User talk:Amtsrbh32

Justin Gaethje[edit]

Hi Amtsrbh32, good day. pls not e that your edits on the above page have reverted the 2nd time. Pls read WP:Lead (intro) to understand that the info you added does not belong there. The info had already added in the body text - see [[Justin Gaethje|UFC interim Lightweight Champion and further title contention] at the last paragraph. Pls do not add the info back. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. but please understand that the info provided should be proper. BMF is not a symbolic belt. it is a proper championship. Gaethje is defending the belt is also a fact and therefore becoming the first fighter to do so. Please do not hide the facts. In UFC, BMF championship is considered a proper champinship. It is not symbolic. Thank You. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AAmtsrbh32, Thank you for the message; however, BMF is a symbolic belt and not a championship belt which is only created by UFC after Diaz suggested that. Cassiopeia talk 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you but a symbolic belt simply means a one time belt good for nothing yes it came out of diaz vs masvidal fight but it is not a symbolic belt as the belt has been used for main event 5 round fights. UFC never called it a symbolic belt and now it is being defended not to forget that it continued after masvidal. it holds all the benefits of being a champion. therefore it is not a symbolic belt. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you but it is a symbolic belt and not a championship belt. Cassiopeia talk 12:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree there with you as it is a proper belt. i can back my argument with proof. The organization (UFC) that created the belt does not call it a symbolic belt then we also should not. so it is not a symbolic belt. with due respect, end of argument. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the page is about justin therefore why disregard or push down his achievements? with due respect it appears as if you are ademant with your idea without backing it with anything. Page is about justin not you. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see independent, reliable sources -[here title message - "Symbolic title" (pls note UFC is considered not independent nor reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines.). Cassiopeia talk 09:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cassiopeia is engaged in edit war not me. the user is adament on rejecting a fact. i have provided arguments and proof to. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are multiple editors reverting you. Perhaps you should address their concerns. The WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for your change, not to force it by edit warring. If you re-instate your edit again, you will be blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these multiple editors should submit the proof of their argument that BMF is a symbolic belt. if not then should simple accept that it is a proper belt in UFC. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i will re-instate my edit as it is the correct information about the fighter concerned. i am cocerned with the correct info with proof not with other editors and they majoritarian opinion Amtsrbh32 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You won't; I have now removed the automatic 24-hour expiry from the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good going with your dictatorial tendencies. i will challenge the block. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally refused to block you but good luck with that approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blocking an editor for providing proper information and then telling to not put the case Amtsrbh32 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make a point clear: Administrators don't care about your content dispute, who's right or who's wrong. Our job is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project. The block is intended to prevent further instability due to edit-warring. Because you have insisted that you will continue to edit-war, the expiry for your block has been removed.

You do, of course, have the right to challenge this block. The appeal instructions are in your block message. Be advised that any appeal grounded in your perceived "correctness" in the content dispute, or the behavior of other editors will fall on deaf ears. This block is about you, and your appeal must reflect that in order to convince an administrator that unblocking you will not result in further disruption. As the blocking administrator, I will not be evaluating your appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in future, I will not engage in any edit war and wait for others to understand the information or view point. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amtsrbh32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, in future, I will not engage in any edit war and wait for others to understand the information or view point.Amtsrbh32 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Okay, as discussed below. The block does not longer prevent you from esiting any page other than the article about Justin Gaethje. You can discuss the article at Talk:Justin Gaethje and request changes there using {{edit partially-blocked}}. In two weeks, the block will be completely gone, but this does not allow you to continue making the same changes / edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amtsrbh32 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If waiting is all you propose to do in case of a disagreement, why would an unblock make any difference to your current waiting situation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by wait i mean to have a conversation around a conflict and if it is not resolved then i should go with the opinion of ohter editors and should not engage in edit war. so i appeal my block to be removed. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the original 24 hours have expired and the remaining block is only mine, I'll probably remove/reduce it to allow you to discuss at Talk:Justin Gaethje (or to disengage, which can sometimes actually be the best approach). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i am disengaged from the conversation. kindly remove the block as my account is still blocked. Amtsrbh32 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: No objection from me. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]