User talk:82.26.98.80

Regarding your edits to World War Z:

Your recent edit to World War Z (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 04:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...You're trying to argue with a bot... HalfShadow 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove article tags from articles, without correcting the issues they address. You have removed three tags from World War Z, and a significant amount of information from the article, without fixing the issues the tags address. Please take your concerns or comments to the article's talk page to discuss your changes, as mass removal of information without discussion is not advised. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In this IP address' defense, I believe he/she is addressing the problems. He/she removed a huge chunk of blow-by-blow plot, leaving it to just one big paragraph and doesn't go into the same amount of detail. The tag removed, {{plot}}, asks to reduce the amount of plot, which he/she just did.

Anyway, I was coming here to say that if you remove too large of a chunk of material, some antivandal bots will think it is vandalism and revert it. hbdragon88 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This IP removed two other article tags as well, though, the references tag, and the in-universe tag, and did not address those issues. And when removing massive amounts of information from an article, it is courteous to first discuss the issue with other editors on the article's talk page. The best way is not always to do what this IP is doing, blanking a major portion of the article, but to condense, paraphrase, and summarize instead. Ariel♥Gold 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot is an automated program. There's nothing to talk to, it's simply a program. Look here:VoABot II HalfShadow 04:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.98.80 (talk • contribs) 04:43, November 12, 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking with others

Please don't add comments to the talk of editor's talk pages, as many times it interferes with their formatting, and new comments are placed at the bottom of talk pages, all across Wikipedia. Please use the tab with the + symbol on it to add a new comment. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tags

I have replaced the {{refimprove}} tag, as two references are not adequate to source the article; one of them is a press release related to an award, unrelated to the article's content. The other is a very short blurb, and does not adequately source the information in the article. I respectfully request that you review the verifiability policy, as well as reliable sources, and footnotes to understand why it is important for articles to be sourced. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I have added tags to the passages that need to be sourced, as they are not sourced by the references given. I hope t hat you understand these tags are there to improve articles, and will not further edit-war over this issue, as the tags provide useful information to other editors seeking articles that need improving. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:World War Z

I'm going to ask you yet again, to enter into the discussion on the above talk page. Additionally, I again request that you review policy, IMDB is not a reliable, third-party source and cannot be cited as a footnote. The publisher of the book is not a third-party source, and cannot be used to cite passages. Please go to the article talk page and discuss your removal of valid, helpful information for those not familiar with the book. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am really trying to help you here, but it is getting to be frustrating. You can not use the book or the audio book as a reference. I'm again requesting that you review what a reliable source is, because you do not seem to understand policy, and your edits are not constructive, at this point. Again I request that you stop editing, and enter into the talk page discussion. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

what can you use as a reliable source if not the book itself? if you read you can count the number of accounts and similiar if you listen to the audio book it only has about half of those, i deleted the time constraints bit because i couldn't find any evidence for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.98.80 (talk)

I have given you links to the policies and guidelines that explain that question already, but here they are again: Reliable, third-party source, and verifiability. "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Please click on the links, and read the pages to understand why you can not use the book as a reference when the subject of the article is about that same book. I honestly do realize you are trying to help, but you are going about things in a way that is inconsistent with policy, guidelines, or consensus. I really hope that you'll take the time to read the policies, and understand that Wikipedia is a bit different than the average web site, and that discussion should take place when doing major changes to articles. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at World War Z. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — madman bum and angel 06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

82.26.98.80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

madman hasn't bothered to read what is going on or even this talk page or he would realise i was trying to be constructive in fact i think madman should have such powers removed if he isn't competant in using them, could someone please sort this!! i'd appreciate a speedy resolution to this mistake!!!!

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.

Administrator use only:

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=madman hasn't bothered to read what is going on or even this talk page or he would realise i was trying to be constructive in fact i think madman should have such powers removed if he isn't competant in using them, could someone please sort this!! i'd appreciate a speedy resolution to this mistake!!!! |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=madman hasn't bothered to read what is going on or even this talk page or he would realise i was trying to be constructive in fact i think madman should have such powers removed if he isn't competant in using them, could someone please sort this!! i'd appreciate a speedy resolution to this mistake!!!! |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=madman hasn't bothered to read what is going on or even this talk page or he would realise i was trying to be constructive in fact i think madman should have such powers removed if he isn't competant in using them, could someone please sort this!! i'd appreciate a speedy resolution to this mistake!!!! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}