User talk:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick

Signatures

Jeffrey, please don't sign your posts with the IP address you previously had been using, as you indicated you would on your user page. As you've stated yourself, you do not have exclusive control over the IP address and signing with the IP tag falsely attributes your contributions to a source you don't control. Our signature guideline has a section on WP:Signature forgery, if you'd like more information.

Further, please don't unstrike the comments made on Talk:Republic of China. It was determined that those edits were made by the sockpuppet of a banned editor and would need to remain struck until that assessment is reversed by the blocking admin, or another admin in their stead. The IP range used by your university was blocked due to disruptive editing and persistent sockpuppetry associated not just with IP addresses you've used, but behavioural indicators as well. While this has forced you to register an account, it doesn't automatically absolve you of your conduct under those IP addresses. I'm certainly willing to extend good faith to you, but I'd firmly request that you don't abuse that good faith by returning to any previously disruptive behaviour. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Null. That isn't the IP address that I previously used, but the IP address that I am now using. The block had been expired. And since I was advised to get an account, I did so. I am not a sockpuppet and what I was told was that a registered account would avoid false associations to other IP addresses. Meanwhile, please don't revert everything. Single out what you want to revert. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that a warning for edit warring was left on one of the IP pages you were controlling at the time here. You have reverted this area of the page ten times in total, including your most recent revert, and you were opposed by at least four other editors. This is well past the threshold for WP:3RR and I strongly advise you not to revert again. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have added my further replies to that talk page before I saw your additional remarks here. I haven't edited in the past 24 hours, and I wouldn't have to revert if the admins admit it was a false positive and stop revert my other inputs that are not unstriking. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't bury your controversial edits in purposeless changes to other people's comments, it wouldn't be necessary to revert your changes wholesale. I've taken the time to filter out the specific edits you should not have done and I sincerely hope I don't have to do so again. You're neither new nor unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system as a whole, Jeffrey, and I do not believe your changes are in any way as innocent as you imply. You've now reverted those changes 11 times in total, if you do so again I'll take you to the EW noticeboard.

You're familiar enough with Wikipedia to know full-well that edits made by an IP address blocked for ban evasion don't magically become valid again once the block expires. The only reason the block expired at all is because we don't indef IP addresses, but the edits made by that IP address during that period remain struck as banned. There is even a specific exemption in WP:3RR relating to removing changes made by sockpuppets, so I would suggest you leave these comments alone. If you want to appeal the decision, do so first and if the decision is reversed, then and only then can the comments be restored.

You were blocked previously for refactoring the comments of other editors, and you did so again in your last edit. Double-spaced sentences are an editing choice made by some editors to make the code of their edits clearer to read. Do not remove them. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 09:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bury them. I indicated them clearly in the edit summary. And I made no purposeless changes to other people's comments. I replied to other people's comments. It's pointless to keep my comments struck out if I'm allow to comment again after the block expired. What is EW? And where should I appeal without going through all pointless redtapes? Meanwhile I'm still awaiting your rationale to delete and to modify my comments. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed double-spaced sentences and replaced them with single-spaced sentences. Check your revision and see for yourself. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were separate edits. What you alleged was that I " bury [my] controversial edits in purposeless changes to other people's comments". Now that you're told I didn't, you refer to some other unrelated edits days ago. Further, I followed the practice that Eraserhead1 and John Smith had followed in their responses to the same piece of comment by Niyaendi, which is in line with what Wikipedia:Indentation suggests. All the evidence demonstrated that it's HiLo48 who mislocated his response. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to your edit from today, here. Review your edits in the sections labeled Line 189, Line 254, Line 491, Line 1017 and Line 1029. In each of these cases the user's comment had doubles-spaced sentences, and you removed a space in each one. The fact they appear in the diff is proof of this change. So I will state once again, please do not alter the talk page comments of other editors in this manner. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. That's unavoidable given that some of those lines were copied and pasted from diffs. Further, double-spaces aren't displayed in the talk page itself. The conversation is getting into too trivial matters here. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to address what I will now state for you a third time then. Per WP:Signature forgery, "impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden". Please change your signature. If you continue to ignore or refuse, I'll take the next step in the process. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting to something else once again, when you're told that you got into something too trivial. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you still have not fixed your signature. Per WP:Signature forgery, "impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden". This is something that has been taken to ArbCom for resolution in the past. Please alter your signature so it doesn't appear to be that of IP user 202.189.98.132. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impersonating any other editor. I'm signing with the IP address that I'm currently assigned to. I'll change accordingly when I'm assigned to another IP address. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature intentionally misleads the reader into believing your edits are from an IP address, which they are not. Further, if another editor were to edit from that IP address later, your edits would be indistinguishable from theirs. You're not allowed to do this. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my right to protest against the editors who forced me to get an account. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a violation of Wikipedia policy on confusing usernames. Your adjusted name is perfectly fine, thank you. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 11:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your vote in the requested move, I'll point out that while the comment by 147.8.102.172 is struck as belonging to a sockpuppet, I don't see any reason why you can't add your own comment on the move. It will very likely end up in the challenged section (given that you're effectively a single-purpose account at the moment) and it might be best to put the comment in that section yourself, however a challenged comment is certainly better than a struck comment and, at this time, there is no connection between Instantnood and your current account. It might be a good idea, at minimum, to use different wording to the 147 response, otherwise that may be used to establish that you are the continuation of a previously blocked editor. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 11:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I previously edited from 147.8.102.172 and that was my comment. I am not Instantnood and I don't know who he or she is. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, that IP and those comments in particular were blocked as belonging to an Instantnood sockpuppet. You have two options moving forward from that: you can appeal the block with either the blocking admin (I believe it was User:HelloAnnyong) or by following WP:Guide to appealing blocks, or your second option is to relinquish your claim over the particular edits by IP addresses you say were under your control, leave them struck and removed, and make a fresh comment from your current user account. It's up to you. The comments themselves can't be restored while the block is held as valid though, because otherwise it would allow any sockmaster to return to an article his IP-based comments were struck in and restore them when the block expires. It doesn't work that way. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 11:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many redtapes. I prefer to concentrate on contributing to the project, rather than going after administrators asking them to admit they have misused their powers. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be in your best interests to take the second option I outlined above. If you keep restoring the IP comments, you're going to get dragged through a lot more red tape relating to sockpuppet investigations, edit warring and disruptive editing than a simple block appeal would involve. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 11:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page disruption

