User talk:188.192.127.100

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Battle of Verrières Ridge. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits.

Your recent edits to Operation Totalize and Battle of Verrieres Ridge are counterproductive. Though I appreciate the spirit in which you edit, I would request that you provide references for your claims of casualty figures. Unless you can provide backup for your claims, then I would humbly request that you please refrain from article-space edits to a pair of articles that are considered to be high-quality (A & FA) by the wikipedia community. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Sidonuke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jusdafax 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Operation Perch article, such blanket statistics are unnecessary, since we've already done something similar to the Verrieres article, but with slightly more concrete statistics in tow. We try to narrow down the casualty statistics as much as we can. If that means - as is the case with Verrieres - casualties for the entire campaign, then that's what we go with. If - in the case of Perch - that means casualties for several weeks (including the individual battle), then that's what we go with. Whatever the most detailed stat we can find is, we go with. Please don't add statistics that are more general than the ones we do have access to. Cam ^(Chat) 23:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok we take all units which took part then we search for casualtie figure and even if this ment to nention casualties of 60 days in the article of a six day battle. i did the the same on perch with the 2 divison .

I think you're missing the point. The point is that we don't have to do that for Perch because more concrete casualty figures exist. If we have to do that, then we do. If we don't, we don't. Cam ^(Chat) 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nono. operation perch has no accurate figures. and i want to improve the article so i use the "verrieres-ridge-method" i took all participating divisions and write the most "accurate" figure. its so easy.

In that case, may I refer you to this. Cam ^(Chat) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will search for casualties numbers for the other units which take part. after this we should start doing the "verrieres-ridge-method" on other articles

operation totalize dont uses the "verrieres-ridge-method" . there we got a new bias method. we take partial numbers and put them in the infobox. 4 canadian divisions attacked and casualties are unknown. much to do...

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Operation Totalize. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

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).

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

Request reason:

i tried to discuss the problems on many discussion pages. iam right i do the same thinks like other editors here but on allied side

Decline reason:

But you were blocked for continuing to insert the material after you were asked to stop. This is called edit warring. This sort of behavior isn't allowed. TNXMan 01:39, 12 October 2009 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

i were asked to stop by people who were wrong. i reverted reverts! and user enigmaxxxxxx for example did "edit warring" 2 , so i guess hes blocked like me, isnt he? when 2 users dont want improvment of a article ( reducing bias )then they revert everything and when the other user dont stops with "improving" he gets blocked?

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter if Charles Manson told you to stop reverting. Repeatedly reverting leads to blocks for edit-warring; you should have stopped reverting and used the article's talk page to discuss your edits. Also, EnigmaMcmxc did not breach the 3RR, and he wasn't the only user reverting you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:54, 12 October 2009 (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:

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

Request reason:

charles manson himself told me that u are blind or ignorant. NR 1 I tried to discuss but got NO response only reverting because they cant explain there bias, i tried to discuss on article pages AND user pages NR 2 ENIGMAMCMXC breached the 3RR !!!!!! ok??? , next time before u try to be funny check what u write. i hope u can count 1 2 3

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= charles manson himself told me that u are blind or ignorant. NR 1 I tried to discuss but got NO response only reverting because they cant explain there bias, i tried to discuss on article pages AND user pages NR 2 ENIGMAMCMXC breached the 3RR !!!!!! ok???  , next time before u try to be funny check what u write. i hope u can count  1 2 3  |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= charles manson himself told me that u are blind or ignorant. NR 1 I tried to discuss but got NO response only reverting because they cant explain there bias, i tried to discuss on article pages AND user pages NR 2 ENIGMAMCMXC breached the 3RR !!!!!! ok???  , next time before u try to be funny check what u write. i hope u can count  1 2 3  |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= charles manson himself told me that u are blind or ignorant. NR 1 I tried to discuss but got NO response only reverting because they cant explain there bias, i tried to discuss on article pages AND user pages NR 2 ENIGMAMCMXC breached the 3RR !!!!!! ok???  , next time before u try to be funny check what u write. i hope u can count  1 2 3  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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.