→September 2023: Reply Tag: Reply |
67.149.160.101 (talk) →September 2023: Appeal is being blocked |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.<!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> |
: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.<!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> |
||
{{unblock|reason=i am not able to file the appeal due to an automated filter blocking the appeal [[Special:Contributions/67.149.160.101|67.149.160.101]] ([[User talk:67.149.160.101#top|talk]]) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 19:57, 11 September 2023
Good evening and salutations fellow editor. I reverted your deletion of long-sourced material in an article regarding gender reveal parties.
you seem passionate about this topic, it could use more properly sourced unbiased material. so, great.
please discuss on the talk page removals of previous cited content.
thanks and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk)
recent edits on gender reveal parties
Good evening and salutations fellow editor. I reverted your deletion of long-sourced material in an article regarding gender reveal parties.
you seem passionate about this topic, it could use more properly sourced unbiased material. so, great.
please discuss on the talk page removals of previous cited content.
thanks and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Funcrunch (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
August 2023
Hello, I'm FenrisAureus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. If you have an issue with the inclusion of content you should bring it to the talk page of the article in question — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is clear you are not reading the edit summaries I am leaving please do so or stop.
- The article even asks to prune out what is and is not a topic of controversy at the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.160.101 (talk)
- I did in fact read your edit summaries. Please do not delete entire sections of well sourced content without consensus on the talk page of the article in question. If you continue to do so you risk being blocked from editing.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest reading the content and following the dead links. The section is nonsense. Tt is like complaining about some countries having better clothes or food. It is no different to counties in rowing complaining of lighter blades or better rowing seats. Absolute and utter whole cloth absurd and a million miles away from a controversy. It is how sport works, it's called sports technology, without people would be running round barefoot chasing lumps of leather on football grass and bikes would weigh tonnes and have one brake. It's the modern world and the section reads of howling at the moon that some people have and some people have not. Gimme a break sport is never fair, what next we have a section on genetic advantages of fast runners?
- Also threats are not welcome. You keep on adding back in stuff which does not belong that the article specifically asks to remove. I will remove it again unless you give me a reason why this should be included, simply 'well sourced content without consensus' is not a good enough reason. No consensus will exist ever again on that long dead talk page and the sources do not automatically make this a controversy.
- Over to you on why this stuff should remain. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You are the one not leaving reasons, and just putting back in the stuff. You are doing what you are claiming I am doing when I am not doing what you are claiming. See above for the detailed reasons. I also cannot see any reasons from you. If you are trying to scare me with being blocked you should be equally scared as you are just putting back in and not giving any reasons. It feels very difficult it seems to get you to actually read all of the section and the things I am writing. It seems you just want to scold and revert. Please read the section and tell me if you honestly and genuinely believe it meets the template at the top of the page and if it should stay or go. Sod the sources they are mostly dead and are about nothingness.
Your recent editing history at Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics 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. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The rich irony of the warning you have placed here you fell right in to the bear trap to show you are an edit warrer. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, there has to be 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, i only made 2 reverts. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- No,it does not say that. That is only what you think it says. The actual warning says clearly the following "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."
- The way how you gloatingly say " i only made 2 reverts." is clear evidence you have no intention of doing anything but counting up to the number reverts you think you are allowed to make. Which clearly violates the above quoted section from the very warning you placed on this talk page.
- Also I looked up the policy you are relying on which states the following " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."
- You are on thin ice my pedigree chum with an attitude like yours, now would you like to read and comment on the substance of why I have removed the most irrelevant content in that article, or are you only going to engagne in edit warring? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it does say that per WP:3RR
- The three-revert rule
- Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked.
- The three-revert rule states:
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
- The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Wikipedia, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.
- The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, there has to be 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, i only made 2 reverts. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming what I had read. This matter is about edit warring and it appears you seem to think the three revert rule and the edit warring policies are separate. They are both linked with the edit warring policy being a larger policy and the three revert rule being a child policy stemming from its existence. you seem to think you're immune from the edit-warring policy when you are not. You have made clear you were keeping tabs not to exceed three reverts while still edit-warring as you clearly were not prepared to engage in the substance and were simply waiting to just revert up to three times. This is called gaming a system and you have done it in a way you think you dan get away with it is clear whoever in the legal department wrote the policy was your tactics a mile away and wrote in language to stop your behaviour. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:67.149.160.101 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: ). Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Irony is dead it seems. I am glad an uninvolved person saw your absurdity for what it actually is. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Maya Le Tissier—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Rugby union match reports
If you think we need to display rugby union match reports in a different way than we have been for the last decade or more, please raise a discussion at WT:RU instead of acting in a disruptive manner. It's not helpful. – PeeJay 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Great you have been doing it wrong for a decade, I have no idea what the insider-only understanding means. Doing something wrong for a long time does not mean you keep doing it wrong...this is not a battleground, and changing things so people who are not insiders with implicit knowledge of Rugby Union can understand things is called progress. Stagnation because 'that's how it's been done for a decade' is the weakest and laziest reason to keep doing something confusing and not helpful to those not having an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the people who decided to include seemingly random letters in seemingly ugly places. Also, wikiprojects expressly do not OWN articles or subject matters, and I feel that I will simply come up against lazy arguments of 'too much don't bother, keep going with the wrong' This needs to be taken out of the insider only intimidate knowledge assumed sphere. how about the Village Pump or somewhere not filled with insiders who have assumed knowledge and a decade of entrenchment?
