Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.
Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Hello, I'm
Home Lander. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mental health, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Home Lander (
talk)
15:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Diving suit. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
RexxS (
talk)
13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cold chain, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 07:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
El_C
16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced additions — you are still doing it! El_C 16:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Corniche (Abu Dhabi), 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! ―
Susmuffin
Talk
22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
CLCStudent. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Religion in Afghanistan, 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. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
CLCStudent (
talk)
12:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Visa policy of Afghanistan.
Flix11 (
talk)
17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Urvasi Urvasi, you may be
blocked from editing.
Sundayclose (
talk)
13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia.
El_C
05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image, as you did at
Dark skin.
CommanderWaterford (
talk)
08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
10:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop it. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Lotteries in Australia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Sundayclose (
talk)
15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Lotteries in Australia.
Sundayclose (
talk)
02:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Youth 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 02:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Can someone post this user to edit war for the Hawkesbury Bridge ? Dave Rave ( talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Hawkesbury River railway bridge. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You appear to have a grudge against the Metropolitan Police. Wikipedia is not the place to
air that grudge. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Heinkel He 111. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat ( talk) 03:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Jubilee line.
WP:UNDUE as incidents that you mentioned are incidents that are not affecting the whole line. It may be included in the respective stations, but not on the article discussing the whole train line.
SunDawn (
talk)
08:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have put a lengthy note on Talk:Victoria line about why your edit is factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how good The Observer is as a source if it doesn't verify the claims made in your edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you this editor? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Nick-D (
talk)
06:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Nick-D (
talk)
09:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Hello, I'm
Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
History of Maine, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Adakiko (
talk)
08:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.
Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Hello, I'm
Home Lander. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mental health, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Home Lander (
talk)
15:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Diving suit. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
RexxS (
talk)
13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cold chain, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 07:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
El_C
16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced additions — you are still doing it! El_C 16:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Corniche (Abu Dhabi), 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! ―
Susmuffin
Talk
22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
CLCStudent. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Religion in Afghanistan, 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. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
CLCStudent (
talk)
12:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Visa policy of Afghanistan.
Flix11 (
talk)
17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Urvasi Urvasi, you may be
blocked from editing.
Sundayclose (
talk)
13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia.
El_C
05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image, as you did at
Dark skin.
CommanderWaterford (
talk)
08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
10:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop it. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Lotteries in Australia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Sundayclose (
talk)
15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Lotteries in Australia.
Sundayclose (
talk)
02:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Youth 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 02:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Can someone post this user to edit war for the Hawkesbury Bridge ? Dave Rave ( talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Hawkesbury River railway bridge. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You appear to have a grudge against the Metropolitan Police. Wikipedia is not the place to
air that grudge. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Heinkel He 111. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat ( talk) 03:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Jubilee line.
WP:UNDUE as incidents that you mentioned are incidents that are not affecting the whole line. It may be included in the respective stations, but not on the article discussing the whole train line.
SunDawn (
talk)
08:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have put a lengthy note on Talk:Victoria line about why your edit is factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how good The Observer is as a source if it doesn't verify the claims made in your edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you this editor? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Nick-D (
talk)
06:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Nick-D (
talk)
09:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Hello, I'm
Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
History of Maine, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Adakiko (
talk)
08:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |