User talk:108.162.157.141: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:35, 5 June 2016

July 2013

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Juli Sánchez. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 08:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jordi Rubio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Giant Snowman 09:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2013–14 UEFA Europa League, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not change matchorder, it is correct according matchnuber from UEFA and link from User:Chanheigeorge. Now you are "battling" two people and next time I will alert admin. Qed237 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2013–14 UEFA Europa League, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It is ordered based on matchreports! Qed237 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

WP:AN/I

Please remember that you are required to notify an editor if they are being reported at WP:AN/I. You omitted to do so. I've rectified your omission. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Incorrect block per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Qed237_is_making_unconstructive_edits. where an admin said that nobody is right or wrong. Also User:Ronhjones is wheel-warring since User:Tonywalton declined the request (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=565954690&oldid=565953787) and User:Ronhjones overrided his decision WITHOUT discussing with the previous admin (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=565960494&oldid=565960257). Furthermore, User:Ronhjones is prejudiced against me by taking sides of the other party per (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League&diff=565960586&oldid=565954814) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round&diff=565960702&oldid=565956028) 108.162.157.141 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

Nothing you have stated remotely applies ... WP:WHEEL clearly is irrelevant as there is no reversal of an action, only someone else's reinterpretation leading to an action. The block is very valid in face, and as such, this request is non-WP:GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PFC Botev Plovdiv may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[]

Your recent editing history at Survivor: Blood vs. Water shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

December 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor: Blood vs. Water, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop edit warring immediately! —John Cline (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The other version has grammatical errors so all I did was to fix grammatical errors.108.162.157.141 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced your edits are right". In fact, it would be completely pointless to have an edit warring policy that didn't apply to editors who believe they are right, because in almost all edit wars, editors on both sides think they are right. In fact, considering the extreme extent of the edit war, and the history of disruptive editing from this IP address, which appears to be all from one editor, the only thing about this block which might be open to question is the fact that it is for so short a time. (Although it is not part of the reason for declining the unblock request, I will also mention that you evidently don't understand the word "grammatical", as the change you kept repeatedly making was nothing at all to do with grammar.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary because I will not engage in edit warring in the future.108.162.157.141 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Accept reason:

See below Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the assurance; I've unblocked you, partly because the block won't last a ton longer anyway. Please be careful to keep your promise; more edit-warring will likely lead to a longer block, and if we see that you break your unblock promises, we're unlikely to unblock you like this. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

It was not a good idea making the same edit that you were edit warring over minutes after your block was lifted and you said you would not continue edit warring. I defer to @Callanecc, @JamesBWatson, or @Nyttend to determine if you have resumed edit warring. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

@Gogo Dodo, I don't see how you can say that my edits were wrong. Tyson clearly has 2 votes, not 5. Refs for Monica and Hayden are to be added just like Brad and Ciera earlier this season. And these issues are totally unrelated to the edit war. Survivorfan1995 and I were never in dispute regarding these issues.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This has nothing to do with being either right or wrong. I never said anything about if your edits were right or wrong, please re-read what I said as this is not the first time have you read more into what I wrote. This issue has to do with repeating the same edit change as Callanecc explained to you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

As I said above, there's no real point to requesting an unblock, because it will not likely be accepted. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict) Indeed it was not and I think it might show that 108 doesn't understand what the problem was and is. Looks like Nyttend has reblocked while I was writing my comment. But I'll also point out for people watching and 108 for when he sees this. That three out of the four edits 108 made to the page since being unblocked (including the one Gogo points to) were reverting other editors. Whether correct or not (though Ksama wasn't the spelling on my TV screen) it strongly suggests that 108 doesn't understand the issue with what they were doing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I meant to put Kasama. It was a typo error. Kasama is clearly correct.108.162.157.141 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

