Well, that's unfortunate. When I unblocked you ([1]), I made very clear that a condition of your unblock was that you may not revert any edit more than once, and also that Please note that this is a final chance, and that any violation of these conditions or other disruption is likely to lead to the indefinite block being reinstated without further warning, and you stated your agreement to these conditions. At Sakhalin, you made three edits which at least partially removed the same disputed material each time from the lead section ([2], [3], [4]), so I'm afraid you blew that final chance, and I am reinstating the indefinite block. I believe by now you are familiar with the process for appealing a block, but if you need to refresh your memory, that's at the guide to appealing blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for working with me. I am willing to self-revert any of my edits if they violate my unblock conditions. My interaction with the editor led to a situation where the editor said "the last edit seems benign, even preferred". The earliest edit was part of a removal of several similar additions of Chinese characters to the lead sections of Russian articles a while back- I link to another article where I make a similar edit. The more recent edit concerning simplified/traditional was about a specific argument related to what should be displayed in the lead section as historically connected to the subject matter for the article. The third edit is described by the other editor in this way: "the last edit seems benign, even preferred", and the content is still up and not removed, but moved to a more appropriate location. Can you see how I might think this is acceptable behavior within the scope of the unblock conditions? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From that, I can see what you were thinking, but it still wasn't within it. You still removed the same material from the lead three times, and you still agreed you weren't going to do that any more. The agreement was not "I won't revert more than once unless I'm really convinced I'm right", nor even "I won't revert more than once unless it convinces someone else I'm right". You agreed not to do that any more, and you did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for your help man. I understand what you're saying, and I apologize if I abused your trust in me. I guess they really are reverts, so I didn't fulfil your conditions. I want to try to unblock again, so I will make my request here. Thanks for your efforts working with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geographyinitiative (talk • contribs)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

After several years, I got unblocked from Wikipedia. It was awesome, and I was making great strides in my area of expertise. But unfortunately, I accidentally violated a condition for my unblock: I had a 1RR limit and did two reverts- one partial, and one that moved the content to another part of the article- that I thought were good faith work on the page. The other editor involved said "the last edit seems benign, even preferred". I think my recent edits both on Wikipedia and my longer history on Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons show you that I'm a good editor with a lot to contribute, and hence I would like to request unblock again (oops!). I apologize for breaking the conditions of my unblock by doing those reverts. I can agree to do the same conditions again or similar (with the now clearer understanding that this kind of behavior I did is a revert too), or whatever you think is best. I'm sorry. Thanks for any consideration. Check out this discussion thread I started today which is getting all kinds of interesting and encyclopedia-building replies: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tibet's Northern Boundary in 1820. Check out this big thread too, from last month: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 June 9#Outer Manchuria. Oh man, what a joy it was to be editing again on Wikipedia! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think you had anything other than good intentions here, nothing nefarious- but ultimately you broke the conditions for an unblock, and I don't think this request is sufficient to return. Maybe agreeing to a 0RR restriction would help- but trust is a big issue here. 331dot (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2023 (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.

@331dot: Thanks for looking at this. You talk about trust in the denial, as the main reason to deny. Could you elaborate on that? I did over 1000 positive edits on Wikipedia after I was unblocked with no incident, and two of those were over the line of my conditions for unblock, though the ultimate result was approved by the other editor who said "the last edit seems benign, even preferred". What makes you feel that you can't trust me? Those two edits? The final form of that page with my changes is still up, by the way- it was part of the collaborative process of editing with someone that didn't agree with me, not nefarious. Thanks for any reply. Please really tell me what you mean by lack of trust, and look at my long work on Wiktionary. What do you mean you can't trust me? What's not to trust, specifically? Can you look at my history and say "this person is doing much more harm than good"? If I'm doing more good than harm, and the final result on that page was approved by the other editor involved, then my God, where's the trust issue? The other editor involved agrees with the final result on that page, with my change. That editor doesn't like me, but my edits are good enough for them that they're still up, even though they were over the line of the unblock conditions. It seems strange to ban for making a change on a page where the other editor says: "the last edit seems benign, even preferred"- I found a solution to the differences between us and implemented it. I improved the encyclopedia and the other person agrees. That's good, not bad! That was a positive result. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) (Modified)[reply]

Another editor saying that your edit was helpful doesn't erase the breaking of the unblock conditions that you agreed to. This makes it harder to trust your words without additional gestures(like 0RR). However, I will not stand in the way of someone else unblocking you(though that is my view only, I do not speak for the blocking admin). 331dot (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned that removing content that had been in place for months with many intervening edits and moving content from one section to another are both considered reverts. Not what I would have guessed in either case. An opinion on the block itself is above my paygrade, but I would have made the same mistake. Folly Mox (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't have guessed that moving information from one section to another is considered a revert. I don't think they should have been reblocked over this, but that's not a decision I get to make. Megathonic (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Russian Manchuria (Russia) you posted a single paragraph spanning 41 lines (!) of text without a line break. This makes it incredibly hard for other editors to parse your argument logically. I had to read your text five times to get what you were trying to say. Please break your texts into paragraphs. NM 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geographyinitiative. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Uzbel Pass, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]