Quite frankly whether you actually used the account User:Instantnood or not is slightly irrelevant, you were blocked for talk page disruption and going on and on and on and not knowing when to stop (see WP:DEADHORSE).

Now you are using an account you still need to change your behaviour with regards to this if you don't want to be blocked again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you did made more disruptions than I did. You removed my comments, and you disrupt the numberings. Why couldn't you just be slightly bit more patient and request for an uninvolved non-partisan administrator to close it for you? Jeffrey (202.189.98.141) (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "its a closed discussion, no more comments. Take it to ANI" No you deleted some of my comments that are outside your closed area. Apart from that, I was already uploading the clarification to my own vote (which was within the closed area) when you closed the discussion unilaterally. There was an edit conflict and you were effectively barring me to clarify my own point. Jeffrey (202.189.98.141) (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Talk:Republic of China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I was posting the same warning message on your talk page when I saw this. And you removed the one on yours swiftly.[2] Civility? Jeffrey (202.189.98.141) (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey, you've successfully destroyed any good faith I gave you when you created this new account by behaving the way you have been. Calm down, stop running around like a headless chicken and understand that the name of one page for one country on one website on the internet doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form before you do something you'll regret that gets you blocked. It's fine to oppose the move and state your opinions but your behaviour is incredibly bad and you're dragging the rest of the page down with you. You're worse than Chicken Little. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No personal attack. Spell out what had been wrong. Don't just say something as vague as "incredibly bad". Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.141) (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article sources

Hey Jeffrey have you taken a look at the sources the pro-move side provided. I looked through some of them which are terrible sources to even be there to support the move as the ones I read have big holes in them. Britannica say nation profile above but in the article it states "Taiwan is an island", the CIA website does not mention the long conventional name saying none which is clearly wrong and obviously effected by the One-China Policy. They brought the government website but they probably nitpicked the information as I saw numerous mentions of the ROC. "Taiwan's president" I believe from Washington Post can be overrided from government sources and articles from the ROC. Also here is a source that I found and presented to the pro-move side which they didn't even bother to read if your interested Legacy debate as Republic of China marks 100 years. I'm too busy to look at all the sources but if you want to take a deeper look at them be my guest. I'm going to bed. Have great day!Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Correction not Britannica I believe it was the BCC country profile sorry.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead1

Hello, and 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 Talk:Republic of China, 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. Closed means closed -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Republic of China, you may be blocked from editing. Closed means closed. Move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republic of China

