User talk:81.110.106.169

31 hour block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

It is inappropriate to use warning templates where there is a content dispute, and blanking your userpage - while allowable in itself - with a misleading edit summary does not indicate a predisposition to attempt to resolve disputes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using 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.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please provide specific evidence (i.e. diffs, in context) of the above.

Decline reason:

Please do not remove old unblock templates while you are blocked. This is disruptive, doubly so a second time around after an admin has already told you you could be blocked for such actions. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (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.

While we're at it, this is paatently not a valid AIV, and amounts to trying to exclude one party to a dispute - particularly disgusting while discussion was ongoing on their talk page. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was vandalism rather than a dispute, hence why I reported you Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laos

The s in Laos is pronounced in English. Check any dictionary. kwami (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Day

I agree with you. The Welsh flag is flown all year round, whereas St David's flag (gold cross on a black field) is flown on St David's Day. I agree so much, I bought the company... I mean I've changed that paragraph to "The flag of Saint David often plays a central role in the celebrations, and can be seen flying throughout Wales." --CubBC (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Overground

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London Overground. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You might want to take the discussion to the talk page. DrFrench (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er thanks for posting random stuff on my talk page. Your content dispute does not concern or interest me in the slightest. All I was doing was giving you a friendly warning that you are in violation of WP:3RR and a suggestion that you take the dispute to the article's talk page before you get blocked. Oh and it's considered poor form to remove warnings from your talk page. Removing it won't prevent you being blocked - Admins can still see an appropriate warning was given. DrFrench (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have discussed it, but I see from the talk page that it was already discussed, and no compelling reason for keeping the images in the article was put forward. They're in there purely to show what they'll look like which is a clear failure. Repeatedly adding non-free content to an article deliberately is vandalism, to which 3RR does not apply. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to have been quite a few months ago. It's also worth noting that there is no current consensus on critereon 8 (significance) of WP:NFCC. I still suggest that talking about on the article's talk page is better than getting blocked for WP:3RR. DrFrench (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? The images do not meet either of the two competing interpretations. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that is the case, then take the discussion to the appropriate place. There doesn't appear to be any consensus to exclude the images and they both have a fair-use rationale for use in that article. So adding them to the article does not appear to me to be simple vandalism. Obviously what you choose to do abot it is up to you, but continually reverting the article is not a Good Thing. DrFrench (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk pages, I have repeatedly invited User:D-Notice to confirm whether or not the image can be used at WP:Media copyright questions, but they have refused to do so repeatedly. Earlier this evening, I opened a discussion there, but it has yet to attract an answer. It is also well-established on Wikipedia that the burden of proof lies with the user including the image to justify it - without fail. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've written on my talk page. I respectfully refer you to the previous discussion we had on this subject... D-Notice (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treat this as your final warning. If you do not stop edit-warring and reporting users to AIV for non-vandalism, you may be blocked. Enigma ^message 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.