User talk:101.178.163.19
| This is 101.178.163.19's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.
 Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
 | This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block. |
Welcome!
|
 This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
|
|---|
| The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it. |
|
September 2015
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) February 2018
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ★Trekker (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
October 2018 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Seen beforeI see you are back. Just to remind you of some useful Wikipedia rules: Always make sure your edits are sourced, and also that the sources you give actually support your edits. Wikipedia is based on consensus between editors, and repeatedly insisting on your version is considered disruptive. A useful tool is the bold, revert, discuss cycle: If your edit is reverted, it is mainly your responsibility to bring it up for discussion in the talk page in order to get consensus. I see that you still are making some good additions to Wikipedia, if not always well explained, but often there may be need for discussion. It would be so much easier to help you if you would use the talk page instead of just hitting the revert button. --T*U (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sand (disambiguation). Your edits appear to be 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. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit warringBeing 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.
Blocked for 72 hours You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf(talk) 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
November 2018Blocked for 72 hoursAnonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chequers, you may be blocked from editing. Eagleash (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
I noticed you attempted to add "Sand n*gger" to this dab page. I was wondering if at any point, during the 15 times you were reverted by 6 different editors, did it occur to you that this was an improper edit? First, you have to ask yourself, what is the encyclopaedic value of this entry? As you yourself noted, it is already listed at List of racial slurs and there is already a page for "Sand nigger" that redirects to said list. (and Wikipedia is not censored, so we don't alter words with symbols, like "f*ck"... we just write "fuck"). Furthermore, as you can see from that list, there are a lot of slurs, surely you don't think we need to add one to every possible related dab page? In this case, do you really think anyone who arrives at the "Sand" dab page is looking for that slur? Something to think about. Lastly, you are surely by now aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring... so why revert 15 times? Did you think you were just going to wear everyone done, they'd all give up and your edit would finally remain? It doesn't work that way, never has and never will. Once you're revered, if you want your edit to go back in, you need to find another way. See if there is a policy or guideline that supports your edit. See if there is a reliable source that supports your edit. Start a talk page discussion and see if you can gain a consensus in support of your edit. Create an article if you need to. There are several ways, but edit-warring is not one of them. Something else to think about. Btw - I support your edit at Velazquez. Another editor noted that you've made some good edits. So why not stick to the rules and keep contributing good edits? There's no point in adding or changing anything if it will just be reverted as a needless edit, it's a waste of time. What's your time worth to you? One more thing to think about. - wolf 00:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked for 2 weeksAnonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Scott Davis Talk 03:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
January 2019
February 2019
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Per WP:BRD, once your edit had been undone it is up to you to raise the issue on the article's talk page and attempt to get consensus to include the edit. Meters (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bangladeshi passport, you may be blocked from editing. Discuss the edit on the talk page or leave it alone. You have been undone by three different editors now. And read WP:EW again. Meters (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
How much longer are we going to have to put up with this (Personal attack removed)?The guy has a long history of vandalism and uncollaborative editing, combined with a large number of blocks. Is a permanent block not possible? He has nothing to contribute, nor will he ever. KJP1 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit War Warning
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Meters (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Northwest Airlines Flight 255Northwest Airlines Flight 255 is significant to the history of I-94 in Michigan, but it isn't really significant to the whole of I-94 nationally. Yes, it was a tragedy, but it didn't alter the highway on a national level. It's an event best left to Interstate 94 in Michigan and left out of Interstate 94. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I-69 in MichiganFirst off, in American English, we would never call it "the I-69". Second, the connection on the other side of the bridge is mentioned several times in the body of the article, and it's not needed to identify the subject of the photo. And finally, yes, if there's a dispute over wording, per WP:BRD, you take ever three to four words to talk. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Ontario Highway 401The article, like the Interstate 69 in Michigan and Interstate 94 in Michigan, is a Featured Article. That means each article has been through strict process to be judged as part of Wikipedia's "finest work". Something can be spelled correctly and cited and still not be needed in article. That's a function of editorial judgement on the part of the editing community who write and maintain an article. You may disagree and feel that something should be added. That's why I advised you to take the matter to the talk page. You're trying to shoehorn a single sentence about a plane crash at the airport near a different part of the highway to a section about a segment that was prone to automobile crashes. That's really a good fit. In short, no, it doesn't belong. Imzadi 1979 → 06:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks......for the "thank you", but once is sufficient. I've archived your post (both times), there is no need to repeat it. As I mentioned earlier, you have made some good contributions to this project, you should consider creating an account. But even if you don't, I would strongly encourage you to abide by the policies and guidelines here, especially those on edit warring and disruptive editing. Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. Thank you - wolf 07:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Blocked for 1 weekAnonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as done at Windsor, Ontario. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Just so you are aware, there is no right to free speech on this privately operated website, which has the right to dictate what content appears here. "Free speech" means that your government cannot jail you for what you say, it does not restrict the conduct of private entites. See WP:FREESPEECH. Further, "Wikipedia is not censored" does not mean any and all content is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
331dot - IP's at it again, complete with Daily Mail "cites". Pinkbeast (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 monthAnonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
|
March 2019
Blocked for 3 months
And blocked again, 3 months for disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Self destruction?
Back from a block of one month, and the first thing you do, is to resume the same edit warring that you were blocked for. If you continue this way, that will only earn you an even longer holiday. The alternative is to start using talk pages and try to create consensus for your suggestions per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Unless, of course, your aim is too find out how long you can be getting blocked for.
I have seen that you sometimes bring good additions to Wikipedia, but not always well explained, and in some cases I have tried to help you out with improvements to some of your edits. My patience is, however, wearing thin, so unless you are willing to start cooperating with other editors, you can expect no more help from me. --T*U (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, that is not my aim, but I must thank you for your help. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you're blocked for 3 months this time. When you come back, don't start this again. Meters (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bangladeshi passport; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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.
Back from your block and right back to the same edit that is against the talk page consensus. Meters (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.Paisarepa (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I did give a valid reason. Please do not make silly comments like this. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are removing properly sourced content without an adequate explanation, as well as changing a direct quote to be something other than what the quoted person actually said. These actions constitute vandalism. Paisarepa (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- You too are removed properly sourced content. You are being a vandal or maybe disruptive.101.178.163.19 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Motorized scooter, you may be blocked from editing. Paisarepa (talk)
- IT HAS SOURCED CONTENT. WTF is your problem???101.178.163.19 (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Motorized scooter. Paisarepa (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you vandalise, I will report you. Dont just blindly revert.101.178.163.19 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 | 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. |