User talk:User3749

Note: an editor has posted an unnecessary message and it has been removed because it's just like vandalizing a page, so please do not leave a message on my talk page that is not necessary. Note 2: Please do not add a warning here unless I was who did something incorrect. Please respond rather than deleting my comment.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/94.204.65.70, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Robynthehode (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the case. User3749 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to respond at the appropriate place as per the link above. You risk being blocked for a substantial time or permanently for this kind of behaviour if proven. Robynthehode (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you see my other edits,you can see that most edits are not about that article. User3749 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What I mean by “This is not the case” is that when I tried to create a page fixing the typo to stop that argument but it says I need to log in but I don’t have one so I created an account but I received this notification before I even started to create the page I’m talking about User3749 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to this message as soon as possible. User3749 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Note

Hi. So, I see the confusion as our message tells you to create an account to edit. Cool. The problem is that you appear to be the intended target of the block, which we normally don't allow. It was 24 hours so I'm not going to block this account. You need to stop and not keep up your edit war, however. The page has been protected, so you can't now, but Wikipedia requires you to talk. Once the protection expires or you have enough experience to edit it, if you start up again, this account is very likely to be blocked. If you have concerns raise them on the talk page by clicking the talk tab on your browser. Let me know if you have any questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. User3749 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, User3749, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

User3749, good luck, and have fun. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. User3749 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Good read, might help. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLANKING

Theprussian is permitted to remove warnings and other messages from their own talk page. There are a limited number of things that a user may not remove from their own talk page, and none of them are present at that user's talk page. On the other side of the coin, repeatedly restoring blanked content to another user's talk page exposes that user to being blocked for violation of the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred However, the 3rr says "An editior must not preform more than 3 reverts on a single page", and see how I stopped immediately after I reach 3 reverts to follow the rules, and if I make a 4th revert that's what violates that rule, but I did not, because I stopped after reaching the maximum number of Reverts. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And my mention was to make sure you're aware of 3RR. Thank you for confirming that you are. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line, @User3749:, is that you have no right to mess with someone else's talk page, never mind the 3RR rule. An editor is essentially free to decide what's on their own talk page and you'll just have to live with that. Understood??? SolarFlash^Discussion 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash I understand, but this makes it sound like that if I can blank my talk page, I don't want to do that either, so if they blank talk pages I'm not going to do that, but anyway is this what you mean? User3749 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Brooklyn Nine Nine

Don't undo my stuff I know what happened Elizabeth vamp (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elizabeth vamp, it's reverted because it is vandalism and if you think that is a mistake please reply User3749 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do that I just like to go in detail so that other users can understand better Elizabeth vamp (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean User3749 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mahathi, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	for your work on John Barilaro. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 07:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok Elizabeth vamp (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

deleted news

Hello I saw that you helped restore this page to an earlier version because somebody deleted the bad news. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UP_Sigma_Rho_Fraternity&action=history

I'm new in wikipedia. how do we go about making sure a page is not vandalized? someone has since deleted it again

You can use this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&damaging=likelybad&hidepreviousrevisions=1&urlversion=2 which will lead to a recent changes and then you can also look at my contribution to see because if any edits that are unrelated to the article or is fake or inappropriate content it is considered vandalism, see also WP:VANDALISM, that link up there shows edits which likely be vandalism and you can revert them there User3749 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically, just look for edits that say "Possible vandalism" or "Possible BLP issue"

Give you a example of vandalism here at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Screen_time&diff=prev&oldid=962851137&diffmode=source , where that IP address put in even a bad word there but a letter was replaced with 8 and compared to the one which I then reverted

July 2020

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@CLCStudent thank you very much for that information.

Your recent editing history at Chapo Trap House 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.
You are absolutely wrong about an exemption for badly sourced or unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

However, I have blocked the IP. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced content is exempt from the 3rr policy. that says on WP:Edit warring#Exemptions.User3749 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that's only in relation to clear BLP violations, and I don't see a clear BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller: I said "Twitter is not a reliable source", so I reverted it, that said would be a exemption of the 3rr policy according to what I think in the link I give above User3749 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It said "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy", that's what I think it would be an exemption, and another editor said "Stop adding content from Twitter" too. User3749 (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Plus, I did not make more than 3 reverts. I only did 3, if I did 4 it would be a violation of the 3rr policy. User3749 (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller, in addition to this, the ip is the one who made more than 3 reverts and I did not make more than 3.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "however". But it wasn't a BLP violation. You can ask at WP:BLPN if you don't believe me. How were the tweets defaming anyone? Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please explain!

Why do you consider my edit as vandalism? --2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35, all is explained on WP:VANDALISM.

The content wasn't vandalism, but more rather a WP:NPOV policy violation, hence why it was removed in the first place. Adding it back is disruptive and will be reverted. Also, User3749, you can't just link to a non-specific action. If somebody asks you to explain your actions, you should do so, rather than linking to a policy and just being like "read this" - and please sign your edits, and remember to use the {{replyto}} template to reply to users, and leave {{tb}} on an IP page as they do not receive pings. Ed6767 talk! 12:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a violation against WP:NPOV. The opposite is true. Of course there are members of the organized Bahai Community who do not agree to the fact that you don't have to be a member of the community to be a Bahai. But this is only their point of view. You also don't have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be Christian! --2A00:20:8033:ADF6:7ADB:B80D:8046:4C35 (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Allen Bradley Clock Tower

Thanks for providing a citation at List of largest clock faces for the Allen Bradley Clock Tower. I have also checked sources and none say it is a chiming clock so have left your original change as 'No' to chiming. Have included a better citation for the clock. Please make sure you do not mark any changes you make as 'typos' unless they really are typographical errors (small grammar, punctuation, spelling errors etc). Any other changes should be called what they are in the edit summary. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice job with those quick reverts. Keep up your good work! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank You For The Advice I Will Provide Explanation From This Time

I Have Corrected The Page To Its Orginal Form Thank You Ayan 2019 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding List Of Rajya Sabha Members Page

Please Revert The Page To August 14

The Present Condition Of The Page Is False And Some Mistakes

Please Compare My Version With The Old Version On August 14

I Corrected The Mistake And Colours

Please Revert To Old Version On August 14 Ayan 2019 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if i find the page incorrect i will revert to the edit on august 14. However, can I ask you that when you remove content, always provide a explanation of why the content should be removed, or others will think your edit might be vandalism and might mistakenly revert your edit. Anyways, thanks. User3749 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For being kind and respectful :) Prolix 💬 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your assistance tonight! Patient Zerotalk 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Seinfeld Page

Hello! You have reverted my edit on the Seinfeld page. Please tell me why the source I used is unreliable. It was an interview with Jerry Seinfeld himself, I can't think of a more reliable citation. TylerSkift24 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

TylerSkift24Hi,

I said that source is unreliable because it points to YouTube. According to WP:RS, YouTube is generally considered a self published source and may not always be correct. You can add another more reliable source about the same info. Please have a read at Wikipedia:RSPYT. Thanks User3749 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spoiler

182.73.241.190 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)I have noticed that there is no spoiler warning in all the movie's plot topic. I agree some of the films' plot details are not spoilers for first time readers but many of the movie pages contain spoilers. If there is no disclaimer for spoilers the first time movie goers experience is ruined sometimes. I agree that the reader is also responsible, but it would be better to add a disclaimer when there are excessive spoilers about a film. That way the reader can be informed that he has to read this upcoming topic at his own risk of spoiling the film. Same goes to certain books as well. It may not be constructive but it's of great effect. 182.73.241.190 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)