@Nyttend and @Callanecc, those edits were different and unrelated to the edit war. And 1 of the edit I made was a self-revert.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This one wasn't and unless you can point to a discussion about that edit before you reverted it is continuing the edit war. The reason you were reblocked is because you demonstrated that you didn't understand what edit warring is and the reason for discussion rather than reverting. It wasn't a typo you were reverting another editor who fixed it (and also did something else). But after you had just been block and unblocked for edit warring we expect that you would have learnt from it and discuss first rather than revert first and ask questions (or not) later. You also made no effort to explain your edit using an edit summary, which wouldn't do the job on it's own (ie you actually need to use the talk page) but would help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

@Callanecc, I respectfully ask you to look at the edit history. The edit war was over [this]. Compare [this] with [this] where I was self-reverting except that I forgot to self-revert my typo in Kasama (i.e. I was attempted to self-revert [this].108.162.157.141 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This is Survivorfan1995's version, this is your version, and this is the stable version John Cline reverted to which was before the edit war. This is the revert you made shortly after you were unblocked. You were carrying on the edit war and have been blocked for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

@Callanecc, This is different from this. Sf1995 and I were edit warring only over the first sentence of the article. We were never ever edit warring over the rest of the article.108.162.157.141 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

And in the edit after you were unblocked you changed the first sentence again. The changes you made to the rest of the article are immaterial because you changed that first sentence which was the subject of the edit war. Look at the two diffs you supplied and don't scroll down, the change made is almost identical. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Talk:The Amazing Race 26. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia (please see WP:NOT for further details). Thank you. Amaury (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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.

Sweden

There is a new section on the TAR25 talk page regarding Denmark & Sweden vs. Sweden & Denmark. Please use it. 184.70.8.70 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[]

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Survivor: Cambodia‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wani (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[]

Celebrity MasterChef

Hello. I have noticed that you have made some edits to the Celebrity MasterChef page in regards to the current series. As you can see for previous series, we wait until the winner is announced and then move the winning celebrity's name to the front and bolding it. There is no need to add eliminated after any competitors name after every show as it will be generalized after the end of the series once the winner is announced, as seen in the previous series. Also, there is no need for nicknames like adding 'Tish' after a contestant's name as it is not notable and not encyclopedic. Please do not revert and wait until the end of the series to edit the 2015 sentence. Hope this helps. 66.130.12.185 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)samusek2[]

Hi Thegreyanomaly

@Thegreyanomaly:, how come you can accept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Cambodia&action=history ? You are a reviewer? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Because I am a registered user... If you want to be a productive editor on Wikipedia and if you want to review edits, then you should register. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi yourself

You're not missing anything, it's just incompetent leadership. He was TECHNICALLY doing the right thing, so the admins refused to intervene, despite common sense obviously dictating that he wasn't hurting every page he edited. And I have no idea why he refused to simply update the timestamps. It makes no sense to me. But that's Wikpedia, man. Eightball (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Northamerica1000. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Google DeepMind Challenge Match without 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; I have restored the removed content. 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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 do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Google DeepMind Challenge Match, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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 your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Google DeepMind Challenge Match, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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 may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Google DeepMind Challenge Match. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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 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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

We do not need a duplicate article, hence the excess should be deleted. Furthermore, the majority's opinion in the AlphaGo vs Lee Sedol talk page is that it should be named AlphaGo vs Lee Sedol and not Google DeepMind Challenge Match. Hence, Google DeepMind Challenge Match should be deleted. To reiterate, we do not need a duplicate article. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

You're not addressing the cause of your block, namely the disruptive behavior exhibited when repeatedly blanking Google DeepMind Challenge Match. In reply to your statement above, there is no "duplication" as the old title is merely a redirect. Favonian (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

May 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Survivor: Kaôh Rōng because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng with this edit. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

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 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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Donner60 was removing source. Wikipedia's policy requires citing of sources so I followed policy and did nothing wrong. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

It is clear that you still do not understand the edit warring policy here. It does not matter if you are right or wrong; edit warring is intrinsically wrong, and the correct place to discuss these matters is on the article talk page. In this specific case in fact you are wrong; twitter is not a credible source.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

Hello, I'm SubSeven. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 500 Questions, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 500 Questions, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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. --SubSeven (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[]

