User talk:99.135.170.179: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:14, 25 October 2009

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bogside. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

3RR note.

Please stop reverting and take care on the Black_and_Tans article, you are on the verge of a 3RR report. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that "broadly construed" all articles related to the Troubles (which includes history) are subject to a 1RR restriction, you are already in breech of that so stop. --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Have you edited here before under a different username? For a newbie, you appear unusually confident (if mistaken) on Wikipedia protocol. RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Black and Tans, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

3RR note.

Warning. You are on the verge of a report on the polanski article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, 99.135.170.179, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! RashersTierney (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

Your recent editing history at Irish Bulletin 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. BigDunc 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and again

Your recent editing history at Black and Tans 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. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You are mentioned here. BigDunc 15:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ANI thread

The Administrators' noticeboard is for obtaining the attention of administrators, but you already have the attention of an administrator (me), so the thread is not needed, and I have closed it. Please also be aware that the articles where you have been edit-warring are known "powderkeg" articles. This means that administrators are allowed to place additional restrictions, be they on the articles, or on the editors who are working on them. To avoid any restrictions, try editing more slowly. Pick one article that you are interested in, and make one well-sourced change, then wait and see how other editors react to the change. If there is disagreement about the change, start a discussion (or engage in the current discussion if one already exists) on the article's talkpage. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, please consider creating a named account, rather than editing as an IP. This will make it easier for other editors to assume good faith as regards to your edits. --El on ka 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing threads

FYI, it is considered bad form to "close" a thread that you started, especially while discussion is ongoing.[1] Better is to let a more neutral party do it. --El on ka 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When another editor removed the tag, and then you edit-warred to restore it, this was disruptive,[2] especially considering that you had already been warned about tagging the thread in the first place. Please consider this a formal warning. If you continue to engage in disruptive activity, your account access may be blocked. To avoid restrictions, please focus strictly on civil and collegial discussion. --El on ka 16:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs

Hi, just checking, these are all you, correct?

99.135.170.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 16 to present)
99.142.8.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 10-15)
99.142.5.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 7-10)
99.151.164.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 7)
99.142.15.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 6-7)
99.151.161.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 6)
99.142.1.147 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 3-6)
99.151.164.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (October 2-3)
99.141.254.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (September 30-October 2)
99.144.255.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (September 28-30)

Thanks, --El on ka 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have started a discussion on this here. --El on ka 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've continued to 'refuse' createing an account & signing in. How come you won't co-operate? GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read the WP:Five pillars, specifically our Founding Principle[3], "Anyone can edit". Note also that there exist a number of editors such as myself well known to the project:

"The step from not having an account to having an account is not, now, (and never really was) the dividing line that signals a metamorphosis from inexperienced novice to experienced editor. Indeed, Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to have well-known long-term editors, who have made a point of not creating accounts despite encouragement to do so, who have years-long edit histories.

Sorry for the concise response, it wasn't meant as a chastisement. --99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 :I see that you've continued to 'refuse' createing an account & signing in. How come you won't co-operate? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
+:::You may wish to read the [[WP:Five pillars]], specifically ''our'' Founding Principle[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles], "''Anyone can edit''". Note also that there exist a number of editors such as myself well known to the project:
+:::: "''The step from not having an account to having an account is not, now, (and never really was) the dividing line that signals a metamorphosis from inexperienced novice to experienced editor. Indeed, Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to have well-known long-term editors, who have made a point of not creating accounts despite encouragement to do so, '''who have years-long edit histories.'''''
+:::Sorry for the concise response, it wasn't meant as a chastisement. --[[Special:Contributions/99.135.170.179|99.135.170.179]] ([[User talk:99.135.170.179#top|talk]]) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)