en User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau

My Talk page

Poland - country in Central Europe

Hey there! I see both Slovenia and Poland suffer from edits by the same editor claiming that apart from their placement in Central Europe, both are also either Eastern (Poland) or Southeastern (Slovenia) European countries. He seems to have completely altered an array of pages in that regard - placing Austria in Western and Czechia and Slovakia in Central/Eastern Europe. Think anything can be done to prevent him from doing that in the future? Cheers! Øksfjord (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he's edit-warring, he will be blocked. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion notice

Hello, a request for a third opinion has been requested regarding the content dispute you participated in over at Donald Tusk. WordSilent (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. WordSilent (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No error in the 1989 polish parliamentary election

The Electoral system in the 1989 Polish parliamentary election was a Multiple non-transferable vote system; voters had multiple votes, depending on how many seats were there in their constituency. For example, in a constituency which elects two members, a voter had two votes: one for seat A and one for seat B. Glide08 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an example from the actual 1989 election, let's take Electoral District no. 90, which was coterminous with the Suwałki Voivodeship; Constituency 90 had 5 seats, two reserved for the PZPR, one reserved for the ZSL, and two open seats. In Electoral District no. 90, there were 167,810 valid votes cast in the first PZPR seat; 163,759 valid votes cast in the second PZPR seat; 150,196 valid votes cast in the ZSL seat; 162,931 valid votes cast in the first open seat; and 159,709 valid votes cast in the second open seat. This makes the voivodeship-wide total of valid votes 804,405, which was nearly twice the population of the Suwałki Voivodeship at the time (470,600). The reason there were more votes cast than the population was because each voter had multiple votes, one per each seat in the constituency. Glide08 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring report

As you have disregarded the advice to stop edit warring at the 1989 Polish election article, you have been reported here. Number 5 7 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the grammar issue, "elections" is commonly used for a single election and is not grammatically incorrect (see examples here or here). Please respect WP:BRD and stop reverting when your edits are undone. Number 5 7 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have attempted to restart the edit war after the suspension and have been reported here. Glide08 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no restarting, my block referred to formatting of the lede, not removing your unsourced statements from the infobox. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at 1989 Polish parliamentary election. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at 1989 Polish parliamentary election.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. My 7-day block for an edit war over the formatting of the lede of 1989 Polish parliamentary election expired. I conceded that and accepted my block. As Wikipedia says, once a block expires a user is welcome to make useful contributions. Following that advice, I made the useful contribution of removing unsourced material—there was no dispute about it—following WP:V ("Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"). I already conceded the rightful 7-day block, and apologized. And Wikipedia welcomed me to make useful contributions once the block expired. Removing unsourced material may be done at will as per WP:V and is not ground for dispute with the onus being on the bold editor who inserts things without a source. There are 2 discrete and separate issues at hand here and this infobox one is unrelated to the lede-one which earned me that 7-day block. And I swear on the WP. I am a diligent ever-student of Wikipedia Policy and I'm doing my best not to break it, as any good-faith editor should. Considering my concessions where they are due and my earnest following of Wikipedia Policy, I request to be unblocked on these grounds. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying that your edit warring was okay because your edits were correct. That is not a defense, as every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct. If you believe that your edits are in keeping with policy, and others are incorrectly removing them, that is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out, no matter how correct you may be. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2024 (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.

The block he referred to was not exclusively about the lede: out of the seven reverts listed in the initial report, only one (#6) concerned the lede, while the remaining six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7) concerned his removal of the vote figures in the infobox, which are sourced from the published results of the election and the deputies' affiliations, alongside basic knowledge of the electoral law used at the time (multiple non-transferrable vote - i.e. each voter had as many votes as there were seats in the constituencies, ranging between two and five - with seats being reserved to parties in advance).Glide08 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material may be removed without explanation and you cannot restore it, you have to provide an appropriate inline citation. Such is the Wikipedia Policy. You can't persecute a man for a crime he didn't commit. It's that simple. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved reply out of declined unblock requestEducatedRedneck (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did my due diligence. I cannot do a content dispute when blocked from editing. Quite obviously. I would now first request you dear administrators to not punish me with a weird Catch-22 for some reason, as there is no reason to do so, and release a proper Wikipedian who knows his Wikipedia Policy. Thank you very much! FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have 3 blocks this year for edit warring. You clearly have a problem with edit warring, and you don't seem willing to admit it. For an unblock, you would need to convince us that you will not edit war in future. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2024 (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.

Firefangledfeathers blocked Special:contributions/2A00:F41:1C2C:9632:0:0:0:0/64 for one month for block evasion. I was about to do something similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the open request for review should be closed in light of the block evasion attempt. Glide08 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block evade. Weird accusations with no evidence abound. Feeling like I'm part of some witch hunt. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]