User talk:Boyar Bran

Boyar Bran, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Boyar Bran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Basarab I of Wallachia[edit]

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. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by User:Drmies because he said that I didn't reach consensus with the other users[3]. The other users were: User:Shakshak31 (that himself was blocked for edit warring on the same wikipage); Borsoka and KIENGIR are probably friends and are cooperating. HistoryofIran, although not involved directly, he reported previously Shakshak31, resulting in Shakshak31 getting banned. HistoryofIran said that removing my sourced material is wrong. So far I am not editing against consenus, yet I've been banned. You cannot say there's a consensus between a banned user and 2 other "confidante" users. Please look very closely into the matter! Politics are invovled and me getting banned would mean Wikipedia is also politically implied. There's nothing stopping me from reaching to the press. Bran (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are so many things wrong with this appeal I barely know where to begin. First, you are not banned, you are blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. Second, you cannot write off editors who disagree with you as being in cahoots with each other without significant evidence. Thirdly, threatening retaliation for being blocked is a non-starter for appeals and will nearly always lead to an automatic decline. If you will be posting another appeal, it's imperative your review WP:GAB prior to doing so.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:51, 1 December 2020 (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.