| Revision as of 00:16, 8 October 2013 editEuryalus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,379 edits 3RR block← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:21, 14 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page ] that didn't seem very ], so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ''Your edit does not contribute to the discussion.'' ] 22:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not censor articles or talk pages to suit your regional POV | |||
| ==Your use of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts== | |||
| :If you insist on personal attacks. You will be blocked from editing. This is the '''final''' warning. ] 22:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into ] by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at ], where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ], and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you ''have'' been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.{{#if:| ] '']'' 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| |] | |||
| }} ] '']'' 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == November 2013 == | ||
| The correct grammar would be "This is your final warning" and I haven't made a personal attack, you on the other hand seem intent censorship and removal of text which can only be viewed as vandalism ] (]) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''a fortnight''' for ] and logged-out ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 01:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| == Your submission at ]: ] (November 11) == | |||
| <div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> ]Thank you for your recent submission to ]. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.<br><br> | |||
| <div class="plainlinks"> | |||
| * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at {{#ifeq:¬|¬|]|]}}. | |||
| * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. | |||
| * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , or on the <span class="noprint plainlinks">}}</span>. Please remember to link to the submission! | |||
| *You can also get . | |||
| :Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! ] ] ] 13:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div> | |||
| == July 2014 == | |||
| == Edit warring at ] == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar ]</span> 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : |
I don't see you warning ] who has been editwarring and has made 3 reverts in under 24 hours, way to show you are completely unbiased 100% yup yup, no bias from you, you are totally fair and impartial ] (]) 07:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Reversions of vandalism don't count. As you are aware, the Bradford IP addresses are ] to contribute constructively to the <s>Megadrive</s> Genesis page. ] (]) 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It is impossible to make constructive edits if you lock the page to stop people improving it, you do not own the article. </br> | |||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a |
||
| Suggesting an RfC is not vandalism, blanking of text to remove the RfC on the other hand is... ] (]) 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2014 == | |||
| ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you ] Misplaced Pages again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. ''This has been deemed unconstructive by editors on both sides of the debate, including American editors who favor Mega Drive and British editors who favor Genesis. Enough is enough. Consensus is against you. ]. --''<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im --> ''']]''' 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Many people my self included abstained from that vote because it was a load of BS tbh, No "British" editors voted in it... it was just a way for American editors to try and own the article which you do not do. Proposing an RfC is to seek out side opinions, not your opinions and is not vandalism... ] (]) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. {{Break}}''RFC's '''must be neutrally worded'''''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ], as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-generic4 --> <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar ]</span> 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You cannot abstain from a vote then complain about the outcome! Also, your comment of ''"No "British" editors voted in it..."'' is incorrect, as I'm a british editor, and support the use of ''Genesis''. As I've made clear many times on the article talk page - my position is such because the arguments for "Genesis" are generally put forward in a more mature and constructive manner than those for "Megadrive". ] (]) 18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You have blocked. You have been blocked several times in the past due to edit warring and breaking 3RR, so it's for 2 weeks this time. ] ] 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Never broke the 3RR and it's funny how i'm the only one who gets warning and banned for edit warring when ] and others are engaged in it too. The impartiallity around here is amazing, I see no bias what so ever... I would appeal but I cba... See you in two weeks when I will bring an RfC, I may even bring an AfD considering the mess the article is... ] (]) 17:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Are we still talking about Genesis/MegaDrive? The article would be laughed out of AFD in an instant. If this is truly you conception of how things work around here, I'd highly advise that you read up on policy over the duration of your block. ] ] 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. Any deletion nomination for this now featured article should result in a long term block for disruption. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've extended the block to one month per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You are blocked again, indefinitely, due to continued disruptive editing and block evasion. ] ] 13:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:21, 14 April 2022
Your use of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Technotopia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.
NeilN 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Marmozets (Band) (November 11)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Marmozets (Band).
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Ritchie333 13:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
July 2014
Your recent editing history at Sega Genesis 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. 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. czar ♔ 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see you warning McDoobAU93 who has been editwarring and has made 3 reverts in under 24 hours, way to show you are completely unbiased 100% yup yup, no bias from you, you are totally fair and impartial Technotopia (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reversions of vandalism don't count. As you are aware, the Bradford IP addresses are not here to contribute constructively to the
MegadriveGenesis page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reversions of vandalism don't count. As you are aware, the Bradford IP addresses are not here to contribute constructively to the
It is impossible to make constructive edits if you lock the page to stop people improving it, you do not own the article.
Suggesting an RfC is not vandalism, blanking of text to remove the RfC on the other hand is... Technotopia (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Talk:Sega Genesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This has been deemed unconstructive by editors on both sides of the debate, including American editors who favor Mega Drive and British editors who favor Genesis. Enough is enough. Consensus is against you. Let it go. -- McDoobAU93 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Many people my self included abstained from that vote because it was a load of BS tbh, No "British" editors voted in it... it was just a way for American editors to try and own the article which you do not do. Proposing an RfC is to seek out side opinions, not your opinions and is not vandalism... Technotopia (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk:Sega Genesis 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. 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.
RFC's must be neutrally worded NeilN 17:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sega/leftpanel. czar ♔ 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot abstain from a vote then complain about the outcome! Also, your comment of "No "British" editors voted in it..." is incorrect, as I'm a british editor, and support the use of Genesis. As I've made clear many times on the article talk page - my position is such because the arguments for "Genesis" are generally put forward in a more mature and constructive manner than those for "Megadrive". Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
You have blocked. You have been blocked several times in the past due to edit warring and breaking 3RR, so it's for 2 weeks this time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Never broke the 3RR and it's funny how i'm the only one who gets warning and banned for edit warring when McDoobAU93 and others are engaged in it too. The impartiallity around here is amazing, I see no bias what so ever... I would appeal but I cba... See you in two weeks when I will bring an RfC, I may even bring an AfD considering the mess the article is... Technotopia (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are we still talking about Genesis/MegaDrive? The article would be laughed out of AFD in an instant. If this is truly you conception of how things work around here, I'd highly advise that you read up on policy over the duration of your block. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Any deletion nomination for this now featured article should result in a long term block for disruption. --NeilN 18:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've extended the block to one month per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Technotopia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You are blocked again, indefinitely, due to continued disruptive editing and block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)