User talk:Wadaad
UN map
You left a long edit on my User Talk page with excuses for your most recent edit-warring regarding the United Nations article, but I'm going to reply here to make sure that you see my response.
First of all, the map that you wish to include in the article is not an NPOV presentation of the world, even if the UN pretends that Taiwan is ruled by the People's Republic of China and Kosovo is ruled by Serbia. It is misleading to color de facto states that are not members of the UN in the same color as UN member states. When readers see Taiwan colored green, their first thought will be that Taiwan must be part of the UN.
But more to the point, you have a lot of chutzpah to use the fact that you were blocked for edit-warring on this same article (and regarding this same issue) as the reason why you should be permitted to revert, without seeking a consensus, edits made during your month-long ban (which followed several shorter blocks for edit-warring). I'm no expert on Wikipedia's edit-warring policies, but I'm pretty sure that having been blocked from editing for a month because of your persistent edit-warring does not give you carte blanche to continue edit-warring on the same article the minute that your ban expired (or did you wait a full half hour before making your Bold reversion?). And once your Bold reversion was reverted, you should have gone to the Talk page and sought a consensus. Instead, you reverted a second time (and added a POV "clarification" that only made things worse), and when I was forced to revert you again and explain that when Bold reversions are themselves reverted that you should seek a consensus at the Talk page you then reverted for a third time. I'm not going to file a formal accusation of edit-warring (I prefer to talk things through), but it is likely that some other editor will do so unless you don't start acting more civilly.
On another matter, during your edit war last month, you also engaged in inappropriate canvassing when you sought out known anti-Taiwan editor Lo meiin (who soon thereafter was blocked indefinitely for his abusive behavior--most persistently against me--and POV pushing) and asked him to join the map discussion. I see that you now have invited SharabSalam to participate in the discussion of this new controversy, but you did so *without having commenced the discussion in the Talk page*. I am familiar with SharabSalam and, while we've had heated debates in the past, I can vouch for his fairness and civility: If you were seeking another Lo meiin, you will be disappointed. I also see that SharabSalam participated in the map discussion last month, so it was not inappropriate for you to invite him to a new discussion--but you need to start one at the Talk page.
In the spirit of civiliy and seeking a consensus, you should self-revert your third reversion, start a new discussion at the Talk page, and invite all participants in the prior discussion (including Ythlev, Vanilla Wizard and NightHeron) and other frequent collaborators in the United Nations article. But please cease with the edit-warring. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Dear @AuH2ORepublican:. I appreciate the feedback. I will reply back to you in more detail in a few hours from now. I got to go for now. Talk to you soon. Wadaad (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)- Unfortunately, you have learned absolutely nothing from your previous blocks for edit-warring, and wasted no time in resuming edit-warring at United Nations restoring your version. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely as you are obviously unable to edit constructively and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)