When the admin closes the thread, that means don't change it. If you want to comment, do so below. Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I just added some unsigned tags, and undo some vandalist edits that were made shortly before the close. Apart from that one unrelated thread in the middle was mistakenly closed by the admins. Further, my comments below were deleted and I have to restore them. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to people who have commented in a closed discussion after it is closed isn't really appropriate either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Those questions have to be answered anyway, sooner or later, here or elsewhere. If you find it inappropriate, strike them out and state your rationale. Thanks. Meanwhile you deleted my response to the closing comments too. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Republic of China, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Eraserhead1 and his tag-teaming friend Jim1138 are bad characters, they are NOT nice people. They are hypocrits, they tell you don't change anything but then they do a double standard and go about deleting other people's comments to suit their pov. Look at how they are threatening you and me. And then deleting other people's comments. Very uncilivised conduct. AkramBinWallid (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are you. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Judge Not Lest Ye be Judge!" please read the Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkramBinWallid (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your disruption. It was me who tagged you as an SPA. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be edited, take it up with user talk:Aervanath Do not edit a closed thread. Jim1138 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so ASAP. Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better to add a new section at the bottom of the talk page if you have more to say. Which thread do you want moved out of the closed block? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Talk:Republic of China#114.229.253.171's edits, #Naming convention link section. Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section was removed by Eraserhead1. Please refer to [3]. Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the state of the talk page now, only one real comment was added late, the rest of the changes were moving text around, or auto-signs. I have removed the late comment and relocated the section that I included in the close that was on another topic. This seems to be what half the edit war was about. Materialscientist has now offered to block any editors of the closed section. If the four of you involved in the edit war agree to stop altering the closed section I will unlock the talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was all because they've modified the original one response section into multiple sections, and many SPA editors were so keen to get their comments out of the "Challenged" section (see [4]). These SPA editors include 114.229.253.171, who relocated many comments and removed the {{spa}} tags from these comments very shortly before you closed the discussion. I have acted to undo 114.229.253.171's disruptions, but Eraserhead1 and Jim1138 disagrees (this effectively reduces the number of support votes, which is Eraserhead1's position). They also deleted many of my comments that were made outside the closed area, and they don't allow me to add them back. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme I have restored my comments outside the closed area. But there are relocations within the closed area that I cannot single out one-by-one at the time being. Could you assist? Or do they have to be fixed at all? Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relocations do not matter, as it is irrelevant which section peoples votes or comments are in. It is quite likely that these have been relocated several times, and it may now be impossible to put the text where the original editor intended it to be due to intermediate changes. The page is now unlocked, but do not edit inside the closed section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But in the process to restore my recent comments outside the closed section some old comments within the closed section went back to the pre-relocated places. I have tried to put them back again according to your version but it's difficult. Does it matter? If yes could you help? Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature, again

Jeffrey, I was under the impression we'd discussed this thoroughly already. Please do not make your signature resemble an IP address you don't have full control over. When you changed your signature to 'Jeffrey (IP)' that was sufficient, but your current signature of '(IP)' is too similar and has already led to some confusion. Misleading signatures are against Wikipedia policies and guidelines and can be resolved by ArbCom if you're unwilling to do so.. Please fix this issue yourself. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. That was probably a mistake when I copied and pasted. Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Special administrative region (China)

Special administrative region (China) should be the primary topic while Special administrative region (Republic of China) should be posted as a disambiguation link at the top of the Special administrative region (China) page - I neglected to do that.--Jiang (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Special administrative region (China) should be moved to Special administrative region and Special administrative region should be moved to Special administrative region (disambiguation). The North Korean example does not seem significant enough to warrant primary topic treatment. --Jiang (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continental landmasses

Hello, Jeffrey Fitzpatrick. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bazonka (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit it

You're not new. You've added or restored my "unsigned signature" to user strikeouts multiple times now and it has been removed by myself or other editors each time. It's annoying and makes busywork for everyone else on the page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In that case you should remove only the tags. What you did was reverting all my new comments for no reason. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Demographics of Greater China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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.

