2602:306:CC8F:65A0:71A0:15A:89B8:F150

I will not tell you again, STOP being disruptive. Kala Kato are NOT Yan Tatsine. The Yan Tatsine were from the 70's and 80's. Kala Kato are a militant group which have been on the news for their jihadist attacks. Stop with your nonsense. And stop lying.

That's what ****I**** said! Kala Kato is not Yan Tatsine. So why do you keep making an article about Kala Kato about Yan Tatsine instead? Yan Tatsine has its own wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Tatsine

Put the content about Yan Tatsine over there!

STOP REMOVING sources of Kala Kato.

The unexplained removal of sourced content by 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:71A0:15A:89B8:F150 will continue being removed.

The content is sourced, but it's not relevant to the article.

• Bulleted list item

Blocked

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Work it out on the article's talk page. Continued edit warring will result in increased duration blocks and page protection to prevent further disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

2602:306:CC8F:65A0:71A0:15A:89B8:F150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was arbitrarily blocked by Anachronist for "edit warring". However, it takes two to "edit war" and the person I was supposedly "edit warring" with was not similarly blocked. Anachronist advised that we "work it out" in the article's talk page. Before I was blocked, I actually did write an extensive explanation of my good faith edits in the Kala Kato talk page. But we can't "work it out" if my edit warring partner refuses to give any explanation of his edits in the talk page as well. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:71A0:15A:89B8:F150 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have given no indication that you would not resume edit warring. Contrarily, you seem to indicate that you see no alternative. There are alternatives. Please spend your time reviewing the relevant links in the block notice. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Just because you might be right

does not excuse edit warring. If you cannot attain consensus, you pursue dispute resolution, get a third opinion, hold an RfC. You don't continue to revert. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't "edit war" with myself, Dlohcierekim. And I tried to "attain consensus" in the talk page even before Anachronist suggested it. But, much like "edit warring," I can't do that by myself either. Now you want me to jump through a second and third hoop? No, thank you! I made some good faith edits when I saw patently false information in some Wikipedia articles. However, I don't intend to spend the rest of my days trying to correct it. I'm not going to "continue to revert," but I'm not going to jump through anyone's hoops either. Maybe someone else will come along and correct it, maybe not. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:71A0:15A:89B8:F150 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You were edit warring on Quranism and you have contributed nothing to Talk:Quranism. It's pretty clear. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, I watched this happening an hour or so ago and was wondering what to do; there were interesting questions about content, but I did not think myself knowledgeable enough to get involved. I think the IP is of good faith, and Quranism certainly hasn't brought anything to the table on the talk page (had you blocked them as well I wouldn't have complained). IP, you weren't edit warring with yourself, but no one said you were. You should have stopped. Now you're blocked, which is a pity, because now you can't bring this up on some noticeboard--it seems important enough. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, the noticeboards seem like a lot of hassle. And, like I said, I would prefer not to spend the rest of my days trying to correct some info on a few Wikipedia articles. Also, they seem to not accept requests from editors with dynamic IPs. I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in a while, but I used to have an account several years ago. But its been so long that I can't remember the password to it. If at all possible, I would like to resolve this dispute on the Kala Kato talk page (hopefully, before the end of the weekend). However, Quranism will not engage me there, and he even deleted my initial comment. He just continues to make the same dubious edits he's made before. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:58F6:4F4E:4CE1:CE78 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Not for the next 72 hours. I suggest you look around on other articles, and relevant Wikiprojects, and look for an editor or two who seem to have some content knowledge. (If I knew who to look for, I'd tell you.) Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to find some other editors over the weekend on the Kala Kato, Yan Tatsine, and Maitatsine articles who might have some additional input. These are not particularly well known groups, however. There's not a lot a people who know about them. And Quranism and I seem to the only ones who have recently edited articles related to them. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:58F6:4F4E:4CE1:CE78 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unblocked you, with the expectation that you will cease your reverts and engage in discussion. I honestly did not notice another page in which you had a dispute, and there was nothing on Talk:Kala Kato except a one line comment... which I see had been removed by user Quranism. Seems that user is in need of a warning, and I will block both if disruption resumes. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh. My reply is mooted now. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Quranism could use a block. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Well... that might be punitive rather than preventive. I thought about blocking Quranism when unblocking this IP, but was hesitant to do so until I saw any resumption of disruption after the warnings Quranism has received (on the user's talk page and here). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Anachronist, thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

---