User talk:Andreas11213

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

advice:User Pages[edit]

Andreas, and others I notice the recent arguments over warnings being posted here please read WP:UP#OWN this space is to discuss matters relating to the user, it not owned by the user it is a community page and all community policies apply including civility and edit warring. Content can be archived(preferred) or removed by the user with some exceptions, in doing so it is taken that the user has taken note of any warnings. Gnangarra 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

By "...it is taken that the user has taken note of any warnings" I think you mean that we should assume that he has taken note. This is like the Wikipedia rule that we should always assume good faith. We all know that situations eventually arise with some editors where we can no longer do that. It's the same here. Even if Andreas11213 HAS "taken note of any warnings", I think there are many of us who believe the warnings are making no difference to behaviour. Surely there comes a time to move beyond such artificial "assumptions". HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Woo hoo! To quote Banjo Patterson, it seems that, at last, there might be "movement at the station"!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In case it wasn't bleedingly obvious to readers of Andreas's talk page, I've made an unusually large amount of effort to educate this person. Let me hasten to add: "As have others." In fact, it is very unusual that so many experienced editors have gone to so much effort and been so tolerant of this person's recalcitrance. Why is this? It's because Andreas shows the ability to be a VERY useful and VERY productive contributor.
I started off being "a bit irritated" by his attitude and behaviour. Then I decided this was not useful, so I decided to be extremely polite and helpful, giving the best advice I could. In this modus operandi, I persisted for some time. However, this didn't seem to gain any sort of positive result from him, so I eventually moved to a combination of blunt factual statements and humorous sarcasm and cynicism. To my surprise, this also resulted in the same outcome - i.e. absolutely NO acknowledgement, and absolutely NO change in behavior. (OK, I'm naïve - on pragmatic reflection, why might it lead to any change?)
As those who are familiar with my modus operandi would now, I could go on. At length. Giving cited examples. (And I'm forced to admit the temptation is almost unavoidable.) But, ... I won't.
I'll simply say: Andreas: Normally, the next step would be for you to be blocked indefinitely. End of conversation.
However, very unusually, you are being offered an alternative, and this is only because you have illustrated your positive abilities, (in addition to your unacceptable behavior.)
That alternative is that you agree to modify your behavior into the "acceptable" class.
Should you respond in any form or manner that implies ANYTHING other than your willingness to modify your behaviour, you WILL be blocked - not just for a week - permanently. And let me educate you that this is no idle threat; in your very brief career of 1,500 edits you have succeeded in pissing of a HUGE number of people - there will be NO shortage of people willing to bang nails into the lid of your coffin.
I trust that I have been unambiguous. If there is anything about which you are unclear, do not hesitate to ask, because, genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The disruption from this editor far outweighs any benefits in editing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I did think about a block but the problem wasnt occurring at the time I saw it and other participants were also not exactly behaving within policy of user talk page requirements either therefor it would be a punitive block. Pdfpdf is right in saying genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so Gnangarra 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf is right in saying genuinely, this is your very last chance to do so
We're awaiting your reply. (At some stage, you will exceed out patience.) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Andreas? Are you there Andreas? Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, he's there. Just doesn't care to reply. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift yes I'm here what Andreas11213 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, lets' see. That's a non-indented post, so we have to guess who it's a response to. Appalling grammar. There was no Edit summary. And there is an apparent complete absence of comprehension about the whole preceding thread. Andreas, can you tell that a lot of people find your approach to editing here unacceptable? And that they are frustrated with the fact that, despite massive efforts by others to help you, not enough has changed to remove that view? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Full names of parties. You've been trying to remove Australia for ages and multiple users have reverted you. STOP AND GET CONSENSUS OR GET BANNED. YOU DON'T EVEN RESPOND TO THE ABOVE AND KEEP REMOVING WARNINGS. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You're the one trying to make a change, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs consensus Andreas11213 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You've been trying to remove Australia for ages and multiple users have reverted you. What part of this do you fail to understand? Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No actually, I made those changes mostly last year and a few this year... no one had any objection to the changes I made up until now. If you want to change it seek consensus. Andreas11213 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No actually everyone else but you seems to think that infoboxes should contain full, not abbreviated names. The number of times you have been reverted points to that inconclusively. If you believe differently put your argument forth in the relevant talk pages. Alans1977 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tony Abbott. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you.

Blocked for edit warring again[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, as you did at Tony Abbott. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Given this is your third block for edit warring on pages relating to Australian politics any unblock will probably come with a topic ban from Australian politics or a one revert restriction on those pages. When the block expires you would be best advised to not edit war again as the next block is likely to be for a long time or indefinitely. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

About time. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please note Tony Abbott (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Parliament of Australia, 44th.svg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parliament of Australia, 44th.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for evading your block[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion with 138.217.89.223. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I thought you'd get the message when I blocked your IP, but obviously not. DO NOT edit except with this account. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Julie Bishop 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. 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. AlanS (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, you really don't learn from experience do you? Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)