User talk:Mut.Greg

On your recent edits to Rwandan Genocide

Hi. I just wanted to make sure you were aware why your edits got reverted. We prefer the WP:Commonname, and according to the Ngram viewer, "Rwandan genocide" is the more popular term across the English language literature. Since people search with the common term, it's important that it's mentioned first in the title.

Also, I would highly advise against editing infobox titles, especially when it clashes with the article title itself. ⸺(Random)staplers 03:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its a question of whats popular, it should be what accurate.

Why dont we refer the holocaust as the European Jews since other europeans who were not jews were killed. Same way as the Jews were the targeted people that its the same way as it was in Rwanda in 1994. Mut.Greg (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the manual of style to avoid reverts. Also, you should avoid doing the same edits again, like you did to the infobox, as that could be seen as edit warring. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about what popular, it about whats the accurate inforamtion. The United Nations officially adopted the term Genocide Against the Tutsi in 2018 through Resolution A/RES/72/550, passed by the UN General Assembly. This resolution declared April 7 as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda. The language aimed to provide clarity and counter attempts to generalize or distort the facts of the genocide.

https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12000.doc.htm Mut.Greg (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your recent editing history at Rwandan genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - it looks like despite the warning above you have continued to revert on the Rwandan genocide article, as we see here. Please self-revert and discuss changes on the talk page. — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the same edit war while being logged out. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]