User talk:190.46.98.195

December 2012

Please read WP:CIV, particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Kenny Everett 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cleo Rocos 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reliable sources

Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why this is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (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. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Kenny Everett. 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 below this notice 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. - Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits have been 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 you being blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Citizen Kane contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Ok, so I've hit you witha template, but please pay attention to the last paragraph: "Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you." Your behaviour and unique intepretation of policy has already led to you being blocked once. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from being a retard. Your edits at Cleo Rocos have been reverted or removed.

There, I made my own template. What's your fucking problem, seriously? It is really fucking obvious that "best known for" is an opinion and not an objective fact. It should be really fucking easy to understand the bit in WP:NPOV that says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". This is not hard stuff. What is your motivation for insisting that this POV be included in the article? When did you last read the core policies of wikipedia? 190.46.98.195 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 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. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Cleo Rocos. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The phrase "best known for" is quite blatantly in violation of NPOV. It's an opinion. Removal of this phrase is required by policy. Repeatedly inserting blatantly inappropriate material into the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Reverting simple vandalism should not result in a block. It's staggering and disgusting that NPOV violators are not only not being corrected, not only not being educated, but are actually being encouraged now by admins to continue deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia.

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).

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

Request reason:

reverting simple vandalism

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an accurate description of your edits. Kuru (talk) 03:24, 10 January 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.

Stevie Nicks

Hello,
Thank you for your contribution to Stevie Nicks last night. A good revision, to which I have continued, in order to produce a better flow of good English. Have a look!
I hope you decide to stay.
Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.46.98.195) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.
Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Much appreciated. I am glad you thought my edit was useful - as you might see from this talk page, there are quite a few people who do not think that following the core policies is useful! 190.46.98.195 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.
Sincerely –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post script:
I enjoy, and often buy, your excellent red wine. "Cheers"! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Rocos

Your recent editing history at Cleo Rocos 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. 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. "Best known for" is clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference, consensus on the talk page does not support your opinion, you are edit warring again. Theroadislong (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

"Best known for" is an opinion, whether it appears in a reference or not. From the very same source, it says she "is taking the tequila world by storm". It says she can hold "everyone’s attention effortlessly, without imposing herself". It says she has had "a brilliant career on stage, screen and radio". It even says that if you drink her tequila you won't get a hangover. Next time someone insists that "best known for" is legitimate article content, I'll add some of those statements as well, seeing as they are clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pointy, which is also a core policy - and would be reverted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, you're wrong there. WP:POINT is a behavioural guideline, not one of the core content policies. Still, at least your comment does suggest that you might see what point is being made. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (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.