User talk:80.3.122.252

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

April 2024

Hello, I'm Me Da Wikipedian. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ruskin Museum without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Bluebird K7. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. -REDACTED403 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Nigel PG Dale who professed to being neutral has proven otherwise.

He should be blocked from editing the Bluebird K7 page.

His connection to the project he references, and his false accusations made toward the Ruskin museum here : https://twitter.com/otboae/status/1783157616471953524

and again connecting to the project here :

https://twitter.com/otboae/status/1784523445553828011

Are evidence of his bias.

Accusing myself of harassment is a low stoop, any citation I have provided was evidence to balance against his bias. 80.3.122.252 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re Bluebird K7 again.

Please keep the editorialising out of the article page. Use the talk: page if you must, but also see WP:NPA. This is particularly unimpressive when you're making substantial, but unsubstantiated, accusations about an editor who's easily personally identifiable, but you yourself have chosen to remain anonymous. You are of course welcome to edit here as an IP-only editor, but it's not a good look to then start making things quite so personal. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bluebird K7, 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. Adakiko (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That YouTube video is a wp:self-published source. I did not see any reference to GDS on your second citation. Please wp:cite a wp:reliable source. Adakiko (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: If you cite a long video, be sure to state the time where the mention can be found? See {{cite video}} use the "|time=" field. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bluebird K7. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I count find the original description but have now done so and edited accordingly by adding the exact text as following

’This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)’ 80.3.122.252 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Bluebird K7. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The edit you're adding does not belong in the article itself. Please either take the problem to the talk page of the article, or, if you really think the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, start an formal deletion discussion. Joyous! Noise! 17:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for your help 80.3.122.252 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bluebird K7 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Your repeated change, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bluebird_K7&diff=prev&oldid=1223773566 is breaking the wikilink to the Donald Campbell page and is also against our style guide for the use of names. Please stop changing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

June 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Bluebird K7, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit at Bluebird K7 is a violation of the three-revert rule, which you were previously warned about. As a courtesy to you, I have reverted the edit—normally I would ask a user to self-revert and bring themselves back under the brightline rule of three reverts in 24 hours. Please take your concerns to the talk page, because reverting the article again will result in you being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Bluebird K7, you may be blocked from editing. Wiiformii (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Bluebird K7. Why is this reference being removed? Wiiformii (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent added paragraph contains ‘perhaps’ or ‘could it be?’ these are assumptions and a point of view not relevant to the legal outcome. 80.3.122.252 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm रोहित साव27. I noticed that in this edit to Bluebird K7, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. रोहित^Talk_with_me 21:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent added paragraph contains ‘perhaps’ or ‘could it be?’ these are assumptions and a point of view not relevant to the legal outcome.

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Richard Skene article is just silly. It's not a 'legal case study', it's a blogpost, offering a few opinions without any real knowledge of the case. It was written five years before the resolution of the case and four years before the museum even served papers. It is of virtually no relevance and certainly doesn't warrant a paragraph to itself 80.3.122.252 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've given a range of arguments as to why this section shouldn't be included, so your argument now isn't particularly convincing. What might be your next reason?

But really we're past this anyway. You're edit-warring, pure and simple, (six times now) and that's a problem in itself. If you couldn't or wouldn't make some case for removing this by discussion, then just repeatedly edit-warring is not the way we work here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as done at Bluebird K7.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (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 is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.