You really need to read WP:TECHNICAL as you are falling squarely into being a Rugby Union expert and expecting everyone else to be a Rugby Union expert. Also having the random letters without explanation fails WP:ACCESSIBILITY, particularly those using accessibility devices as the random letters are unexplained.
TL;DR - Doing something bad for a long time is no reason to keep on doing something.
@PeeJay:
- As I said, please raise a discussion at WT:RU instead of continuing with disruptive editing. Have a good day. – PeeJay 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I will not raise it with the insiders only, this needs wider input from those who are not the people who created the problem and will therefore resist the problem being fixed on the ridiculous grounds that - too much is already broken by us and we don't have the want to fix it, let's keep on braking things...This is the obvious outcome and the outcome I can almost guarantee you will raise by your initial comment here...the problem will not be fixed by those who created the problem...how about you give an actual reason for the use of the random letters other than...it is the way it's done...if there is a reason for this notation fo ahead what is it?
@PeeJay:
- The editors at WT:RU are not unreasonable. If you explain your reasoning for needing to make a change, I'm sure they'll be receptive. It may well be that they simply never considered the issue before. But if you're not willing to engage with other editors, perhaps we should treat you as WP:NOTHERE. – PeeJay 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The bad faith is strong with your last comment, wish to reconsider that?
- You know you could start the topic instead of demanding I do it. You are not being very constructive in looking at this, you are treating this as "other user do everything". Whereas you could be constructive and start that internal discussion yourself...I get the feeling you don't want to do that because you are coming across as having unconscious WP:battleground reasons, which is not helpful. instead of demanding I start the discussion, you could have done that in the first place. I also have started a wider discussion on the 2023 Rugby World Cup talk page, tagged the articles and informed the individual article talk pages. Remember wikiprojects do not 'own' articles, cannot impose their preferences on articles, or require their approval for changes. I suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject#Function. It is probably best you stop requiring a specific wikiproject be the conduit this goes through.
- 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're the one who thinks there's an issue with the way we do things right now, so the onus is definitely on you to initiate the discussion. I see you've done that at Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup, which I appreciate, but as I said there, it would be better to have it in a more centralised location due to the large number of articles it will affect. Thanks. – PeeJay 16:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now it feels you are having the battlegroud mentality...please come off the oppositional stance and lower the high horse. As you have said the discussion by me have been started. If you are so eager to include the wikiproject for their non-binding consultation, be my guest. I will though not be bullied into breaking up this discussion and being forced to seek the approval of a wikiproject. Perhaps a discussion on the template article itself then? I cannot find such a discussion on the template talk page having ever taken place. If one has please can you point it out as I see you are a user who does discuss things there.
- @PeeJay: 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're the one who thinks there's an issue with the way we do things right now, so the onus is definitely on you to initiate the discussion. I see you've done that at Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup, which I appreciate, but as I said there, it would be better to have it in a more centralised location due to the large number of articles it will affect. Thanks. – PeeJay 16:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@PeeJay:
September 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- @67.149.160.101, you have been making inappropriate use of your talk page. The edits you are attempting to make were disallowed by an edit filter. To the blocking admin, @Ivanvector, please monitor if the IP continues to make inappropriate edits here. Eyesnore 19:49, 11 September 2023 (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.
67.149.160.101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=i am not able to file the appeal due to an automated filter blocking the appeal [[Special:Contributions/67.149.160.101|67.149.160.101]] ([[User talk:67.149.160.101#top|talk]]) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=i am not able to file the appeal due to an automated filter blocking the appeal [[Special:Contributions/67.149.160.101|67.149.160.101]] ([[User talk:67.149.160.101#top|talk]]) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=i am not able to file the appeal due to an automated filter blocking the appeal [[Special:Contributions/67.149.160.101|67.149.160.101]] ([[User talk:67.149.160.101#top|talk]]) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}