Jump to content

User talk:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 85th Academy Awards. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ⁓ Hello71 15:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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. ⁓ Hello71 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since everyone and their pet dog wants to smack a banhammer on this IP, can somebody spell it out to me (preferably without using Twinkle templates) why I should block them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 the IP is editwarring by removing dates from numerous navboxes claiming WP:FILMNAV prohibits their inclusion. In fact the relevant section makes no mention of dates whatsoever. OTOH the info is standard practice and gives a reader info that helps put a list of films into context in a directors career. The fact is that several editors have reversed their edits and they have ignored WP:BRD. Yes I know it is an essay but acting like "they are right and everybody else is wrong" is not a good sign. MarnetteD|Talk 17:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marnette. In case it wasn't obvious, I do get annoyed with people just templating IPs without actually explaining what the problem is. I've protected the template in question, so that should keep the reverts down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was Robsinden who said, "We don't even need to put years in. A navbox isn't here to provide information." He later said, "It fails WP:FILMNAV." I read it and found nothing about years but I took his word for it since he's been an editor since 2006. So that's were I got the memo, in case anybody wanted to hear my side of the story.

These are two separate issues. Some navboxes have years, some don't. There was an issue at {{Seth MacFarlane}} where an editor was trying to show a break in the run of one of the entries, which was causing a dispute, so it seemed better to remove them altogether. This has nothing to do with WP:FILMNAV, which you were breaching when incessantly trying to add the Academy Awards hosting. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up discussion and Wikipedia advice

[edit]

Hi 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F, just in case if you, Robsinden and MarnetteD were wondering, the discussion is also being held at Hello71's talkpage, too. BTW, I'm not discrediting what you said about Robsinden at all, but just because they have been an editor since 2006, doesn't mean that you should "take his word for it". I've been around since 2012(ish) and have only recently made an account (it's currently being Usurpated, but that's of no significance here...) Anyway, my point is that the amount of time you've been on Wikipedia shouldn't indicate your expertise/knowledge in editing and Wikipedia guidelines. The only reason that I am mentioning this is because in the future, you can be bold with your edits, and not really worry about anyone else's experience here... You may have edited for a very long time on Wikipedia with different IP addresses, but we can only see your most recent edits with this IP address... :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

[edit]

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

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jim1138. An edit that you recently made to IPad Pro seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Scott Cawthon, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebyabe (talk) 20:56, 26 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

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you recently removed content from Los Osos High School 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. Don't remove notable alumni just because you don't think they are notable enough. He has a Wikipedia article and his attendance is sourced in that article. Your opinion is irrelevant. Meters (talk) 02:23, 21 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.
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).

2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for a weird reason. I just edited an old article about a winter storm and then I was banned for "vandalism". I don't get it, and I doidn't do anything wrong I can think of. Please unblock me.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This IP falls within a blocked range. This can affect innocent people. If you know nothing about any vandalism, please request an account at WP:ACC so your edits are your own and you are not affected by blocks caused by others. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F&oldid=1136821316"