User talk:PerelmanMorales

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, PerelmanMorales, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to San Siro seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —SMALL JIM 17:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Arsenal F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PerelmanMorales reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sport and politics (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Arsenal F.C.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Katie^talk 18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had only one single Wikipedia account for 6 years and that was Suitcivil133 until I was unfairly blocked and treated for upholding a consensus and sticking to sources. This unfair ban made me create this user and that's it.

This is what another moderator has to say about that dispute in the Spanish Football Records page.

(UTC)|decline=Sockpuppetry seems to be common on that article, including from you - something you have not addressed. Also, I just checked old versions of the article from 2014 and 2012, and lo and behold, they both agreed with the other party, not with you. So you were the one reverting away fron the last version which was agreed upon by many users before the current dispute. Huon (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And I'm going to say the same here: Sockpuppetry seems to be common on that article, including from you. Two wrongs does not make a right. Also, being right in a content dispute is no excuse for edit warring, nor for block evasion. Besides, request the unblock from the original account; sockpuppets are not unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (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.

So it turns out that I was right all the way yet I was treated unfairly and the only reason that I created this user during my 1 month ban was because my opponent had been using several users for several years unlike me!

I had only one single Wikipedia account for 6 years and that was Suitcivil133 until I was unfairly blocked and treated for upholding a consensus and sticking to sources. This unfair ban made me create this user and that's it.

This is what another moderator has to say about that dispute in the Spanish Football Records page.

(UTC)|decline=Sockpuppetry seems to be common on that article, including from you - something you have not addressed. Also, I just checked old versions of the article from 2014 and 2012, and lo and behold, they both agreed with the other party, not with you. So you were the one reverting away fron the last version which was agreed upon by many users before the current dispute. Huon (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)}}

I have essentially been banned for upholding a consensus while using primary sources against an opponent who had been using several sockpuppets for numerous years for destructive purposes unlike me. This is highly unfair and it is remarkable that the moderators could not take a firm stand in the beginning of the dispute and take my side which is and has always been the correct side in this dispute. When I got banned with Suitcivil133 my opponent began using his sockpuppets to continue his destructive edits on several pages which forced me to create this user (my second user) as the moderators were ignoring my pleas. This is an unfair ban as I am no troll but a Wikipedia editor for 6 years.

@Ymblanter: , @Sir Sputnik: , @Mark Arsten:, @Huon:

Help me out here. Ban me for a few months but forever is too harsh for my "crimes". I want to keep contributing to Wikipedia. PerelmanMorales (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

--PerelmanMorales (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]