Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ligier European Series. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However please be more specific if you see it somewhere for me to fix it. Thanks. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make inappropriate or abusive edit summaries or comments, as you did at Ligier European Series, you may be blocked from editing. MSport1005 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you in anything. I just asked don't you a same person. That's not an WP:ACCUSEation (which is statement) any way but just a question you still didn't answer. So are you? Or you are not? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Ligier European Series

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more detailed about what do you mean? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content without a reasonable explanation as to why. 135.180.130.195 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific where exactly I did it? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 83.142.111.65! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2024 Ligier European Series several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2024 Ligier European Series, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be alittle more specific about what exactly do you mean? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.135.180.130.195 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Ligier European Series and 2024 Ligier European Series.

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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Consensus is what exactly I trying to achieve like:

• in process/Articles' merge instead of deletion proposition
• silenced/made a suggestion
• silenced/asking what exactly I was accused for by editors accusing me in something not obvious, but it is still silent
• silenced/asking what exactly I was accused for by editors accusing me in something not obvious, but it is still silent
• in process/about what to mean as press release at all of about Ligier European Series articles,
• successfully resolved/2020 Ligier European Series content dispute
• silenced/complaint about editwarring
• silenced/complaint about editwarring
• silenced/about neutrality issue at 2024 Ligier European Series

Block was not needed as I always seek for WP:consensus except when already undisputable global have place like WP:V WP:OR WP:NOT etc. In that cases I always comment my edits in detail if it can be counted as questionable to be clear about what exactly I do and why.

83.142.111.65 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block was appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2025 (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.

83.142.111.65 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are 100% right, WP:3RR is a bright-line policy. You broke it on not one but two articles today. That is not seeking consensus, that is edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger Thank you for your comment.

I won't argue to editwarring as that's quite unknown and unsure substance according to WP:3RR (1st of my argue is I didn't literally revert something as is more then 3 times for the last day but I also can counter-argue to myself about 'admin can deal... if he feel... even it still not over 3 times') and, as I got, it's a bad idea to ask why my Vis-à-vises not also've been blocked, but what I have to ask - how to deal when 3 different editors with same almost the same behaviour editing the same topic returning one other's contribution after my edits in fact attack me on these pages (as one cross-attack me on any connected discussions) actually formally bypassing the restrictions of WP:3RR but putting me exactly under them (as I have to deal with all three and dispite with all them separately) if even after my complaints to administrators ([1], [2] their same way WP:WAR behaviour was no way evaluated but I (who complainted) exactly is being blocked?

Don't even talking I didn't start the WP:WAR (yeah, I know, I can be 100% right but... whatever) isn't punushment of involved to the WP:WAR have to be at least equivalent? At least i.e. according to the WP:EQUAL (I know that's an essay, but still)?

I can wait blocked until tomorrow, but I still would like to know how to effectively deal when discussion does not help (they just silence such my requests), WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT being violated by them, and when I requesting for admins assistance I become the one who's being blocked? That's some kind of loophole or recursion but no way comfortable environment for constrtuctive editing.

As I just can't be the 3 different persons and can't find my own twins by contribution to deal the same as these 3 editors, who's making exactly the same contribution.

Can you please suggest? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody 'silenced your requests'. When you make a bold edit, and you are reverted, you then discuss. You don't start an edit war, then come out with multiple accusations of bad faith on the part of editors reverting you, then when you get a reaction from those bad-faith accusations resuming the edit-war. You start a neutral, good-faith discussion, explaining why you believe the edits were made were appropriarte instead of accusing other editors right out of the gate, and then wait for the discussion to take place, even if that takes several days or even weeks. Also many of the "silenced" comments above are you asking "what do you mean" when the warnings you were querying were, in fact, quite obvious. And note that blocks are preventative, not punishments - the fact you were continuing to edit-war made this block necessary, and the fact you still don't quite seem to understand this means it should remain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger I didn't try to use my concerns to somehow affect unblock request for it to be covered by WP:NOTTHEM as said initially I won't argue about editwar. All I wanted is exactly what I told - to know how exactly have I act to effectively contributing in exact situations not invented by me but are factual.

1. Talking about WP:BOLD is unclear what is it exactly. I.e.is it or just improvement tagging bold enough to be covered by WP:BRD amd discussed for a months or the years starting right after being reverted before still being made from your POV?
2. Obvious for whom? Do you accuse me again in what about have no any facts to provide? If it was so obvious, can you please tell me what my contribution was meant i.e. here? Didn't you ever read what is WP:CONSENSUS and how to achieve it? Didn't you accuse me in I don't do it? And it appears that I really do. So why haven't I request it from others? A clear messages, and not some empty frightening only?
3. It's not clear what do you mean under "beginning" of edit warring? Does it first revert of some newly contribution or first revert of such revert (as even WP:WAR is not clear about it)? That's crucial for understanding about what you mean under "You don't start an edit war".

I can agree (despite you didn't tell it) that's not a time when I blocked to discuss such things, but I hope you'll have enough time tomorrow to still answer me when I'll not be counted (won't you block that IP also to just punish me for writing here ostensibly "for avoding a block"?) as blocked already without so much aggro you expressing on me right now despite expected to be a role model.

