User talk:Banzaiblitz

February 2014

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dollar because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Banzaiblitz! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! Jim1138 (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing references

When working with references, I usually like to edit the entire page instead of a section. This allows one to use the "Show preview" and verify what I did is correct before saving the page. The section on references is wp:cite. To reuse a reference say ^[25], find that reference. If it is setup for a named reference, it will look something like this: <ref name="CNN1">[http://cnn.com/yaddayadda.html CNN.com Yadda]</ref> where "CNN1" would suggest the source (in this case CNN) To add another reference using this simply add <ref name="CNN1"/> (note the extra '/'). If it doesn't have the name=, you can add one. The defining name= may go before or after other uses. There are all sorts of tricks and options here (see cite).
Please make sure everything works before saving. Remember, the article is always "live", if you mess something up, it is liable to get undone quickly. Use the "Show preview" to test and check the "References" section as well. Hope this helps. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Empire of Japan 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. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing and edit-warring, which you have resumed first thing after your last unblock..

If you tFut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)hink 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 ~~~~}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted the disputed material at least 7 times in the course of the last few weeks, coming close to 3RR at least once on 19 June (3 reverts) and again yesterday and today (3 reverts). You made not a single contribution to the talkpage during all this time. This edit war was literally the first and only significant piece of editing you did since your unblock in September last year. For me, that is a pretty clear indication you're back at your disruptive editing pattern you were blocked for earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that although I may have came close, I did not violate 3RR, and as soon as I was given a warning I stopped making any further edits to the page. I actually rewrote the entire wikipedia page for the "University of Southern California" in Japanese Wikipedia (link = http://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%AB%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A2%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6), adding constructive edits for a full year, since 7/26/19 until the most recent edit in April of this year, that have stayed on the page to this day. As you can see, I have learned my lesson, and have been careful not to violate any rules of wikipedia. Even so, as I have stated, I will heed the warning and refrain from anything that may resemble edit-warring in the future. Banzaiblitz (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. 3RR is a bright line to cross, but you can be edit warring with fewer reverts within 24 hours, or more reverts over a longer period than 24 hours. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to abide by WP:1RR and avoid topics about and around the Empire of Japan. However, like I stated, this was my first warning in 7 years, and the original ban by Future Perfect was based on a misunderstood presumption that I had not been editing constructively in the past year, which I have shown evidence of the contrary above. This is the only occasion that I have been involved in an edit war in the last year that I have been editing -- I refrained from editing immediately after being reminded of the rules and given a warning by Binksternet. As much time has passed since the original ban in 2014, I am requesting forgiveness and a judgement as if I had a clean slate. I will refrain from any edit-warring in the future. Banzaiblitz (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @331dot: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Binksternet: I believe that my editing history over the past year is evidence enough that I've changed. As aforementioned, it has been 7 years since my last warning -- I was a mere child then. Although I would like to request a clean slate in terms of judgement, I understand if that is not possible -- I am simply requesting that you go into Japanese wikipedia or the the article above and see the improvements that I have made over the past year; of which there are great many. It is a far cry from the truth that this was my first instance of editing since my return, and I am certain that a simple warning or at most a 24-hour ban would have sufficed to remind me of the intricacies in the rules of wikipedia. I am by no means deflecting the blame; rather, I am shedding light and clarifying a point that is important, in that I have been editing wikipedia without any issues for almost a full year since my return. I am sorry, and I will never come close to making this mistake again. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Please reference above. The original block was based on the incorrect assumption that I have not been editing wikipedia constructively in the past year, which I have proven otherwise. If this was any other account, I have reason to believe that a simple warning (which was what Binksternet did, and I obliged immediately) or at most a 24-hour ban would have been instated instead. I believe that I am being unfairly judged by what I did 7 years ago as a child, an action that I have atoned for with a 5-year ban on editing Wikipedia. I recognize that this was a serious mistake and I am owning up to it -- however, please understand why I feel that an indefinite ban for the first offense in almost a decade is unjust, especially as I have been a very active and constructive member of the Wikipedia community ever since my return. Banzaiblitz (talk) Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Further to our discussion below, I have unblocked you with the following indefinite restriction: 1 revert per day and the requirement to discuss all reverts on the article's talk page, with the following exceptions, a) reverting obvious vandalism or b) obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. $Salvio$ 07:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @331dot: @Binksternet: Can one of you confirm that you are receiving these notifications? With all due respect. I went through the blocking guide, but I am still unsure what the protocol is regarding a second appeal, and I am hoping that I am not in any way breaking the rules or hindering my chances of my voice and opinion being heard. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see it each time you ping me. Regarding your current block, to me it looks like it's more about your recent edit-warring at Empire of Japan than it is for stuff you did years ago. When you found opposition at Empire of Japan last month you never took your concerns to Talk:Empire of Japan which is what you were supposed to do. Instead you repeatedly hammered in your preferred version, arguing with everybody in your edit summaries. You even had the temerity to tell someone else they should take it to the talk page despite the fact that you never did so yourself.[1] Please read WP:BRD to see what is expected of you. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that the ping system is working. I agree that something I did years ago should not be a major factor in this indefinite block, but I am afraid that this is still the case. Judging by the comments that I have been receiving, it seems that the others did not see the evidence that I have been editing wikipedia constructively for a year since my return -- I have referenced it in a clearer way below. Again, I recognize the mistakes that I've made and I will promise never to make them again, but I am requesting an impartial analysis of this, for all intents and purposes, isolated incidence. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: " atoned for with a 5-year ban on editing Wikipedia."

