User talk:80.111.172.25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:15, 23 June 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Alexandra Stan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ginsuloft (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Alexandra Stan. Jim1138 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Mr. Saxobeat, you may be blocked from editing. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Are you sure she didn't write it? 80.111.172.25 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. The real question is, are you sure she did write it? If she did it, prove it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! NOW!

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information to articles or any other page on Wikipedia. Thank you. --MSalmon (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a source for Atack presenting then don't bother editing the page because it will be removed immediately. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mercury Prize 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:

*[[One Direction]] - ''[Take Me Home (One Direction album)|Take Me Home]]''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring,

You're the one making the initial change to a stable article without consensus. You take it to the talk-page as your edits have been challenged. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nymf (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You are obviously playing games here to get your own way and acting in very bad faith. You have had the rules presented to you but continue to ignore them. If you make any more changes like the one at Ellie Goulding you WILL be blocked from editing. This, along with Nymf' message above, is your final warning. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jamesx12345. Your recent edit to the page Laura Whitmore appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. James^x12345 17:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Laura Whitmore with this edit. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Laura Whitmore with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ellie Goulding. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

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).

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

Request reason:

I have a good reason as to why I changed the article. The person undoing it doesn't.

Decline reason:

There is no such exemption to our 3RR policy; have you had an opportunity to read it yet? Please do so by following the links in the many warnings above. Kuru (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ellie Goulding

Please get consensus on the talk page and cite a reliable source before changing this again.[1] Thank you. Also hidden text like this [!-- DO NOT CHANGE ELLIE'S NATIONALITY TO ENGLISH. IF YOU WANT TO DO SO, PLEASE DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. --] in capital letters, is not ~~acceptable~~ [appropriate]. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are edit warring with me [2], real nice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:80.111.172.25 reported by User:Somchai Sun (Result: ). Thank you. Somchai Sun (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring after expiration of last block at Ellie Goulding. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been removing unsourced content (Laura Whitmore) and people have been undoing my edits.

Decline reason:

It might be premature to comment there but your edits at that article looked a little like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Nevertheless, that edit (and it was just one edit) has nothing to do with why you were blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I'm January. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Emily Atack, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. January (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

December 2013

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Eoghan McDermott has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Laura Whitmore 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. Three points. 1- RTÉ isnt British, neither is MTV UK and Ireland. 2 Date first for dates on Irish articles- as per common usage. And 3 you dont have control over the article Murry1975 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Re: Ellie Goulding

You didn't provide a source for your edit. Besides, Ellie Goulding doesn't have a song titled "Gotta Get Up from Here". SnapSnap 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a heck of a lot longer for edit warring. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I have been wrongly blocked. My younger brother used wikipedia under my IP address.

Decline reason:

Pity that. See WP:BROTHER. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

Request reason:

People are vandalising the page The Salute Tour and I want to undo their vandalism.

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=People are vandalising the page [[The Salute Tour]] and I want to undo their vandalism. |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=People are vandalising the page [[The Salute Tour]] and I want to undo their vandalism. |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=People are vandalising the page [[The Salute Tour]] and I want to undo their vandalism. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

There are editors in good standing taking care of that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are on that page, mis-spelling Mø's name as "MO" (note non-Nordic 'o'). When I'm blocked, I can't undo this. That's the problem.80.111.172.25 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 {{Unblock|People are vandalising the page [[The Salute Tour]] and I want to undo their vandalism.}}
 :There are editors in good standing taking care of that. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
-::People are on that page, mid spelling Mo's name as "MO" (note non-Nordic 'o'). When I'm blocked, I can't undo this. That's the problem.[[Special:Contributions/80.111.172.25|80.111.172.25]] ([[User talk:80.111.172.25#top|talk]]) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
+::People are on that page, mis-spelling Mø's name as "MO" (note non-Nordic 'o'). When I'm blocked, I can't undo this. That's the problem.[[Special:Contributions/80.111.172.25|80.111.172.25]] ([[User talk:80.111.172.25#top|talk]]) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)