And finally if you tell "blocks are preventative, not punishments" and you on your own admitted that I do discuss problems (and, in fact, do not fight about discussed content [which is now only about "what to tag as press release" and no way any global policies] at this time). what exactly did you prevent about (and not punish for) by blocking me? And what will change tomorrow if you don't want to give me a clear answer to my questions regarding a block just avoiding it?

And you still didn't answer how have I deal with constant cross-attacks from 3 different editors both in the articles and discussions. As one as still not clear about why me only was blocked (despite not me who started such an editwarring). Hope you'll have time to answer it in detail later also. That obviously will help me make much less mistakes (and therefore make you nervous much less).

See you tomorrow. Or in a week (as who knows how you will react on my block WP:CONACHIEVE with you)? 83.142.111.2 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, no one answered your questions on this talk page because they didn't know you'd said anything. You need to ping other editors, or go to their talk pages, to be sure that they'll see your comments. Having an account makes this much easier, so I suggest getting one once your block is over. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering thanks for a suggestion - I'd never had a clue about that - I thought every registered user who's being answered to his post (via reply) is being pinged automatically. Ok, I'll try to do as you say hoping it will really help to fresh a silenced discussions. 83.142.111.2 (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We get notifications if we're subscribed to the discussion, and some editors watchlist things and check their watchlists very carefully, but those template warnings you received don't automatically subscribe discussions or watchlist pages. The only thing you can be really sure someone will see is a message on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Yep, that exactly what I heard of - the subscription or (as I heard) "tracking" of a page. Now I got it's not always automatically and therefore pinging is best option here to be sure.

As of talk page - yep - I know - that's only page I have notification about (even pinging does not work for me to receive a notify, that just a few editors, including administrators, understand, thinking if they pinged me I already received a notification and have to answer their such a "call" for sure, and I'm "ignoring" them from their POV when I don't even know they meant to call me to some discussion).

Thank you again. Will go to serve a sentence ;) (someone said I have no write anything even on my talk page when "blocked" so I'll better avoid to provoke someone for even more aggressive actions towards me).

But I'll read (tome to time)!

See you tomorrow ))) 83.142.111.2 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your questions (as best as I can make them out); (1) If you just tag an article, and another editor simply removes the tag without improvement or comment, then replacing the tag is appropriate. If they give a relevant reason for removing the tag, either through improvement or in an edit summary, then it should be moved to discussion. Actual editing, if it is reverted in good faith (i.e. not as vandalism as defined by Wikipedia), should follow BRD - content that is added or removed, and then reverted, should see discussion on the article talk page before being reinstated or re-removed, and absolutely before more than reinstating/re-removing once. (2) Those could, likely, have been clearer, it's true, but the thing is is someone says "you are disrupting Wikipedia with your actions", the thing is to stop whatever you have been doing and ask for clarification, not just ask but keep pressing on. (3) Edit-warring is peforming multiple reverts. three is a bright line but you can edit-war with even a single one - it's hard to precisely define, in many ways "lesser" edit wars are "I know it when I see it", which may not be ideal but we don't live in an ideal world. The thing is that you, as noted, were past the bright-line three reverts on multiple articles despite attempts to discuss - the attempting discussion is good, but you don't attempt discussion and continue the actions being discussed. The fact you were continuing to make the edits (edit-warring) despite multiple other editors contesting them and despite attempting the discussion is why you were blocked. Even if your edits are 100% based in policy (not judging if they were or weren't, here, but in general), you don't continue to press edits while also making discussion, you start the discussion and then wait for the discussion to play out. The only exceptions to the three-revert rule are detailed in WP:3RRNO - in most editors' experience, the only relevant exceptions will be #4 (outright, obvious vandalism) and #7 (BLP violations), which this wasn't either of.

As for your question as to why the other editors weren't blocked, it's quite simple: you pressed past 3RR, on multiple articles, while they did not. It can be frustrating, when this happens, but as a general rule if multiple other editors are contesting your actions, that's a point to step back and ask if your edits are, in fact, improving the encyclopedia; to fix a cup of tea (or your beverage of choice!); think for a bit; then come back to the computer and start a discussion.

It's clear you're here in good faith, and simply mis-stepped here out of eagerness to improve things. That's honestly good - we need more inspired editors here on Wikipedia. Just all of us (including myself!) need to remember that Wikipedia is not a place for angry mastodons - it's a humourously-themed essay but it makes a good point. Once your block expires, if the issues on the pages remain, take a deep breath, go to the talk page, and explain what your concerns with the content are. Not with the contributors - it's easy to think everybody else is editing wrong, even or especially if you're certain you're right, but sometimes a surprise can come up once a discussion begins. Express the concerns with the content and what you desire to do about it, and then sit back and let the discussion percolate for a couple of days. There is no deadline for improving Wikipedia, and letting things play out is usually the best way to achieve a good consensus and improve the encylopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, your block is over now, so you're free to edit - good luck out there! I just wanted to encourage you to get an account, since I've noticed that you were replying from a different IP address than this one earlier. If you have an account, it's much easier to keep track of the discussions you're in, since you'll have one centralized talk page no matter how your IP cycles around. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]