Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
This IP address, 150.101.100.140, is registered to Internode Professional Access, Australia and may be shared by many users of an enterprise network, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
If you are
autoblocked repeatedly, contact your
Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact
Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling
X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its
proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using
Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
Network administrators monitoring this IP address for vandalism can
subscribe to a
web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Welcome!
Hello, 150.101.100.140, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the
Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the
Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Hey, regarding
this edit of yours, I want to point out that you should generally give a reason for reverting another editor. You will note that, when I reverted you, back
here, I left an edit summary with an explanation. My point, which I will repeat here, was that even if your statement is true, that isn't the place in the article for such a point in the article. It was a bit awkward there, but you can certainly place the information somewhere else, and it might work fine.
Unschool04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Hello, I'm
Meters. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article,
Floodlight, 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! 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. That source is not appropriate. It is a promotional how-to from a manufacturer's site, and it does not support any of the claims in the sentence it is supposedly referencing.Meters (
talk)
06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi. I've noticed your series of edits to various Adelaide-based articles to add information concerning the tram extension. Thank you for your edits. However, I would like to direct you to WP:CITE listing the Wikipedia's citation policy. I would also recommend getting to know Template:Cite web, a template that enables users to easily include citation authors, origins of citations, and access dates for a more comprehensive citation listing in-article. Additionally, a more encyclopedic writing tone would be invaluable in your edits; for example, "the company responsible for construction has gone into voluntary administration" is far less ambiguous than "the company responsible for construction has a big problem now". Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. –
Nick Mitchell 98talk13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I have to agree. You are adding little snippets of info or your own commentary with sources that sometimes don't actually support what you are adding.
Meters (
talk)
23:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)reply
RE your undo and summary
[1]. I did read the source. That's why I undid you. You source does not say that there has been re-alignment of streets, and it does not say that that the work was in 2016 and 2017. You might want to read
WP:BRD,
WP:RS, and
WP:SYNTH.
Meters (
talk)
07:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Rundle Park. Teh cites sources do not say that either park was to be closed permanently. "Cries" is not an encyclopedic term. The sources do not say that the protests resulted in saving the parks. Thy simply say that the design was modified to lessen the impact, and that a road which was to have been closed was retained.Meters (
talk)
23:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Rundle Park. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
And your request failed. You thought you could overstep your bounds maybe? Sorry it did not work. The other administrators agree that my edits were not vandalism.
150.101.100.140 (
talk)
05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Let's not start a
battleground with other editors like this please. It's disruptive and yields absolutely no positive benefits or results. Please understand that when it comes to the policy of
edit warring and over a content-related dispute or disagreement, it doesn't matter whose edits are "correct" or not vs the edits made by the others involved. The edits are disruptive because of the fact that users are choosing to resort to repeatedly reverting each others' edits in a back-and-fourth combative fashion instead of
properly resolving their dispute by discussing it on the article's talk page. I highly recommend reviewing the policy page I linked you to before making any edits so that you have the chance to understand it. Wikipedia is not a place to engage in edit warring or battleground conduct, and all users are expected to comply with these policies. Thanks :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi 150.101.100.140, most of us editing here on Wikipedia are complete history nerds and love old tram maps. What's getting your edits reverted is the way you're trying to force poor/vague wording into articles and making zero effort to engage constructively with other editors. Please either ask for help to make the content better quality - via the talk page or by editing constructively in the article space. The other thing is the #1 way to lose trust with other editors when adding content in good faith but that is not up to standard is to edit from an IP instead of named account. It would really help get this tram stuff up if you got a Wikipedia account.
Donama (
talk)
03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"In the old days" is not a date, its a reminiscence. Write some text and then use a picture/map to illustrate it, don't try to put content only in the caption. Tram tracks need dates of laying, conversion to electricity and removal to be useful on the road articles, and a photo would probably be more helpful than a network plan. They're not useful on the suburb articles if it was just the end of the line. It could be useful if there was a depot/tram barn/tram horse paddock in the suburb/village, but again the picture should support the prose not replace it. I also encourage you to register on the site. --
Scott DavisTalk05:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
There is no charge for an account, you just need to register yourself. Part of
Donama's point is that most vandalism and bad faith edits are done by anonymous IP editors, so regular Wikipedia editors may subconsciously start with a different attitude to edits by IP numbers. It may be unfortunate, but it is often true. One of the benefits of being registered allows you to have a watchlist of the articles that interest you to more easily notice if they have changed. --
Scott DavisTalk08:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
September 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Adelaide Convention Centre, 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. You undid a bunch of copyediting, as well as reinserting the trivia about an incident of domestic violence which was incidental to where it had occurred. I have reverted to the copyedited version. If you wish to reinsert the incident of violence, please discuss on the talk page why you think it is relevant.Scott DavisTalk08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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_C05:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hello, I'm
Nigos. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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
my talk page. Thank you.
Nigos (
t@lk•Contribs)
05:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure significance has been sufficiently established. Please use the article talk page to try to gain
consensus for your changes. The
onus is on you as the one introducing the edit to do so.
El_C05:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Neither is just reverting my edit, especially after I've written on the talk page of the Comoros article. He has removed it. So, in other words, I've attempted to take it to talk and now he's deleted it. You call that civil?
150.101.100.140 (
talk)
06:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
You were forced to take to the talk page since I protected the article. And on that talk page comment you merely asked that I be blocked but did not otherwise attempt to address the content of your edit.
El_C06:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually no, I was not forced. But nice try. Also, your behaviour was also not up it. Atleast Nigos took the time to explain and help me out.
150.101.100.140 (
talk)
07:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for
disruptive edits. Also for non sequitur edits and issues pertaining to editorializing and a non-neutral tone. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making the very samedisruptive edits you were blocked for previously. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Actually, you are the ones making disruptive edits. I've put sources and most of the content is facts. You keep removing them, therefore you are disruptive editor.
150.101.100.140 (
talk)
07:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for making the very samedisruptive edits you were blocked for previously, again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Actually, no. If you look carefully, you will find that the reverts were not really the same. I made some changes and put in sources. Please read again before you make accusations. Thank you.
150.101.100.140 (
talk)
06:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You're still making the very same "received a lot of hate in the media recently," etc. type of edits which are too poorly-written for an encyclopedia, sorry.
El_C06:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
February 2020
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making
disruptive edits.
Yes you were disruptive, making a ton of edits that were unexplained and unverified--or unencyclopedic ("deranged"). Leave edit summaries to explain your edits, and please do better than saying "research it".
Drmies (
talk)
14:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
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.