→March 2017: new section |
→March 2017: block notice |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Revert again and it gets reported ----[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revert again and it gets reported ----[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. [[User:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">''bons mots''</font>]]</sup> 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
|||
*As you failed to take my warning that further edit warring would result in a block to heart, and have in fact continued to edit war across multiple articles since being warned and while a discussion regarding your edit-warring is ongoing at AN/I, I have blocked your account. You treat Wikipedia as a battelground, and while you use article talk pages you also continue to pound the "undo" button at every opportunity and against multiple editors. You need to find a more effective way to communicate and collaborate.--[[User:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">''bons mots''</font>]]</sup> 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:39, 23 March 2017
I will report you
I will report you. And you will be banned. Consensus has always been just Juche. Since Juche is anti-imperialistisic, is Korean socialism is el cetra. You're edits are both redundant and breaching consensus. --TIAYN (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Trust Is All You Need: Do it then because you have shown no proof of consensus. If you cant prove there is one then it should be reverted.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Martin Galvin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Creggan
- Tom Clarke (Irish republican) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rotunda
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Religious Views of Adolf Hitler
Because your won't engage with either 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B or myself with regard discussing the best way forward for editing the lead to Religious Views of Adolf Hitler I am left with a final effort by posting on your talk page. Your actions are contrary to WP:TALKNO and 3RR and you have not engaged with the points raised regarding your changes to the lead. Instead you have ignored the ongoing discussion and edited the lead anyway. Please engage with us in the discussion otherwise I will have no other option than to open ANI listing about your editing. Thanks for your attention. Robynthehode (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Apollo The Logician, if you continue to revert you will be blocked. Do you understand? And I have no idea where you came up with this nugget of misinformation, but you need to stop making idle threats to editors who disagree with you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jezebel's Ponyo: Thats what another editor said during an RFC discussion. Anyway why are you warning me but not the IP user? Who even are you anyway?Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- The equivalent of "I heard it somewhere" doesn't cut it. You can't go around telling editors that you are in a dispute with that they can't express an opinion unless they have been here for six months, and your repeated chastising of the same editor for edit warring when you yourself are violating 3RR is hypocritical at best. There are two other editors on the article talk page discussing the actual matter at hand and your replies there are less than helpful for the most part. You have a history of battleground behaviour and edit-warring and it needs to stop, along with your repeated talking down to other editors by telling them "that's how it works" when you clearly don't know "how it works". As to you question "who even are you anyway?" (which you have changed while I was writing this), well you can learn more about me User:Ponyo.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay first off, I hadn no reason o think he was lying. Look at the most recent RFC discussion about renaming Russian interference with U.S elections and you will see it. You can enquire about it if you want. Secondly, you didnt answer my question. Why haven't you warned the IP user. Thirdly, I never said he couldn't express an opinion. I never said that at all. And finally saying thats how it works isnt talking down to other editors at all. So you have been stalking me?Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not here to be drawn in to round-about contradictory arguments. I am an administrator who noticed you clearly edit-warring at an article and, upon review, could see that you have a history of edit-warring. Warning that a block is imminent if the behaviour continues is a courtesy. And I didn't warn the IP because they already had a 3RR template on their userpage and were discussing the edits on the article talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enoough.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not here to be drawn in to round-about contradictory arguments. I am an administrator who noticed you clearly edit-warring at an article and, upon review, could see that you have a history of edit-warring. Warning that a block is imminent if the behaviour continues is a courtesy. And I didn't warn the IP because they already had a 3RR template on their userpage and were discussing the edits on the article talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay first off, I hadn no reason o think he was lying. Look at the most recent RFC discussion about renaming Russian interference with U.S elections and you will see it. You can enquire about it if you want. Secondly, you didnt answer my question. Why haven't you warned the IP user. Thirdly, I never said he couldn't express an opinion. I never said that at all. And finally saying thats how it works isnt talking down to other editors at all. So you have been stalking me?Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
- The ANI complaint about your edits is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Behaviour. You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Your recent editing history at Pegida Ireland 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.
Revert again and it gets reported ----Snowded TALK 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
{{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. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- As you failed to take my warning that further edit warring would result in a block to heart, and have in fact continued to edit war across multiple articles since being warned and while a discussion regarding your edit-warring is ongoing at AN/I, I have blocked your account. You treat Wikipedia as a battelground, and while you use article talk pages you also continue to pound the "undo" button at every opportunity and against multiple editors. You need to find a more effective way to communicate and collaborate.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)