Seems to me you went back to what you were doing. You have an unblock request in this page already. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Re: evidence you have changed? Sorry. Not seeing it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. He told another editor, "This is your last warning -- please start a talk page instead of WP: Edit Warring or you will be at risk of being banned from further edits...." We can see from his edit history that Banzaiblitz did not start a talk page conversation himself, which makes his threat ironic. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: @Binksternet: Please refer to this page for the evidence that I have changed, which I have also referenced above. http://ja.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%E5%8D%97%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%AB%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A2%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6&offset=&limit=100&action=history As you can see, I have pages upon pages of constructive edits just on this particular page. As for the aforementioned occasion, that user continued to revert my edits, approaching 3RR first -- however, I will apologize and admit that I should not have continued to revert his reverts. This was my first occasion of edit-warring in a year of making constructive edits, and I am sorry for making this mistake. I very clearly had a misinformed view on the rules of Wikipedia and I will never make this mistake again. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: @Deepfriedokra: @Yamla: @331dot: What do you guys think about the evidence that I have presented? I feel that an indefinite block is unreasonably punitive as I do not feel that it is fair that my actions are being linked to a mistake I made almost a decade ago. Moreover, judging by the first response, this block was, at least partly, originally based on the fact that I had not been editing constructively since my return and I have provided evidence that shows otherwise. Please let me know if you guys have issues viewing my over 300+ edits in the past year just on that page alone. This was, for all intents and purposes, an isolated incident stemming from my misunderstanding of the rules of Wikipedia (I failed to recognize that merely approaching 3RR can lead to a block -- I should've known otherwise) and I can promise that I will never make the same mistake again. Banzaiblitz (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it best to defer to @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, who as I see it, placed this block. However, I think you have not addressed the problem, and that was edit warring. Help us out here. What should you have done and what would you do instead of edit warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Deepfriedokra: I should've never approached 3RR, and if there was any dispute I should've created an entry in the talk page before engaging in an edit war on the actual page. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that is not it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Deepfriedokra: I should have never edit warred in the first place. Instead of performing aggressive edits and reverts, I should've started a talk page entry on the topic at hand so that I could resolve the dispute there instead of making further edits on the page. I would engage in a civil discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring on the page itself, and make ensure that we could reach a consensus on the talk page before making any further edits on the actual page. Banzaiblitz (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock. Enough time has passed to consider a second chance. Calm, concise answer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Banzaiblitz, I am willing to unblock, as long as you confirm you'll abide by the following restriction: 1 revert per day and the requirement to discuss all reverts on the article's talk page, with the following exceptions, a) reverting obvious vandalism or b) obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. $Salvio$ 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Yes. Whilst I had hoped that my comments over my 2-week ban would've shown that this was, for all intents and purposes, an isolated incidence, I ultimately understand and am fully willing to abide by these restrictions. Will there be a time frame for these restrictions, or will it be an indefinite restriction? Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my case. Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction would be indefinite, which, in Wikipedia parlance, does not mean infinite. If, in six months, there have been no problems, you can come to my talk page and I'll consider lifting it (or, alternatively, go to WP:AN, if you prefer a more "formal" discussion).

Salvio

08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano:Understood. Thank you. Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]