User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 2012[edit]

Don't add redlinks to disambiguation pages [1]. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If the topic itself is notable, create the article. (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at George Tupou V, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit 482644274 was clearly vandalism. (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
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.

3RR warning[edit]

Your recent editing history 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. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was trying with this warning to advise you of the notice board discussion, but obviously used the wrong message. I see you have found the discussion already, I will try and be more careful next time.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Take it easy. Will be nice if you can cross out the warning part of the notification message. (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I don't know who Instantnood is. (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Behavioral evidence suggests you are Instanthood. If you are not, you are strongly encouraged to establish a real account on Wikipedia. This block is only 48 hours, it is best to let it run out. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

Let's see; you're on a Hong Kong IP on a range used by Instantnood before, you talk remarkably similarly, and you push the same POV. I find that an incredible coincidence, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I use PCCW. It is the largest ISP in Hong Kong and has a huge market share, because it monopolised the telecom market. I know many people in HK who share the similar views on different matters. I have no idea who Instantnood is. I find it ridiculous that administrators can abuse their powers like this - conviction with no evidence. (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Noticed the similarity between Instantnood and your choice of word when insulting an ADMINISTRATOR here? FWIW, I'd suggest you go outside and have a early morning tea (5 a.m. HK time right now, UTC+8) then think about what to accomplish for the day then to cause disruption on a website that had you BANNED, why overstay your welcome? 瘟神,仲講咁多?省省點啦超大佬,出去飲一杯茶、食個點心,吾好再來這裡頭搞搞震了~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please go and read WP:CIVIL. (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it's civil either to undo one another's attempt to conform to civility after having been reminded. Deryck C. 18:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Deryck. I think I was editing from the wrong old version. (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

More warnings, March 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Flag desecration, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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 did not add anything apart from the names of two pieces of acts. (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Mixing nominally good edits and controversial edits but only using an edit summary for the non-controversial parts is disruptive. You should be reverted on sight and assumed disruptive. There is no obligation to unmix your edits for you. If anyone wants to restore your non-controversial edits later, that is up to them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IPsock template[edit]

Please do not remove it. WP:BLANKING prohibits removal of such notices. The wording does not need to change, it means exactly what it says. Also see WP:3RR. Edit warring will lead to another block. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it to the userpage. That's the correct place to include it, not least because blocked socks and IPs can't edit their userpages but they often can still edit their talk pages (until their access is locked). - Burpelson AFB 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Should it be changed to 'had been used' instead? (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
"Has been" is the correct English, even if the current user is not the same person. "Had been" would imply that it is no longer being used by that person, which is always uncertain. Because it's a template, it must use wording that applies generally to all situations. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that my edits are mistaken and reverted for no reason. (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the template. When someone reverts you, they don't go to your user page first and look to see what's on it. They look at your edit, and at your edit summary, and revert if they decide you didn't improve the article. Many established editors also have a bias about anonymous IPs and may not give you the benefit of the doubt because of that. If you feel that's happening, then create an account. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI tredux[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_119.237.156.246_hasn.27t_learned_from_previous_blocks SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop pretending you are right. What you did was disruptive. (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for being a sockpuppet IP account of a banned editor. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. Bans should be appealed by emailing the Arbitration Committee at The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
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.