User talk:200.120.73.176

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 06:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (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.
  • Ha, it's you again! So I didn't have to place this note here, since you know the rules of the game, haha. Look, you need to make a little bit better of a case on that talk page. I'll leave a note there, a kind of manual to how such things should be done (my opinion, of course). As for our previous run-in, DagosNavy was rightly blocked and then righteously unblocked (again, my opinion). Niemti, well, what can I say. Their actions aren't worthy of respect, but they don't rise to being blockable, certainly not in the eyes of the community; I have made my disapproval quite clear, I believe. I have some more opinions but I'd rather keep them to myself. You know that if you had an account (or if you used it) you'd be in a better position, rightly or wrongly--you'd be in a position like Niemti, more or less. Off to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I chose a different route on that talk page, by hatting the entire (final) section. Sorry, but my admin hat made me delete that one comment, since it's simply too personal (in our way of defining these things). I can appreciate the argument, but not how it's phrased. I also appreciate what you said about me as an editor, but that's a double-edged sword, as you are no doubt aware. Best, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to They think it's all over 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:
  • words "Well, some of the crowd are on the pitch. They think it's all over. Well it is now"). The British band [[The Dentists]] called their first album ''Some People are on the Pitch They

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe join the talk page discussion[edit]

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe don't revert for no reason. "Try the talk page" and "It's an FA" are not reasons. The first one in particular is just inane. See WP:REVEXP: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion". 200.120.73.176 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
You are at 4 reverts would recommend you self revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually three, as are you. 200.120.73.176 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits to "List of circulating currencies"[edit]

Hello! The reason there are two rows for Ecuador is because Ecuador uses both the United States dollar and local centavo coins. These are two separate currencies. As for Chile, I understand that the centavo is not used in practice anymore, but it still the fractional unit of the currency, even if it is effectively obsolete. There are many currencies on the list whose fractional units are obsolete, but they are nonetheless included for the purposes of the list. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, – Zntrip 00:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clear water[edit]

I enjoyed the tag you added with this edit :-) Maproom (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)