| Revision as of 19:19, 16 December 2019 edit173.176.159.21 (talk) →December 2019← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:28, 16 December 2019 edit undoNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits Warning: Three-revert rule on Tim Pool. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| You seem to struggle to understand BLP guidelines my friend. Additions need consensus first to get onto biographies. Please consult the BLP guidelines. THX | You seem to struggle to understand BLP guidelines my friend. Additions need consensus first to get onto biographies. Please consult the BLP guidelines. THX | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.{{Break}}''If you do not self-revert, a 3RRNB case will be opened.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider ] for yourself or ] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Revision as of 19:28, 16 December 2019
October 2019
Your recent editing history at Tim Pool shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. General Ization 22:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Tim Pool
"I have to insist" is often an immediate prelude to an editor being blocked for edit warring. Your edits have now been reverted by multiple editors. Either discuss your objections to the content on the Talk page (before removing it), or run the risk of being blocked from editing. General Ization 22:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong eurystic, other users did locked it in the way I was trying to change it. Locked until november 3d because the section some are trying to defend is blatantly in conflict with the BLP guidelines.
Legal threats
To repeat what I said at Talk:Tim Pool, do not imply legal threats. It is prohibited, and is not taken lightly. I am going to leave a template message after this, so you can read about this policy and why it's important. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Lyier. I havent done legal treats, Just reminded you of what consist the BLP guidelines.
October 2019
Your recent edits to Talk:Tim Pool could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Why should I help wikipedia while im finding it being a cesspool of defamation, invention and improvisation ?
Signing comments and RFC responses
I mentioned this on the talk page, but I want to make sure you don't miss it: it would be helpful if you would trim the extended quote of from WP:BLP in your comment here and then move the comment in to the survey section of the RFC. Keeping RFC comments organized makes it easier for whoever is closing the discussion to assess the consensus. Lastly, please sign your comments using four tildes (~) at the end of your posts. Nblund 16:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It would not be a problem if wikipedia was not used as a tabloid. However I dont want to help yellow papers and smear campaings.
Talk page guidelines
Please review WP:TPG and sign and indent your comments. Several editors have explained this to you. As that guideline states: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards.
" – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Final warning
It's not fair for other editors to keep making these corrections for you. Competence is required in order to edit here. If you continue failing to sign your user name and indent your comments, your talk page contributions are going to be summarily removed. You need to start making this nominal effort. Thanks in advance. El_C 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
173.176.159.21, this is not a negotiation. El_C 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This is your last warning about conducting yourself in an intentionally incompetent manner to illustrate a point. The next time you do so, your comments are not only going to be removed, but you will also be blocked from editing. El_C 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
December 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tim Pool, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You seem to struggle to understand BLP guidelines my friend. Additions need consensus first to get onto biographies. Please consult the BLP guidelines. THX
Your recent editing history at Tim Pool shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.
If you do not self-revert, a 3RRNB case will be opened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.