User talk:Sunderland Renaissance
Ravi MorKal[edit]
Hi. You can use Template:Db-multiple to tag an article for speedy deletion with multiple reasons, rather than replacing a previous CSD tag. Also, do check if the user you are reporting at AIV has already been reported to avoid duplicate reports. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Sunderland Renaissance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bennv3771 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
China Global Television Network[edit]
Greetings! I do not see evidence that any editors of China Global Television Network are acting in bad faith. Accordingly, this matter is a content dispute, and the reversion-of-vandalism exemption to WP:3RR does not apply. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Accordingly, this edit violates 3RR. Would you like to self-revert to avoid being in violation? —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would be willing to revert if compromise can be secured on editing the page. I feel legitimate content is keep being removed for no good reason---Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's already been reverted, but in the process Amiago has now also broken 3RR- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The article Farringdon Country Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, currently only primary sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishopwearmouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tunstall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Important[edit]
I will not be acting on your unblock request, Sunderland Renaissance, but I want to advise that when you are unblocked, you need to stop edit warring at CGTN (TV channel) to force a redirect into the lead. If you have a problem with the naming of the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party, go to that article's talk page and get it changed. Tiderolls 14:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think self-promotion is a good thing, you can replace it with other references.Besides, I’m confused why you use "fair" to describe your edit.This should have nothing to do with fair. Rastinition (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The quotation merely describes CGTN's response to something and does not violate the WP:RS criteria. You should take your proposed edit to the talk page because this is a controversial topic which frequently provokes edit warring. There is an unspoken rule that you cannot make abrupt changes to the page without first discussing it, as it frequently goes up in flames- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand, this is not a talk page? Your request is very strange.I have been editing for a while. I think only you have burned recently, and the reason is unknown. Rastinition (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sunderland Renaissance given that this was a WP:DUEWEIGHT question it was actually you who needed to get consensus to restore the material not Rastinition who needed consensus to remove it. Please try to be less disruptive in the future by learning our rules and guidelines, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
About delete the content of the talk page[edit]
Deleting or restoring these templates has no effect, the point is why you want to do this. Rastinition (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Don’t do this again[1]. This sort of behavior is grounds for a block if anyone chose to push it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
March 2022[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Youth in Hong Kong, you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at History of foreign relations of China 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. Rastinition (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
About this. I think you may not realize that you are doing the same thing.Rastinition (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
- "rmv bad faith report" accusations of bad faith are one of the most serious personal attacks its possible for a wikipedian to make. See WP:AGF. Also its not a report, not sure if you're just confused or what... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Circular Citations[edit]
I've reverted your last change to Farringdon, Sunderland as you added a citation that essentially referenced the text it was citing itself as its citation. This is an example of a circular source. Please be more careful in the future. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hounding[edit]
Horse Eye's Back is obviously WP:HOUNDING you, English towns are obviously not his foray of editing. It's obvious he's following your edits to intimidate you. You should take this up to WP:ANI. 210.96.184.143 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, thank you for your message. I am of course well aware of this, he's continually following my edits, attempting to create disruption/argument and has posted scores of unsuccessful nitpicking reports about me again and again, including falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry and doxxing to name a few, whilst even posting highly dubious warnings accusing me of "personal attacks" again and again. However, I can absolutely assure you he does not intimidate me at all because it comes across as petty at best. I don't see the specific need to make a report about it however, but rather to keep civil and within the confines of the rules. That is the key to Wikipedia success above all! Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en
wikimedia.org).
Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.