have any significant differences from the standard procedure? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The benefits of moving the appeal to WP:AN for review is that it can help move the process along quicker as more individuals (not just administrators) can review the history of your block and your appeal. Note, though, that if the majority of editors believe that your appeal should be declined, you will be considered community banned and will only be able to appeal via the ban appeal process in the future.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, thanks for the clarification. Well, I agree anyway. I have no other options, as far as I understand your explanation of my situation. And if I understand correctly, during this time I do not need to give any comments, unless the administrators ask me to comment on some issue? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The editors reviewing your block may have questions for you or want clarification. If this happens, you can reply here on your talk page and someone will move your reply over to the noticeboard on your behalf. Note that you don't have to take this route if you'd rather just wait for an admin to review the appeal here on this page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for your clarification, I'm fine with this. I agree to your proposal, since it will speed up the issue and bring some clarity, which seems better than endless waiting. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I've posted the appeal here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for your help! I will wait for the result, whatever it may be! Solaire the knight (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your appeal has been accepted and I've unblocked your account. Welcome back.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks to you and those who responded! I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I had the night! Solaire the knight (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When starting a new discussion on a talk or WP page, please add it to the bottom. I moved your comment at WP:RSN. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. Thanks for the help and sorry for the mistake. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your genuine interest in content improvement and user discussion to better improve the encyclopedia. You're doing some great work; onward and upward! Panini! • 🥪 17:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This is my first order in English Wikipedia, if I haven't missed anything over the years :). Solaire the knight (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just wanted to give you some recognition for picking up where you left off with everything from the previous block in mind. I've done some stupid stuff too after all. But, because of your interest in self-improvement and amending your mistakes, it's as if the block never happened.

I see you also get some general hate from certain communities that are very WP:OWN-ey with their articles, so try not to let that get you like you've been doing recently. Civil discourse is the best way to go about. Even if it leads to nothing or leads you into a minefield, just stay true to humility and patience and you'll be the better user because of it. Panini! • 🥪 17:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Previously, I also took many things too seriously, but in fact, life seems noticeably easier if you take it more calmly and try to find a compromise in everything. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]