Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) |
DavidThomson1997 (talk | contribs) New talk section: What? Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
Didn't take long for another vandal! [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 05:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
Didn't take long for another vandal! [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 05:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Sorry, just got back from lunch. Despite the static IPs, they seem to have ready access to more addresses. I was hoping that it'd just be easier to block all of them instead of protecting all of the articles they hit, but I'm gonna have to give up on that. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson#top|talk]]) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
:Sorry, just got back from lunch. Despite the static IPs, they seem to have ready access to more addresses. I was hoping that it'd just be easier to block all of them instead of protecting all of the articles they hit, but I'm gonna have to give up on that. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson#top|talk]]) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
== What? == |
|||
After the block period I only made one revert in coming 24 hours so why do I get immediatly another ban? After the 24 hours I never reverted 3 times but one. |
|||
So after a block and warning, I immediatly get banned when I make one revert? [[User:DavidThomson1997|DavidThomson1997]] ([[User talk:DavidThomson1997|talk]]) 13:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:08, 4 July 2016
—Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
...And I'm teaching or working on lesson plans (8am-5pm), sleeping (8pm-6am), or trying to figure out whatever it was that I got that tasted like fried cheese. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48
Typical...
You tell me to Assume Good Faith instantly after accusing me (falsely) of attacking editors - because I wanted to know what they removed my post...
Is that Assuming Good Faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- This edit summary, this post, and your continuing rants about left-wing conspiracies are nothing but a total failure to assume good faith. The reasons have been explained: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum. Talk page posts are for specific suggestions to improve articles instead of crying that the world's being taken over by liberals, Jews, lizard people, or whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying to improve it. By giving it equality to the Feminist article. You don't intimidate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Improvement is done by citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not by huffing and puffing in some crusade over imagined wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- But only if those cites meet your political agenda, no? You seem incapable of handling other opinions. You demonstrate this by demeaning the idea that men have rights as "little conspiracies" - which is hardly "assuming good faith", is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Notice it doesn't say anything about political agendas. Find professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, and cite them. If you're not here to build the encyclopedia by citing reliable sources, sod off. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- But only if those cites meet your political agenda, no? You seem incapable of handling other opinions. You demonstrate this by demeaning the idea that men have rights as "little conspiracies" - which is hardly "assuming good faith", is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Improvement is done by citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not by huffing and puffing in some crusade over imagined wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying to improve it. By giving it equality to the Feminist article. You don't intimidate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.68.243 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Danke
thank you for your inviting me to the tea room. I apologize that I speak ill of Chinese people. Chinese classmates ill-treated me, when I was a pupil at elementary school. I hate. can you help me? Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yuriko Tanabe: Well, really all I can help you with is with working on this site. All we do here is paraphrase, summarize, and (most importantly) cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without additional interpretation or elaboration, and without any personal commentary. If you are not here to do this, you should find something else to do. We are not a forum.
- I cannot help you with your issues over who is Japanese and who is Chinese. You seem to be throwing out people who practice a different religion or marry someone who looks different. Is that any better than how your classmates treated you? You know that it hurts when someone ill-treats you just because of differences, so why would you do that to others? It might help if you found someone in Japan who is Christian or who has married a foreigner, and talk to them about what it means to be Japanese. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
edit Wikipedia
I don't want to edit Wikipedia. l'm just looking. nihonjoe advised me to write in Japanese, if I could. why do I have to talk to Chinese in Japanese? I want to negotiate with Chinese in English, if you like. you first mistook Chinese for Japanese like Ernest Mason Satow. you should announce officially that they are from China. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you do not want to edit Wikipedia, you should leave. Wikipedia is not a place to chat. Wikipedia does not add or change information unless someone cites a reliable source. Nihonjoe isn't Chinese, he is an American who lived in Japan for years. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Mia the Evangelical
I'm surprised you didn't block. I can't see this editor as capable. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did open the block window, and still have it open. I was going to block with the note "either VOA or WP:CIR," but I paused when I saw that she moved Apostasy in Christianity to Wikipedia:Apostasy (Christianity) instead of Wikipedia:Apostasy in Christianity (indicating a seed of clue). Between that, the server maintenance stopping about every other thing I was doing, fatigue from class, and I guess some curiosity if they were ever going to try to communicate, I just stopped.
- I'm certainly not gonna object if anyone else blocks her before then, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reported you
I have reported your harassment, lies, and threat against me at the WP:ANI noticeboard, here. Some religion scholar (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
ANI Thread
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Side note I'm not the one who opened I saw it and also noticed you had not been notified. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)- Looks like the user did it a second before I did. My apologies --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ian.thomson (talk)
You may help me to keep Wikipedia trustworthy
Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam.[1] So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. [2] [3] مصطفى النيل (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- You'll have to argue that on the article's talk page and get consensus there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
EruIluvatar3 Talk Page
Please refrain from vandalizing my talk page. If you do this again I will block you.
EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EruIluvatar3: Once again, read WP:NOTVAND. I did not vandalize your talk page. If you really, truly, believe I did -- go ahead and block me. Right now. Hell, do it anyway. I dare you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from threatening to block individuals on Wikipedia and engaging in offensive, disruptive, and aggressive behavior. Harassment on Wikipedia is intolerable and will be investigated. Block me, I dare you. EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one calling anyone who disagrees with you a vandal (against WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF), and deleting other people's legitimate comments (which, per WP:TPV is vandalism). I've merely been explaining site policies and guidelines, and the consequences of going against them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one harassing others and deleting their revisions. Heal THYSELF, hypocrite. “There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.” (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- When I call someone a vandal, it's because their behavior fall under WP:Vandal, and not under WP:NOTVAND. When I undo your revision, it's because the source you cited is not a reliable source, does not support the claim at all, and the claim is patently ridiculous (no one in China knows or cares about Magog). You need to share power here if you're going to get anything done beyond getting blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Sunni Article disruptions by the same user
Hello sir, the same user has deleted the same content again... Can you please advise? Thanks. cӨde1+6TP 20:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- (You don't need to call me sir). User told it's the last straw. If they revert again without consensus, I will block them for edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If you have the time
If you have the time, would you cast an eye on this Caesar's Messiah. It was previously deleted, but now recreated by the webmaster of the author. It's basically a mad conspiracy theory making Dan Brown look like a serious scholar; a person with no academic credentials puts forward an absolutely mad conspiracy theory but the article describes it as serious research, referring to the tin foil hat man as a Bible scholar. In some sort of record of false balance, it has one section on criticism (ie every scholar who ever commented on it) and one section on acceptance (ie a handful of people, none of whom has any academic credential in the field). A very large part of the article relies on blogs, mainly by the tin foil hat man himself. In short, it's the mother of all bad articles. I did try to remove some of the worst policy violations, but I was swiftly reverted by the article's creator. Don't really know how to handle the matter. Jeppiz (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've gotta write out a ridiculous amount of documentation no one's ever actually going to read for my classes, but I'll try to get to it when I can. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
User:United Kingdom EU membership referendum 2016
FYI - account related to User:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. You may want to revoke Talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Widr did it just as I was opening the menu to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's best to tick all the boxes with these socks. Widr (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now that I'm aware of this sockpuppeteer, I will. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's best to tick all the boxes with these socks. Widr (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Ban an IP?
Is this a record of vandalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:1903:28A3:C40C:A5DC:D9A2:B529
- Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I'd say at WP:AIV:
No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings.
- The edit to David Miscavige is a BLP violation, though, so I'll revdel that. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I'd say at WP:AIV:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've unblocked the account since your evidence was reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
self requested block
It was very much appreciated. I guess one day, I might learn to balance editing and typing reports for work. Either way, it was a productive 72 hours! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, just don't get me a reputation. I should probably block myself, what with grades and exams, but I'll just be half-assing stuff instead (like with handling that fellow whose comment I moved from your user page to your talk page). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Imelda Marcos
- Spacecowboy420 removed this
- She was reelected. "Bongbong Marcos, Imelda and family pray for 'poll integrity'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 15, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
- "Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
- "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. May 7, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
- "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. May 7, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
- Productions in the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco and the Seattle Repertory Theater were held during the 2016-17 season."Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
- "Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
Imeldific (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I saw. I don't care. He still didn't edit war and you still need to discuss the edits on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Help!
Experiancing high levels of vand. PP, please?
- New York Mets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Chase Utley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, was in the shower. Looks like Newyorkbrad and Closedmouth got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit-warrior is back
Hi, Ian. I just wanted to alert you that the edit-warring, sock-puppeting anon IP is back at Atlas Comics (1950s), now under 86.181.73.25. He's refusing to discuss on the talk page and at this point appears to be reverting out of spite. I'm hoping the page can be protected for a longer time, if possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Going on autopilot for a long while starting next week
Starting June 6 (which'll be June 5 for a lot of editors) and going until June 18, I'll be running final exams for my students from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm. I will still probably be logged in and may check my watchlist for obvious vandalism, but I'll pretty much be on autopilot to decompress and not really here to "work." I suppose I've been approaching that state already what with grades. After that, it's more grading, trying to prepare for my trip home for the summer, recovering from jet lag, and seeing family. I don't expect the possibility of normality (or what passes for it coming from me) until July 18. But by that time I should have copies of critical editions of The Sworn Book of Honorius and The Great Book of Saint Cyprian, which I'll try to improve. Hopefully those should turn out as well as Arbatel de magia veterum did instead of my eternal struggle to overhaul the List of Demons in the Ars Goetia (or at least as well as Livre des Esperitz instead of The Solomonic Miscellany article I will finish... "someday"). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit War
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/30px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And you appear to be a WP:PRECOCIOUS POV-pusher who is completely ignoring the total consensus against your edits on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry, I got frustrated and acted poorly. I have autism and it's very hard for me to explain things in my mind and to represent my intentions. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved from user page
As I said I will use talk page if I will face resistance. I see that you reverted even info on refugees that as you can see wasn't added by me. I consider this resistance so I will use talk page. And if I'll get consensus I will revert to my version.Amitashi (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- You keep saying that and yet after your block ended, you started up with the same behavior that got resistance last time.
