User talk:71.191.251.153

July 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gakira has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gakira was changed by 71.191.251.153 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.902096 on 2016-07-24T18:54:50+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Avery (given name) ‎ 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. Meters (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

{unblock|reason=I was not engaging in an edit war to disrupt the page. I had not edited on Wikipedia before this situation, so I did not know what the talk page was. I was trying to edit the information to make it accurate and backed by credible sources. The English Professor continued to undo my edits without any clear reason. The name Avery is a unisex name. The behindthename.com entry for the name shows that it is more popular as a girls’ name than it is as a boys’ name, not just in the US and Canada—as the English Professor changed the Wikipedia entry for Avery to say—but also in England and Wales. Here is the source showing this https://www.behindthename.com/name/avery/top/england-wales?type=percent. The listing for this name should reflect that this information by listing it as unisex. My issue with English Professor’s changes is that they do not reflect that this name is unisex. Burying this information in a regional variations section does not highlight that fact that it is unisex, because the metadata for the Wikipedia entry for Avery only shows the first section of information, and that section only mentions that it was traditionally a male name. Note that Aubrey, a name that is etymologically related to the name Avery, is traditionally a male name but is now more popular as a girls’ name, and the Wikipedia page for that name lists it as unisex. Also, several of the sources already on the page state that the ric in Ælfric means power or Ruler. Leaving the meaning listed as Elf King and removing any mention of this name being unisex in the first section misleads the people who casually google the name and see only the metadata but don’t bother to click on the link to the actual Wikipedia entry for it to learn more. If Elf Power is not acceptable, than perhaps Elf Ruler would be a better choice that does not gender the name. Thank you.71.191.251.153 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)}

You were edit warring. You were warned about it. Instead of participating in the discussion on the talk page you continued to revert after having been warned. Meters (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit warring. I was not familiar with the talk page or that I was being warned about my edits. I am new to editing on Wikipedia but have read up on it now to familiarize myself with the protocols. I do not intend to continue edit warring. I am only hoping for a fair resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.251.153 (talk • contribs) 04:27, May 8, 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts, and leave new posts at the bottom of the page. I have moved it and signed it for you.

You were told more than once to discuss the material on the article's talk page. I suggest that you follow the instruction in the block notice: "please read the guide to appealing blocks", particularly the part WP:NOTTHEM. Meters (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I apologize for editing warring. I unfortunately did not know what the talk page was and did not see that I was being warned about my edits. I am new to editing on Wikipedia but have read more information about the process now to familiarize myself. I do not intend to continue edit warring. I am just hoping for a fair resolution that is backed up by credible sources.71.191.251.153 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; block expired unreviewed. Yamla (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2021 (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.