Jeffrey, if you stop trying to mix the tags that you've clearly been told don't belong there with other changes, your edits wouldn't be reverted wholesale. Also, please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. When you make a change and that change is reverted, you take it to the talk page to discuss it. Repeatedly, across multiple articles, you have pushed your desired changes back in against a challenge. This is not collegial behaviour, and is a form of edit warring. Please stop doing this and discuss your changes when they're challenged. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Null you know very well that you shouldn't delete someone else's comment. If you don't like the unsigned tags, delete them (but please don't delete other materials, which is, apparently, vandalism). The unsigned tags aren't a must but they do no harm. I'm fine with either way. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I separated out your bad edits last time out of courtesy, and you put them right back in. You aren't stupid, you know exactly what you're doing. You're restoring edits you've been told repeatedly not to make and adding a few token extra changes to make more work for other people to remove them. Sorry, not going to happen. If you want your own comments back in, you separate them out from the content you've been told repeatedly not to add and restore them yourself. Since you've reverted again, I'm reporting you for 3RR violation. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 07:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what you did with my comment at 15:03, 22 March 2012, 07:22, 20 March 2012 and 15:03, 22 March 2012?[5] Meanwhile you're restoring the misplaced notification near the bottom of the page. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[6] "Don't play ignorant, you know exactly what you're doing. You can separate them yourself." I'm afraid you're the one who's pretending to be ignorant. You know very well you shouldn't delete someone else's comments. And you did it repeatedly. As I've said, I'm fine with the unsigned tags. I got no motivation to remove them myself. But then it's alright if you remove them while preserving all my comments. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is notice that you've been reported for 3RR violation and edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaudeville tropes

Thanks. Yes there was an edit conflict. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know what? Maybe you were inadvertently doing me a favour! It was a lousy nomination on my part and I've withdrawn it and this needless notice here. sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Jeffrey (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring report

Please see the result of a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: Warned). Your signature suggests that you are editing anonymously from 202.189.98.142, but this is not correct. This will be confusing to anyone who tries to look up your recent contributions (they will not find any). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why I am signing this way. And no I don't link my signature with the contribution history of the IP address. Please correct your allegations. Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reverting at Talk:Demographics of Greater China

Please see a warning you received here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive181#User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: Warned). Unless you agree to stop refactoring the talk page at Talk:Demographics of Greater China, you may be blocked. Here is an edit you have made since my original warning. In that edit you removed a notice about a move discussion that was in progress. This is another, where you once again remove the notice of the move. You have not received any consensus for this refactoring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your concern Ed. The problem was that: First, the nominator of this page move request made a mistake with the parameters current1 and current2, and therefore I tried to fix it. Second, this mistake had made the bot put the notice on the wrong page. It wasn't me who removed the notice, somebody else did it, as you can tell from the edit history of this talk page. Third, Null and SchmuckyTheCat were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They removed my comments repeatedly for no reason (apart from the peculiar argument around the unsigned tag, which I concurred already). I reverted their edits to restore my comments. It wasn't edit warring at all since they were vandalising the talk page, as I have pointed out in my edit summaries. Jeffrey (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their changes don't appear to be vandalism, as you assert. If you will agree to stop the behavior I have described above you may be able to avoid a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted my comments, repeatedly. If that isn't vandalism may I know how do people on Wikipedia call them? Meanwhile may I know what behaviour are you exactly talking about? The changes that I've made to the parameters, removing the bot-generated notice, or adding back my own comments? Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that a number of editors (including yourself) were participating in a revert war on the talk page. When you are performing this kind of revert, it is helpful if you can mention anyone else who agrees that your revert is correct. I gather that you were alone in your action there, and nobody supports your change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite true. Yes no one supported me to restore my own comments that Null and Schmucky insisted to delete. But, no, I was effectively sticking with many other editors that the bot notice shouldn't stay. I didn't actually remove it, but coincidentally I was working on a version that came without it when I restored my own comments. Jeffrey (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah. Jeffrey (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Talk:Demographics of Greater China

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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.

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.

You were warned on 25 March due to a complaint about your edits at the 3RR noticeboard. You have now continued the behavior you were warned against here on 2 April. If you want to make complex changes to a talk page you need to get consensus for it. Since your repeated changes are always being reverted you evidently don't have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed it appears you're a bit oversensitive. The problem was that my comments were repeatedly deleted for no reason. There is nothing complex and I don't think any consensus is required to restore my own comments deleted by some other people. Jeffrey (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was your choice to repeatedly mix a few token edits in with edits you were told not to do. I put the work and good faith in to separate them for you and you put them straight back in. Even when told by two admins (Elen of the Roads and EdJohnston) that you were edit-warring and were likely to get blocked, you persisted. This block is not at all unexpected. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't mix them intentionally. It was you and Schmucky who kept deleting my comments. You did so on purpose. Jeffrey (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mount Parker Cable Car for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Parker Cable Car is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Parker Cable Car until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Jeffrey (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. When do you plan on following it? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of transport

as indicated by my responses there, no.--Jiang (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus opposed the move. Jeffrey (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]