User talk:175.103.25.136

December 2013

Hello, I'm I am One of Many. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ellen Kaden without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2013 (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.

March 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Distracted driving— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Distracted driving. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 March 2016 (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.

Mick

Hello, I'm DARIO SEVERI. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! DARIO SEVERI (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Karnataka. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (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.

Your recent editing history at Karnataka shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. BilCat (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2016 (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.

Stop reverting my edits then. Grow up.

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kingfisher Airlines destinations has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:02, 8 March 2016 (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.

March 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did to the Karnataka, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Karnataka shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. BilCat (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2016 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive Editing and 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And 2 weeks for vandalism immediately after the block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor 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:

• traced the blame to Roselius who was then murdered by [[Hitler]] in the [[Hotel Kaiserhof (Berlin))]] on 15/5/1943 after a massive argument.<ref>Leidig, Ludwig. Bombshell. sbpra 2013. [[ISBN: 978-1-
• item doesn't apply, like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with )</li> and start a new, fully formatted line with <li> -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Die Hard 2, as you may have been committing vandalism. If you continue to do to commit vandalism, you maybe blocked from editing without warning. Thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?? But he is meant to represent Fidel Castro. His appearance is the same.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Pamela Geller. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You have only three warnings so I believe it would be unfair to add another for your latest edit, especially since I think you may not understand the issue. The issue is not with the sentence about Yemenis in Saudi Arabia, which you have sourced. The further sentence that you added "This problem is also prevalent in neighbouring UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain" has no source. If the same source covers this, please cite it again for that sentence. If not, please add one. Otherwise, there is no basis for including other countries and that sentence should be removed. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable and for getting back to me. I will add for another source. Thank you.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pornographic film actor. Aurora (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 November 2016 (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.

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
175.103.25.136 (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Execution by firing squad

Hi. I noticed you made an edit to Execution by firing squad. You added sources (which is good) but the sources were a bit off topic. These did not discuss execution by firing squad, nor did they back up statements made in the edit. If you add sources, please choose ones that discuss the exact topic of "execution by firing squad". Wikipedia requires edits to cite a reliable source that backs up the edit. Your sources were reliable, but did not back up the information added, so I reverted the edit. Be assured that this is not personal, and if you can correct this, feel free to re-add the edit with proper sources. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. The sources mention that the people were shot. So this is fine, isn't it?

This one was a tough one. The Google Books link you added was the first one to mention an actual firing squad, so that's good. I think it's good now. I looked this up a bit as well, to see if I could help you out. Almost all the other references (including the one in the Wikipedia article) made it sounds as if it was a single gunshot by executioner. If you can find one or two more references that mention the actual "firing squad" it may strengthen the content. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I will look for another source then. Thanks for your help.

No problem. If you need help in the future, or you need help finding references for this, don't hesitate to ask questions on my talk page. Just FYI, I restored your edit since it did have the mention of the firing squad. I did read through your references but I missed it the first time through. My sincere apologies.  Self-trout Feel free to smack me with a trout too.

But yes, it will be stronger with that extra reference. Quick tip: remember to sign your comments, please! Thank you! Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

For this sort of content WP:DAILYMAIL is tabloid journalism and is WP:NOTRS Please don't restore. Or, discuss on talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to Jaws

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edits because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! TushiTalk To Me 07:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

edits on Akashi Kaikyō Bridge

Hi, I noticed you re-added content that I removed from the article Akashi Kaikyō Bridge. As I noted in the edit summary, the content you added has no direct relevance to the article topic or the article text. Please feel free to discuss further rather than revert - and remember to play nice, even in edit summaries. --Sesameball^Talk 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Execution by shooting. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Excuse me. Watch your language. I've supplied sources and someone has reverted them without even looking at the sources. Please warn the other person. Thank you for your understanding.175.103.25.136 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't intend to hurt you. I warned both of you (the other one got removed from the talk page). I just didn't want you both to be blocked for 3RR violation. Sorry if I sounded rude. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the warning. How come the other one got removed?

The user removed it himself. See the user talk history of his talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dying twice.

It is not possible to kill the same person twice. This is self-evidently true. I presume that you are not a native English speaker and that your errors at the capital punishment articles are due to some translation issue, but if you continue to insert obviously silly information I will have to assume that you are being deliberately disruptive. A person can be shot twice or hung twice, but they cannot be killed twice. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the articles state that the prison guards had to execute her twice.. First she was shot, then taken to the room next door.. After a while,175.103.25.136 (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) she was taken back to the execution area. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Booze cruise— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Chequers

A few points:

• I can't check references if you don't include them. You didn't when you originally reverted.
• The sources you cite have nothing to do with Chequers. The first is a commercial website that says nothing about the location of the film. The second doesn't name the location but it sure isn't Chequers. Nor is it Luton Hoo. It's in fact Mentmore Towers.
• None of the above is relative to Chequers, they're minor bits of media trivia that may, just, have a place in the Mentmore article (for the exterior) and Luton Hoo for the interior, but I doubt it.
• Chequers does not permit commercial filming, for a host of reasons, including reasons of security.

What security? Are you telling me that filming crew or Chequers staff, are incapable of organising security? I'm going to look for more sources..

Off you go... KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. KJP1 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've wasted quite enough time on your irrelevancies. If you think it should be in, start a discussion on the Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've wasted enough time too, trying to reply and find other sources. And I've reworded the sentences. Many other places/landmarks/residences have a section " In popular culture". This page needs one too..

I've explained you need to make your case on the Talkpage. If you put it back in without consensus, I shall look to have you banned. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure please do. And I will see to it that you are banned too. Good luck.

You can self-revert, or I'll take it further. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Take it further and I'll take it further. Thanks.

April 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Independence Day (1996 film).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

And can you explain how this constitutes 'disruptive editing'? All I did was add ' Furthermore, these attack fighters have shields '. This is in the movie, I am not making this up. You should be reported for attempting to make false information.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chequers. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Bahrain. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please explain. The information in the article is true and not false claims. Thank you for your understanding.175.103.25.136 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)