User talk:80.111.16.75: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:43, 14 August 2018

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Platon Kerzhentsev, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Leon Trotsky. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stalin and antisemitism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Green Book (Muammar Gaddafi), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (80.111.16.75) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Michael Davitt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Michael Davitt.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This block is longer than the usual 24-hour block for three-revert-rule violations because this IP address has been blocked before for edit warring. In general, you should start a talk page discussion once it is clear that there is a disagreement. The two editors who disagree with you have done so at Talk:Michael Davitt#Excessive quotes are used in this article, citing their reasons. When your block expires, you should participate in that discussion, rather than continue to revert your preferred version of the article. If you would like outside input, you may wish to seek dispute resolution. Mz7 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I notice you have not blocked or even warned the other editor. I was revertig to the stable version. She was edit warring against the stable version without consensus. Becuase I am an IP and she has an account you treat her differently though. It's just discrimination and pure stupidity on your part really. 80.111.16.75 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but they have clearly attempted to seek consensus on the talk page, whereas you have ignored those attempts in favor of edit warring, and they have also clearly laid out the reasoning behind their arguments, whereas the only basis for your reverts is that yours was apparently "the stable version". This is the relevant distinction between your behavior and theirs, not IP vs. registered account. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7:So it's ok to edit war and you will get away with it without so much as a warning if you use the talk page? Got it, will take that into account in the future but I must have missed that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that. Also I did lay out my rationale. Look at my earliest edit summaries. 80.111.16.75 (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at it this way. It's kind of hypocritical to tell someone to "get consensus" or cite WP:BRD when you yourself have not responded to their consensus-seeking discussion. This isn't supposed to be a you vs. them project. Editors are expected to work together to get things done, and the talk page discussion is an invitation for you to work with them and explain why you think those quotes should be included in the article. You said in an edit summary that they are "sourced", but the other editors have correctly observed that Wikipedia guidelines discourage the overuse of quotations, and they claim that this case resembles an overuse of quotations; if you have a response to that, then the talk page would have been an excellent place to put it, instead of reverting with an edit summary. (Be very careful about arguing things via edit summaries, as that can lead to edit warring.) Perhaps you could accept some sort of compromise solution, such as changing the quotations to paraphrase. I would be willing to unblock you early if you agree not to revert further and instead participate in the talk page discussion. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Fine. 80.111.16.75 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I've switched this to a checkuser block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 :I considered this, but they have clearly attempted to seek consensus on the talk page, whereas you have ignored those attempts in favor of edit warring, and they have also clearly laid out the reasoning behind their arguments, whereas the only basis for your reverts is that yours was apparently "the stable version". This is the relevant distinction between your behavior and theirs, not IP vs. registered account. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 ::{{Ping|Mz7}}So it's ok to edit war and you will get away with it without so much as a warning if you use the talk page? Got it, will take that into account in the future but I must have missed that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that.  Also I did lay out my rationale. Look at my earliest edit summaries. [[Special:Contributions/80.111.16.75|80.111.16.75]] ([[User talk:80.111.16.75#top|talk]]) 19:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
-:::Well, look at it this way. It's kind of hypocritical to tell someone to "get consensus" or cite [[WP:BRD]] when you yourself have not made a single edit to the talk page. This isn't supposed to be a you vs. them project. Editors are expected to work together to get things done, and the talk page discussion is an invitation for you to work ''with'' them and explain why you think those quotes should be included in the article. You said in an edit summary that they are "sourced", but the other editors have correctly observed that Wikipedia guidelines discourage the overuse of quotations, and they claim that this case resembles an overuse of quotations; if you have a response to that, then the talk page would have been an excellent place to put it, instead of reverting with an edit summary. (Be very careful about arguing things via edit summaries, as that can lead to edit warring.) Perhaps you could accept some sort of compromise solution, such as changing the quotations to [[paraphrase]]. <u>I would be willing to unblock you early</u> if you agree not to revert further and instead participate in the talk page discussion. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 20:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
+:::Well, look at it this way. It's kind of hypocritical to tell someone to "get consensus" or cite [[WP:BRD]] when you yourself have not responded to their consensus-seeking discussion. This isn't supposed to be a you vs. them project. Editors are expected to work together to get things done, and the talk page discussion is an invitation for you to work ''with'' them and explain why you think those quotes should be included in the article. You said in an edit summary that they are "sourced", but the other editors have correctly observed that Wikipedia guidelines discourage the overuse of quotations, and they claim that this case resembles an overuse of quotations; if you have a response to that, then the talk page would have been an excellent place to put it, instead of reverting with an edit summary. (Be very careful about arguing things via edit summaries, as that can lead to edit warring.) Perhaps you could accept some sort of compromise solution, such as changing the quotations to [[paraphrase]]. <u>I would be willing to unblock you early</u> if you agree not to revert further and instead participate in the talk page discussion. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 20:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
+::::{{Ping|Mz7}} Fine. [[Special:Contributions/80.111.16.75|80.111.16.75]] ([[User talk:80.111.16.75#top|talk]]) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
+*{{ping|Mz7}} I've switched this to a checkuser block.--[[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 20:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)