- And stop saying I reverted info that wasn't added by you, because that's completely wrong: this is what you added, this is what I reverted.
- And post on this page next time, not on my user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Amitashi (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Ian.thomson, no you didn't. You didn't pay attention that information on refugees was in article before my very first edit on it! Here's proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&oldid=723198908. It is version of June 1st while I entered June 2nd. So you violated my right to revert baseless info deletion by My very best wishes. This deletion wasn't even discussed at Talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitashi (talk • contribs)
- This is the exact action I took. You are completely wrong, and it is beside the point. The material was removed by Volunteer Marek and again by My very best wishes. To say that I removed it is wrong, and showing you this this evidence it would be a lie for you to ever again say that I removed it.
- You don't think that being reverted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times is resistance? Why did you ignore that resistance completely? It wasn't a separate and distinct incident, the block does not make that "the past" and unrelated, you continued the same behavior from the previous incident. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Lord Laitinen-ScrapIronIV
Hello Ian. Since it was your idea to possibly enact a two-way IBAN if conflict continued between the user in question and I, I wanted to ask where I should go to request such an action. Just recently, ScrapIron reverted an edit I made to my userspace, saying a source was required. I highly doubt that I am required to source personal information about myself, especially outside of the mainspace. I found this to be very annoying, but I do not want to lose my temper with him again. If it is possible for you to do so, could you enact a two-way IBAN between him and I, or (as I said above) direct me to where I could request one if you are unable to do so. Thanks, and happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ANI would be the place to go about it. Be sure to study WP:IBAN beforehand. This is the only involvment I will have in this matter as I am conducting final exams for my students. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not know that discord wiki was a different website!
I did not know that discord wiki was a different website! I did not notice that because the website looks same. RedEyed Rocker (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did you try looking at the web address? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not notice that! RedEyed Rocker (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gee, web addresses are very important to know and easy to discover. The names, logos, and content for each site are all also rather different. In fact, the only similarities are the wiki software and the black text on white backgrounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you care about the 3 RR?
Earl King has now performed three reverts in the last 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] Check it out. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 15:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rule says "more than three." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Look mate
I'm trying to undo vandalism, and you're not letting me, claiming it's "disruptive editing". 220.239.56.138 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're moving a religion whose founder and followers sincerely and earnestly believed his patent insanity was true to a section for clear-headed parody. You are the vandal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
fighting prejudice | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1248 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Requesting article protection for Dominic Breazeale. Constant vandalism for the past 2 days. Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick, thanx for that ;) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You caught me just as I got on. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
I noticed your efforts with the kook (or kooks) on the Azrael page. Good work on keeping the insanity in check. Peterravn (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
Lee Harvey Oswald
Not trying to "add commentary" or my "own personal analysis." Just trying to be a bit more nuanced in the language, and reflect the way that Lee Harvey Oswald is referred to in every other reputable resource. For example:
The Encyclopedia Britannica says Oswald was the “accused assassin”; Biography.com says he “was accused of killing”; New World Encyclopedia says “Lee Harvey Oswald … was, according to two United States government investigations, the assassin …”; InfoPlease says “presumed assassin”; Encyclopedia.com says “allegedly assassinated”; History.com (and the History Channel) calls him “alleged assassin”
Why should Wikipedia be any different?
Leelostboy (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why should Wikipedia imitate an outdated encyclopedia that we're better than and some sensationalist entertainment channels that like to play both sides? InfoPlease and Encyclopedia.com come closer to being reliable sources, but they're hardly specialist works in the matter. The History Channel might as well be called the Indiana Jones Channel with their pandering to fans of Nazi occultism, Grail quest, and ancient astronauts. Wikipedia articles summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, usually secondary ones instead of the tertiary ones you cite. The specialist sources cited in the article say that Oswald was the killer, period. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought my point was valid, but OK, you're the boss. Cheers!Leelostboy (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled and click Special:UserRights Rack3515 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're confused. You mean I should click Special:Block/Rack3515. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Troll alarm
Re RfP, I think you are engaging with a troll, which might not be such a good idea. Just saying. Schwede66 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was kinda figuring, was just wondering who he was a sock of. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
PP protection
Didn't take long for another vandal! Doug Weller talk 05:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, just got back from lunch. Despite the static IPs, they seem to have ready access to more addresses. I was hoping that it'd just be easier to block all of them instead of protecting all of the articles they hit, but I'm gonna have to give up on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What?
After the block period I only made one revert in coming 24 hours so why do I get immediatly another ban? After the 24 hours I never reverted 3 times but one. So after a block and warning, I immediatly get banned when I make one revert? DavidThomson1997 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)