User talk:Mafia godfather

Welcome!

Hello, Mafia godfather, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Mafia godfather)

Hello, Mafia godfather. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mafia godfather, where you may want to participate. Ngchen (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Ngchen (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Sir, I beg you stopping edit war to hold your NPOVs. please read pagesUser_talk:SH9002#May_2010. thank you. SH9002 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop your reverting wars because this has had gone through enough discussions and honestly the discussions brought out far more points and evidences than your examples of discussions. [1] and [2] READ FIRST and then edit. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was you　continuously to revert the text[3][4][5]. Btw, every one had right to join any discussion any time & any where. Wikipedia is open, not your private property, sir. SH9002 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about wikipedia's editing principles(if you know what they are) before you go on talking about how it is for everyone. I reverted you because you were violating rules in the first place.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Government in exile. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ngchen (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 2 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not mind being blocked if I did violate wiki policies with malicious intent. However, I reverted, in good faith, what was an unecessary modification to the article format that has been around for nearly a year and I'd like to respectfully ask the administration to review the article modified by Sh9002 and the edition prior to his change and see where I am coming from. Thanks.

Decline reason:

A wise man once said "War doesn't decide who is right, only who is left." In this case it was mutually assured destruction. Edit warring for any reason is not acceptable. The only exception is blatant vandalism, which this was not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2010 (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.

Although you didn't actually break WP:3RR you have to realise that three reverts is not an entitlement and the spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR will be enforced. Next time you find yourself getting drawn into an edit war, please leave the article alone and move straight to discussion. The advice at WP:BRD may be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you would kindly check the discussion page you would find me to be among the most dilligent participants, if not most, in the discussion. It was not my intention to start an edit war as I was merely defending its integrity from poor formatting, and I want to give the editors benefit of doubt that they are not intentionally ganging on me. But I will take your advice and refrain from engaging in edit war.Mafia godfather (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to humbly request the specific reasons as in why this was not an act of blatant vandalism and request the administrator to please review the facts again. SH9002 originally started editing the page by removing the whole section of a well-cited and evidenced section in the articlegovernment in exile [6] , it was later re-added by T-1000 [7]. SH9002 soon reverted T-1000's contribution [8] by removing the whole section again stating that ROC is a rump state and not a government in exile and offered to discuss this on the discussion page. The deleted portion was reverted back again [9] and editors have been engaged in discussion over the issue. SH9002 insisted on ROC is a rump state[10] despite lack of reference or credible evidence, and also existing concern presented by Readin [11] that the only reference SH9002 can refer to contains original research with poor source. There is an entire section in discussion for this alone [12]. The editor SH9002 refused to provide credible evidence and continue to support the fringe theory with his or her definition of rump state. Not only that, I myself have been subject to various personal attacks by SH9002 and other editors base on my perceived political platform, which I did not raise a flag about. Anyway, SH9002 continued to delete the entire portion on ROC for numerous times. [13], [14], [15], and [16]. The user's objective is to undermine a well evidenced contribution with fringe theory and original research. Not to list his/her later heinous acts of vandalisms, what prompted me to report the user was when he tried to squeeze in the disputed signs inside the frame on the article --[17]. It is not only unattractive, it is redundant for the original format already flagged the article as with existing dispute with the disputed section SHADED. SH9002 really did not have to modify the format the way he proposed. And that is what started the "revert war". Base on his history, I cannot therefore admit that his actions are not to vandalize the article so I persisted on the reversion until I finally reported to administrator because I have had enough. I find it surprising that the administrator would block me for being the first one to cease the reversions(note the EyeSerene stated that I did not technically break the rule. ) and seek admin help. I find it very discouraging.

Decline reason:

adding a disputed tag is hardly vandalism. As far as the rest, TLDR. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2010 (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.

I've restored your unblock request as I assumed you removed it because of the formatting error. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your concerns: Vandalism is generally defined as editing whose intent is clearly to damage a Wikipedia page. What you were engaged in was a content dispute. As EyeSerene noted, 3RR is not an entitlement, you were blocked for edit warring, 3RR is only one specific application of that policy. In the future a better approach (that won't get you blocked) is to request page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution through processes such as requesting a third opinion or requesting general comment from a larger group. As I've already declined one request I'll leave this one for another admin to review. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Given there is already a lengthy discussion on this [18], [19], and [20]. and I really do not feel it was necessaary to request page protection for that would deprive other editors' rights to contribute since the issue in dispute is really just one portion of the whole article. Plus the user repeteadly ERASE the section, I simply felt requesting admin help in blocking him was more appropriate. But I thank you for your explanation and I will comply in the future. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst, seriously? First of all, the fact you did not read the reason before you made the decision is pretty outrageous, considering I only provided the Too-Long statement after I realized my original reasons were not adequate without providing background details, and there you come and dictate it was too long to read? While wiki talks about not wasting admin's time, I honestly do not see how their time can be wasted if they are as "efficient" as you. And finally, this was not about "adding" dispute tag, this was about someone with history of deleting the entire portion on the article maliciously modifying the dispute tags to a place that is rather unappealing, awkward, and redundant for two dispute tags were already in place ORIGINALLY and the disputed section was properly shaded. You would have understood if you spent 2 minutes of your time to read the reason I spent 20 minutes to compile because I thought wiki admins care like Eyeserene and Beeblebrox. No offense, but this is pretty incredibly hard to accept. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Doug Weller talk 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point in calling me an "involved Admin"?

Doug Weller talk 09:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]