June 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:500 Questions are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:500 Questions for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:500 Questions, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:500 Questions. Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

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 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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I started a discussion on something that I think that it is included in the article without proof or source in the talk page. It is not a forum discussion because it is regarding what other people added in the article and hence it is about the article's content. What I am saying in the talk page is that the disputed part should not be included in the article without source. And I started a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting in the article itself. Furthermore, removing a valid discussion on the talk page without a valid reason is vandalism, which is one of the exceptions.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

You say you were discussing on the talk page (for 500 Questions? You didn't specify) but not reverting the article itself. But I see clear examples that you've been reverting the article itself. On 2016-05-28, 2015-05-29 (twice). And you have been using that article's talk page as a forum. For example, [1] where you say, "Will Guy Jordan continue answering next season or is his time really done?" Yamla (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

MusikAnimal, I reported Jim1138 for violating 3RR and he did, so why are you biased against me? Admins are required to be impartial.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi Yamla, by tagging you here, I am assuming that you will be notified. In any event, this is the only way to contact you now. I would like to clarify a few points. Firstly, yes I was referring to the 500 Questions talk page when I said that I was discussing on the talk page. Secondly, yes I did edit war on this article in the past, which I have stopped a few days ago, because I decided to take a step back and not try to win every time. When I said that I did not revert on the article itself, I meant that I did not revert anything on the article relating to the issue that I started a discussion on the talk page. What I edit war on the article days ago were on other things. Finally, I would like to explain to you why my topic of discussion is not a forum. The article implies that a contestant will not return next season to finish after competing half way at the end of the current season. However, there is no source for this. Hence, I think that the wording in the article should be changed so that it does not imply something that is not sourced. Hence, I started the discussion to see other's views and to see how to rewrite the sentence better. I could be assertive by outright saying that it is not sourced etc. in the talk page, but the reason I did not say it in this form was because I was giving the person who added this to the article the benefit of the doubt (he could be right, just that he did not provide the source) and I do not want to come across as aggressive, hence I started the discussion in the less aggressive question form without accusing any one of not providing sources. Another reason why I started this discussion instead of changing it in the article itself is because I could not think of a good way to word the sentence appropriately which is why I wanted to discuss. Hence, the discussion is about the article content and it is not a forum discussion. I know that I have a history of edit warring and I deserved to be blocked in the past, but in this instance, I used the talk page instead of edit warring on the article. Furthermore, as I started a valid discussion, in my opinion, the removal of a discussion is vandalism, which is one of the exceptions. Furthermore, I explained in the edit summary when reverting that it was about the article's content and not a forum discussion. In Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, under section 1.6.1, complete removal of a post is allowed if it is removing libellous comments, harmful posts etc, however my comment is not even close to this category at all. Even assuming that he is right that my discussion is a forum discussion, the closest he has is on the Off-topic posts section. In this event, the suggestion is to collapse it instead of deleting it. It also states "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution.", which is exactly what happened in this instance. Jim thought I was off topic while I thought I was on topic. With respect, I think it was a mistake to block me this time.

As an aside, I note that an anonymous editor has notified me about a discussion he started in the admin's area. I hope you and the others can take into account my clarifications and explanations when discussing. Thanks for your time and understanding. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

they don't want edit warring..which is mostly defined by the 3 revert rule...and apparently it makes absolutely no difference if you're right or wrong as far as what's being fought over..so I guess revert once and if get rereverted and think it's wrong discuss on talk page or seek outside help and don't continue down the path toward 3 reverts..in this case you were both technically wrong I guess though imo Jim1138 was more wrong...I would think your block could at least be significantly reduced if you make another unblock request..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

