→Blocked for 48 hours: unblocked |
|||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
}} |
}} |
||
*For more details of the reasons for the ban, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=707429944#Repeated_Muhammad-related_disruptions_and_personal_attacks_despite_warnings this ANI thread]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC). |
|||
== Blocked for 48 hours == |
== Blocked for 48 hours == |
Revision as of 21:03, 28 February 2016
February 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Solid-state drive has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Solid-state drive was changed by Ttt74 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.883014 on 2016-02-10T00:26:26+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ttt74, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Ttt74! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
February 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to AGPL has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: AGPL was changed by Ttt74 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863219 on 2016-02-17T20:16:05+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Promotional Attack. I noticed that you recently removed some content from God 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. Promotional Attack (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I've just explained it on the edit history: this article is about many different point of views about the God: and using a picture for specific idelogy on the top of that article is clearly POV-pushing and not respecting the neutral point of view. Ttt74 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at God 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 are 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. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to God, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at God 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 are 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. Theroadislong (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to do an edit war. Anyway, you didn't explain why you did disagree with my recent edit on the talk page: You need as well to establish consensus that can justify your revert. Ttt74 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at God. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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.
Please be careful to avoid edit warring on this article. You don't want to violate 3RR. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I'm trying to avoid edit warring as much as possible. But the problem is with some editors who keep saying me there is no consensus, while simply they don't explain their disagreement [1]. Ttt74 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Your move of Free software
You boldly moved Free software, but then your move was reverted. The next step is to start a move discussion not move it again as you did. I have reverted your move. If you believe the article should be moved you need to start a move discussion. The instructions can be found at WP:RM. -- GB fan 01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, you may now join the discussion I started at Talk:Free_software#Move_suggestion. Ttt74 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not interested at all. It just took an admin to do the move back to the stable title since you edited the page after you moved it the second time. I would suggest you read WP:RM#CM as there is a specific format for move requests so that they get listed at WP:RM#C. -- GB fan 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
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.
- Radio Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Ahmed Rami
- Server-side scripting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Plack
- Web development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Plack
- Webmaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to NET
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions apply to articles about Muhammad, broadly construed
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding a few of your edit summaries...
(Please note: this is not a warning template. This is all handcrafted text.)
Please do not inappropriately accuse others of "disruptive editing", as you did twice at the Subaru page and once at Fuji Heavy Industries.
As described at WP:DISRUPT,
- "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."
(emphasis added)
Also, please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.
You made this accusation to 122.55.55.210 (talk · contribs), who had made a grand total of three edits - one to the Fuji Heavy Industries article and two to Subaru, all within the space of six minutes. And also to 27.99.64.75 (talk · contribs), who had made four edits to Subaru within a few minutes - essentially all the same edit; they added info on a local Subaru club to the product infobox.
Note the words "pattern", "long term", and "many articles" above. These individuals and their actions would in no way be considered "disruptive" as the term is used to describe editors' behavior here.
Verb. Sap.: You may feel "disrupted", but you can't accuse people of "disruptive editing" unless they fit Wikipedia's criteria. A simple mistaken edit (or even a quick series of mistaken edits) is just not considered "disruptive" here.
Yes, their edits were poor in various respects and should have been reverted. But for .210's edits, a reasonable edit summary for your revert would have been something like "not supported by references", or "was correct as written", or maybe "overly simplistic" (since Toyota didn't acquire all 16.5% of FHI's stock in 2008, but they did acquire some). Or even "Toyota bought 8.7% in 2005 and another 7.8% in 2008", if it would have fit.
(I've since filled in all the details, with references.)
For .75's edit, something like "thanks, but we can't list a local car club as the club for the entire brand"... or, if it needs to be shorter, "inappropriate for infobox"... would have been on-point, informative, and avoided all unfounded accusations. There was no need to accuse them of "disruption". There was no "disruption".
You also accused .75 of incivility, even though they had made no personal remarks whatsoever. Like your accusation of disruptive editing, your accusation of incivility was completely unfounded. Making one problem edit (well, one edit and then three edits to that edit) with no edit summary is hardly what we call uncivil or disruptive behavior. Please review WP:CIVIL for more details on what is considered uncivil here.
Thank you for considering these points. If I have been unclear about anything, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Jeh (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been topic banned for six months from all editing related to Muhammad.
You have been sanctioned for repeated disruption of Muhammad-related articles as well as intemperate attacks on other users and a complete failure to listen to good advice.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- For more details of the reasons for the ban, see this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
Blocked for 48 hours
You have been blocked for disruptive editing on articles relating to Mohamed. Please note this is not an Arbitration related block, but a standard one. You are welcome to read the advice at WP:GAB if you choose to appeal this block. I've chosen a short duration block because it is my hope this will get your attention and stop the disruption now, while giving you a chance to understand why your actions are not acceptable. Your constant reverting is the problem, as is your attitude when dealing with those that disagree with you. You will fare better if you learn the system here instead of correcting everyone that disagrees with you, particularly when they seem to be correct on the procedure and decorum we expect around here. If you continue to take a battleground approach after you are unblocked, you shouldn't be surprised if you get longer or indef blocks in the future. As always, any admin is free to act on this block without my being contacted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see that Bishonen has issued a topic ban under the above Sanction. This is independent of this block, and how it is handled, I'm happy to leave to her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)