| Revision as of 02:36, 7 February 2016 editIryna Harpy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,773 editsm Reverted 1 edit by HandsomeFella: Rv Don't make changes to someone else's talk on their talk page, even if you think you're doing them a favour in assisting with spelling. (TW)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 13:09, 19 February 2016 edit undoNezi1111 (talk | contribs)545 edits clean upNext edit → |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
== January 2016 == |
|
|
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. —''']''' (]) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:1st warning was for a typo on ]. It was a first edit on the page. Check it if you don't believe me. |
|
|
:2nd warning was for the first edit i made on the page ], that was already sourced on the page (his age) |
|
|
:3rd i get a week block for violating a 3RR??? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Really? REALLY?? You are just another power hungry moronic admin with an itchy block finger. ...Slow clap... |
|
|
|
|
|
:There now i deserve the block, you halfwit moron. ] (]) 03:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It doesn't matter ''why'' you got the 3RR warnings; what matters is you were fully aware of the policy. And actually, your first was for edit warring at ], your second was regarding ] (and you were subsequently blocked), and your third was regarding ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::That said, if you'd care to discuss your block civilly, I'm willing to do so. If you reply along the lines of your comment above, don't be surprise if your block is extended and/or your talk page access is revoked. —''']''' (]) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: first off, it wasn't just the white brazilians, it was every ethnic page, since your buddies had the galleries censored. I stopped after i realized your little cabal had decided even sourced pictures are against wiki policy and would censor it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 2nd oh... i will be civil. that was a boil over a series of very dumb admin decisions with itchy ''oh... you made a typo? BOOM! Warning, or you'll be blocked'' fingers. That doesn't mean there's a smigdet of respect left for admins. ] (]) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== February 2016 == |
|
|
] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of ] to ] have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:warn yourself first. you're so focused on your own views, that you ignore what he says himself. ] (]) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Follow proper procedure and request further comment on the article talk page. '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 17:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: dude, i've given a direct reliable source( the man himself). the fact that you don't like what he's saying about HIS OWN HERITAGE doesn't make it a ''disruptive edit'' or ''vandalism''. ] (]) 17:18, 1 February 2016 (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 ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== February 2016 == |
|
|
] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. ''You are making edits which, if you were to go through the article talk page, you would realize have been ruled against via consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please be mindful.''<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:which are?] (]) 00:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are clearly new to editing here. I highly suggest you do your due diligence before making further edits because you appear to be creating disagreements on every page you edit. Proper protocol is, when you make an edit that is reverted, to NOT MAKE THE SAME EDIT AGAIN and instead take it to the talk page for the article. You then REQUEST COMMENT FROM OTHER EDITORS to see whether your language should be added. '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 00:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: don't lecture me. You vanished form the talk page and all you do is revert revert revert. Might want to look up the revert policy after you're odne with your vain attempt of lecturing me. ] (]) 00:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: You need to familiarize yourself with ] and learn the proper protocols. You are a disruptive editor. '''] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>''' 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::says the dude who takes ownership of a page and does reverts in bulk. let me direct you to ], Russell Wilson is not what you want him to be. ] (]) 00:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. ''Be very careful with remarks in edit summaries that could be interpreted as accusations against other editors.''<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> —''']''' (]) 01:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* to ] is a clear violation of the three-revert rule. Please undo the edit yourself; otherwise, you ''will'' be blocked for edit warring. —''']''' (]) 01:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: are you addressing this to me?] (]) 01:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It was your edit. It's already been undone, so you can't self revert, but '''do not make the same edit again'''. —''']''' (]) 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: clear favoritism. first off, Wilson himself said he's mixed. 2nd, he reverted more than i did. I also wanted to improve the articel in other ways but was face wit revert revert revert. so no. i will not revert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlLSuKxhZ4&t=2m48s check it yourself if you don't believe me. ] (]) 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not saying your edit doesn't have merit. It ''might''. However, it's disputed, so there needs to be discussion first. The other user has started an ]; please wait for the results before changing the article. —''']''' (]) 01:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: the discussion clearly doesn't have merit. it's just a delaying tactic. Russell said he's mixed. END. OF. STORY. ] (]) 01:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
3RR is a bright-line rule. End of story. |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for ] and violating the ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. —''']''' (]) 02:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
|
|
|
|
|
you going to block him? he clearly violated the ] at least twice in the last week. or are you guys to close edit buddy's? ] (]) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
only for me it seems. ] (]) 02:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
