User talk:193.140.194.102

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Eden Project. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. fraggle (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Aeschylus worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mauro Formica, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Duduk. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been spaced out over a period of a little over a week, but this sort of slow edit war is as unacceptable, as well as the more rapid edit warring that leads to three revert rule blocks. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Association (Turkey)

Hi, you claimed that Adalet Agaoğlu was resigned from IHD because of the connection of the organization with PKK. It is not true. That is the POV of the Hurriyet newspaper. This is the original resignation letter of Adalet Ağaoğlu. http://eski.bianet.org/2005/08/01_k/64823.htm She mentions that 'I am resigning from IHD because it only defends the rights of the one ethnic group' Please correct the statement. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genocides in history. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is unfair the admin blocked me because I do not agree wtih him or her, he or she removed referenced information here[5] and deleted the contend I wrote in the talk page[6] to show how the section should be incuded in the article. I just reverted it twice 193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's nothing to discuss. "I just reverted it twice"—that's edit warring, very clearly, given your tendency to do this in multiple articles, no matter who's making the other edits, along with obnoxious edit summaries that strongly suggest you are incapable of working collaboratively. It doesn't matter that you only did it twice—as stated over at WP:3RR, that rule is not a license to make that many reverts before getting blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

The section removed without discussion on talk page by this user I just took it back actually the so-called admin incapable of working collaboratively.193.140.194.102 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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=The section removed without discussion on talk page by this user I just took it back actually the so-called admin incapable of working collaboratively.[[Special:Contributions/193.140.194.102|193.140.194.102]] ([[User talk:193.140.194.102#top|talk]]) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (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=The section removed without discussion on talk page by this user I just took it back actually the so-called admin incapable of working collaboratively.[[Special:Contributions/193.140.194.102|193.140.194.102]] ([[User talk:193.140.194.102#top|talk]]) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (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=The section removed without discussion on talk page by this user I just took it back actually the so-called admin incapable of working collaboratively.[[Special:Contributions/193.140.194.102|193.140.194.102]] ([[User talk:193.140.194.102#top|talk]]) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}