User talk:Andcarr

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Andcarr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Ross (businessman). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. The Original Bob (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Ross (businessman), you may be blocked from editing. The Original Bob (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was right, you were wrong, has wiki become totalitarian?

David Ross

I strongly suggest you refrain from disruptively editing this article or you will be blocked again - you do NOT own this article and you do not get the final say on what goes in it, I am a much more experienced editor than you and you seem to ONLY edit this article. Bleaney (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Gosh I am so scared!

January 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not make unfounded accusations. It appears I am accurate, once again!!!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Following your use of an IP address to continue the edit war, I have extended your block for 48 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You have blocked the wrong person, that is my IP address. (Saskia2309 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Given Saskia's comment, I have unblocked you. I apologise for my confusion and consequent extension of your block. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, I do know Saskia and appreciate the fact that she cleared things up. However it is clear that even when I make a fully referenced edit to this article it is removed almost straight away by somebody, and if I try to revert it I am banned. So I will retire from the battle for a while as I am obviously upsetting a lot of people. It will be a sad day if Wikipedia articles become scrubbed, sanitised profiles of living individuals. I think the public deserve to know that some individuals are not the Angels their PR company portray. (Andcarr (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Will editing disputes mean the end for Wikipedia?

The following reference is an article from SBS which explains why editors are leaving Wikipedia. Some of the administrators that are so keen on blocking my comments should give it a read.(Andcarr (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

That article has been discussed pretty extensively in its original form at Slate. You should read that and the comments section which is attached to it. Then you'll realise just how crass your note above actually is: the article is flawed in many respects and was written by someone who was involved in a big, high-profile dispute here. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Sitush is upset, so much so that he has completely rewritten the article on David Ross showing him in a much more favourable light. This kind of action means Wikipedia is losing its value as an information source. This makes editing pointless so I am leaving Wikipedia. Enjoy yourselves.(Andcarr (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

I thought you were leaving but it seems you have changed your mind. That's fine but please do familiarise yourself with how things are done here. For example, WP:RS and WP:V. Not to forget WP:NPOV, of course. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

References

January 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at David Ross (businessman), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at David Ross (businessman), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have had warnings from the target of your abuse, and now you have one from me - a completely uninvolved editor. If you continue with your personal attacks, you are almost certain to have your account blocked. Squinge (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also now had a look over the content dispute at David Ross (businessman), and you have clearly been adding negative material to a biographical article without providing a reliable source for it. Even if something is true, and even if you personally know for certain that it is true, if it's negative then it can not go in without a proper source. You were also removing material that was properly sourced, without a proper explanation and without consensus. I suggest you have a read of the policy pages you have already had pointed out to you, especially Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, before you make any more article edits. Squinge (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I REPEAT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME! I WISH TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SITUSH AND HIS CRONIES. HIS REFERENCES ARE NO MORE ACCURATE THAN MINE AND LARGELY BASED ON PRESS RELEASES. PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL HOW I CAN MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT? (Andcarr (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

I have replied to the same question you asked on my talk page. But your first step should be to stop making personal attacks on other editors like calling them wikiwankers! Squinge (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

STILL EVADING THE QUESTION OF HOW TO MAKE a complaint against members of WIKIPEDIA establishment SITUSH.!(Andcarr (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

I answered your question at 10:06 on my talk page immediately after you shouted it at me there!!! Squinge (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

( please give me a postal address where I can make a formal complaint about the behaviour on the David Ross entry.(Andcarr (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

I have no idea of any postal address, sorry. Squinge (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There you go boys and girls the administrators do not know their site postal address. Lame. (Andcarr (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

Please read Wikipedia:Contact_us, which is shown at the bottom of the page. Please also note that I am not an administrator and neither is Squinge. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry SITUSH, there is no contact us section on mobile site. As you and other uber editors have access to my personal details, perhaps you can send me your address so that my lawyers can contact you, however i expect there is a long queue ahead of me. Must be nice to hide yourself so easily.

There are no uber users here, and neither Sitush nor I have access to your personal details. Oh, by the way, here's another acronym that you can click on - WP:NLT. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, possible legal threats. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

If you have an issue with the article you can email info-en-qwikimedia.org. If you make any other legal threats you will likely be blocked indefinitely per the no legal threats policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, David Ross (businessman), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read the Private Eye source and I amended the article to reflect what it actually said. Please stop your disruptive editing - given your probable status as a disaffected investor in Ross's company, you have a massive conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at David Ross (businessman) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Sitush (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• And you have just done it for the fourth time. My suspicion is that your days of contributing to Wikipedia are numbered. Why disrupt like this? - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andcarr reported by User:Squinge (Result: ). Thank you. Squinge (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, continuous WP:SPA edit warring at David Ross (businessman) and personal attacks, despite multiple warnings and blocks, obviously WP:NOTHERE. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)