Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 2 April 2012

Attention:Last edited: Last edited by:14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Dave1185 (talk · contribs) This IP address, 119.237.156.246, is registered to Netvigator - PCCW Limited (Hong Kong). In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report. If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time. If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

March 2012

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

If the topic itself is notable, create the article. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit 482644274 was clearly vandalism. 119.237.156.246 (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

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. --JohnBlackburne_deeds 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.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 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. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

119.237.156.246 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know who Instantnood is. 119.237.156.246 (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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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. 119.237.156.246 (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 21:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go and read WP:CIVIL. 119.237.156.246 (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. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

More warnings, March 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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. 119.237.156.246 (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

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? 119.237.156.246 (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. 119.237.156.246 (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

Misplaced Pages: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. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)