You were edit warring on the article before the events took place on the talk page. I would have blocked on that alone. You did not hit 3RR on the article, but 3RR is not a license to revert up to 3 times, especially when you are very aware of what constitutes edit warring and what you should do instead. Going to the talk page was the right thing to do, but you made a post that appeared to violate WP:NOTFORUM, and were informed of that here on your talk page. If you were questioning actual content and asking for a source, why didn't you just say that? Were you expecting the user in question (author of the disputed content) to read your edit summary to know what you meant? I gave Jim the benefit of the doubt, and he's been informed of his wrongdoing in this case, but I stand by the block. The two week duration is procedural as you recently got off a one week block and continued with the same behaviour — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

As I have voluntary stopped edit warring on the article itself after 29 May, the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Also, I will write clearer in the talk page discussion.108.162.157.141 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I'm not a fan of "boomerang"...many editors seem to have a fetish in invoking boomerang...it's intimidating to whistleblowers...in this case the editor went to a noticeboard to complain of in this instance (what seems to me) the clearly against policy behavior of another editor...there was then this boomerang block but the behavior of the other editor was then just forgotten about...it's the kind of thing that will (and I'm sure has) driven away potential future productive editors...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see my clarification/explanation above108.162.157.141 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

After being given WP:NOTAFORUM warnings, you should've reworded your talk page question to make it clear that was not your intention; instead, you kept reverting back to the original question (that certainly does read like a forum post at face value). You should know better by now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

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).

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I have promised to write clearer on talk page.108.162.157.141 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring. In your next unblock request, I suggest you address this block reason. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

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.

you've basically addressed everything so the above response is pretty superficial imo...it's clear you get it too imo so the block is just punitive at this point (which is supposedly against policy)...particularly since the underlying issue is pretty borderline and the other involved editor was more in the wrong it seems (but received no sanction whatsoever...not even a talkpage template warning I don't think)...but I'd just give up if I were you as you'll just be wasting your time...these admins will not be changing their tune..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I would take this advice with a large grain of salt. HighInBC 03:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi @HighInBC:, I noticed that the anonymous editor has been very vocal in his support for me and I appreciate that but he might a bit over-enthusiastic in his support at times. Do not worry, I will not antagonize admins or assume bad faith of admins as he is suggesting. Anyway, when you say not to take his advise with a large grain of salt, what are you referring to? He is advising me not to waste my time appealing because admins are stubborn. Are you trying to say that I am not a lost cause or not to give up?108.162.157.141 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

108.162.157.141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With respect to the edit warring on the article itself, the block is no longer necessary because I voluntarily stopped edit warring after 29th May, 3 days before I was blocked on 2nd June. With respect to the edit warring on the talk page, I thought the removal of my discussion is vandalism and I genuinely believed it to be an exception to the 3RR rule. Also, I have promised to write clearer on talk page, which means that I will not resume the edit war.108.162.157.141 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you based on your demonstrated understanding that content disputes(even on a talk page) are not vandalism and not exempt from our edit warring policy as well as your commitment not the edit war in the future. I have gone out on a limb to get you unblocked and if you repeat the behaviour that got you blocked it will reflect badly on me. So please don't make me a fool for doing so. If you feel you are being treated unfairly then you may talk to me on my talk page and I will give advice or take action as appropriate. Happy editing. HighInBC 15:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I am reviewing this block right now. I am trying to say you are not a lost cause and the other IP was very much out of line suggesting you were. I am going to discuss this unblock request with the blocking admin. HighInBC 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I have asked the blocking admin about this. They have been offline for 7 hours so they are probably sleeping. Once they respond I will get back to you. HighInBC 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[]

see this thread at admin noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Explain_this_block_to_me 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Proposed solution

I recommend going to https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-unblock to get this resolved. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

I recommend going to https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-unblock to get this resolved. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:Ipsock

Revision as of 00:34, 5 June 2016 edit Sro23 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 53,146 edits 75.162.244.4 is actually an ipsock of User:Who R U? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:35, 5 June 2016 edit undo 75.162.244.4 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 188:		Line 188:

	I recommend going to https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-unblock to get this resolved. [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D\|2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D]] ([[User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D\|talk]]) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)		I recommend going to https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-unblock to get this resolved. [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D\|2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D]] ([[User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D\|talk]]) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

			{{ipsock\|HighInBC}}