User talk:

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

Information.png Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in America, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Kman543210 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a general tip, if you find that other editors have undone or reverted your edit more than once, that means that your edit is controversial and you should discuss it on the talk page before trying it again. --Russ (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you continue making the same edit to America repeatedly after being reverted by other users, and refuse to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring. --Russ (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


I have no opinion about which version should be preferred. I reverted to the most establish version I could find; the version that was protected on September 28. Notice that as soon as that previous protection expired the page was once again subjected to edit warring, including by you. The only option was to protect the page again. I notice you have engaged in revert warring at that page several times under this IP alone. This time you will have to resolve the issue through discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. It wasn't a matter of enforcing whatever opinion you believe I have, it was a matter of finding the most consensual version I could and protecting the page from the ongoing revert wars. You can believe I protected the wrong version all you wish, but the protection was to stop the pointless revert warring you and others have been engaged in. You can voice your opinion on the talk page; I notice you haven't done that.--Cúchullain t/c 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing multiple accounts. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Corticopia. See a recent update at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive14#Clear evidence about Corticopia's sock. General background is in all the Jcmenal sock cases. Note that the Corticopia account is still free to edit, and I urge you to use that single account from now on. If you disagree with the current content of our articles on Central America, please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution rather than continuing a perpetual revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Unblock on hold|1=EdJohnston|2=I don't know who was making the previous edits, but this is a computer on a shared network. Any advice on how to unblock?|3=-- Luk talk 10:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)}}

I have disabled the 'unblock on hold', since I assume it was waiting for a response from me. If the IP wants to have a different admin look at his request, open a new {{unblock|Your reason here}}. Your new request is more likely to get a favorable answer if you respond to the question I left for you below. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by blocking admin[edit]

This is a Toronto-based IP, and it has been engaging in Corticopia's distinctive edit-warring behavior on Central American topics since 2008, as you may be able to see from warnings by other admins near the top of this page. When an IP has behaved the same way for more than a year, I would need good evidence to convince me that the problem has gone away. Would you consider identifying yourself to a checkuser? EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi there! It seems we have a misunderstanding between us at the Americas page. Linking to disambiguation pages within an article's text is not necessary, as it serves no purpose. The editing guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation states:

With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

Furthermore, the sentence containing the ambiguous term actually directs the reader to the other alternative definition. In addition, linking to dab pages within an article may also be problematic with WildBot. Night w (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Arguably, it is relevant given the multiple uses of the term. (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Many terms have multiple uses. That's not a reason for linking to dab pages in the text. I've reverted once more. I suggest you refrain from disrupting further. Night w (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for Abusing multiple accounts: Corticopia. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Corticopia, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Corticopia, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)