User talk:DoctorWhutsup

Welcome!

Hi DoctorWhutsup! I noticed your contributions to Proxy war 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

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kievan Rus', did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have been told several times on multiple articles about changing Ukrainian names. Please listen and stop that type of editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Mellk (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have opened a topic at WP:ANI#User:DoctorWhutsup and "anti-Russia"? edits regarding your recent behaviour across several articles. Please have a look (and have your say).

Ostalgia (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing to add. Block was completely justified and I have no arguments here. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Kievan Rus', you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the same content that has been restored before numerous times. Both edits does not make any sense, and one goes CLEARLY against any historical facts whatsoever. Unfortunately, that does not mean anything to some people, just as rules of Wikipedia dont. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that does not mean anything to some people, just as rules of Wikipedia dont. You made 4 reverts within 24 hours (and a 5th one just after 24 hours) which is a violation of WP:3RR, and you were previously blocked for edit warring not too long ago. I am not sure why you were not blocked now. Mellk (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because rules clearly state that the block is optional and up to an admin?

I am not sure why me being blocked or not makes any difference to YOU, though. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because such edits are considered disruptive. Mellk (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight.

If I were to visit, say, the Kingdom of France`s page, and add Aachen or Mainz as "first capital" based on some incoherent crap that has no historical evidence to stand on whatsoever, - removing it is something you would consider "disruptive"?

I am sorry, do you have some mental problems I am not aware of? Cause if you do, I apologize but you do sound like an idiot. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to revert 5 different editors (removing sourced content) without using the talk page, then yes it is considered disruptive no matter how right you think you are. You also did not mention your reverts were not just about the capital. But considering the personal attacks now, it sounds like you are asking for admin attention? Mellk (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is literally not considered disruptive, this is just your opinion, no matter how right you think you are.

You also did not mention the quality of these "sources" and whether or not this particular edit could even be qualified as sourced content.

But considering that you are on my talk page with utterly ridiculous accusations, it sounds like you have something against me personally?

P.S. Another edit is sorted out already, I am continuing discussing it on the talk page. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violating 3RR is definitely disruptive. As WP:EW states: 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. Do you want to claim you did not violate 3RR? Claiming the sources are not good enough is not an exemption. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we were not talking about violating 3RR, were we?

Do not try to weasel your way out of answering, please.

We were discussing how it is that my edits are "considered disruptive." You did not say anything about them being made at inappropriate time, you were concerned about them being made AT ALL.

Let me quote you: "If you decide to revert 5 different editors (removing sourced content) without using the talk page, then yes it is considered disruptive"

Thus, I claim that your concern about this question does not come from your desire to protect Wikipedia, it comes from your desire to block me, is it not? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment here said you violated 3RR. Please read WP:DE if you do not understand what it means. Mellk (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comment has nothing to do with the turn this discussion took later on.

Furthermore, I perfectly understand what does it mean, thanks.

My edits do not qualify as such, since they did not disrupt progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia; if anything, they speed up this progress.

It seems that YOU have no idea what disruptive editing is. Maybe read your own link? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS might help you out. Though I think the issue here is WP:CIR. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It does not help out at all since none of my edits fits any of those signs listed.

2. Unfortunately, what you think matters nothing to me.

If you wanted to provoke rudeness by stating that removing clear historical fake shows incompetence, then I will have to dissapoint you. This only shows your level of competence (more specifically, the absense of such), not mine.

3. Do you have any more nonsense accusations to share with me, or can I hope that you will leave my talk page and go bother somebody else? As far as I recall, there is certain rule about being hostile to newcomers. Do YOU want admin attention? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose everyone who reverted you and warned you, in your own words, have some mental problems, but please go ahead. Mellk (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now you are openly twisting my words and literally lying. Are going to hit any points LOWER or are you done? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You made a personal attack against me by asking if I have mental problems (which I suggest you strikethrough) because I called your editing disruptive. But I am not the only editor who called your editing disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you were.

Asking if you have mental problems is not a personal attack, its a legit question. You are acting quite weird right now - if, of course, we are to assume you are acting on behalf of the community and not because you personally dont like me (which I think IS the case).

Furthemore, I asked that not because you "called my editing disruptive" - like I said, stop twisting my words and stop lying, please.

The problem is not calling my edits disruptive, its how and why you do it. Another user called them disruptive because I intervened without realizing there is a discussion on the talk page going on regarding this very issue. He was quite on point, cause in this case, I WAS disruptive.

As of now, however, you have failed miserably in explaining as to why my edits are disruptive. So, in terms of nonsense, yes, you pretty much ARE the only editor who called my editing disruptive.

Moreover, apart from dragging on this entitely counterproductive conversation, you clearly seem to provoke me into something you can pinpoint to admins later on.

Like I said, I will not give you the satisfaction. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DoctorWhutsup. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Kievan Rus'. 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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:{{unblock|reason=Also, I would like to notify you that the user who had me reported have also lied about the course of interaction. That did not explain anything to me excpet for calling my editing disruptive for no reason (to which I had responded with sardonical reply). Only then they had started to try and explain at least something. [[User:DoctorWhutsup|DoctorWhutsup]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhutsup#top|talk]]) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)}} [[User:DoctorWhutsup|DoctorWhutsup]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhutsup#top|talk]]) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I would like to say that a block is no longer necessary, albeit justified. I did what I did with one reason only: to protect content from being abused. I do not understand how my editing - that prevented adding false information to the article in question - is disruptive to the process of improving Wikipedia. Moreover, I was blocked when I just joined WIkipedia and did not understand all the rules at that very moment. I think there is a rule about hostility towards newcomers, does it not apply to all newcomers? To sum up, like I said, I recognize that blocking me for edit warring is justified as I really did not care about proper procedure at that moment. However, if an admin that blocked me will insist on topical ban, I will argue that decision as completely unjustified. At least explain WHAT my editing has actually disrupted, apart from being poorly timed. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. You aren't a newbie. Indeed, you've been blocked for violating WP:EW before, back in September. We expect you clearly understand WP:EW as a result of that prior block. You should also review WP:GAB to understand what we look for in an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 18:13, 17 February 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, DW, I'm going to recommend to you that when you make changes at any article, if multiple other editors are reverting your edits, you go to the article talk page and start discussing until you achieve consensus for whatever change you want to make. You can ask for further input at appropriate noticeboards and projects, but if consensus ends up against you, you'll have to accept that. If you can't, this block won't be lifted, and the next one is likely to be for longer, as a third instance of edit warring in only 141 edits is likely to be seen as chronic disruptive editing. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I REALLY need to review the rules one more time. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]