![]() |
Hi Jim7049! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, thanks for your contribution here. I'd like to inform you that this has no effect unless an administrator first configures the page protection settings, as for example here (automatically expired on Dec 2). Please refer to WP:RfPP if you want to ask an admin to do this for you. Personally I think we can manage the little petty vandalism on the page, and IP contributions can be valuable too. But feel free to disagree of course ;-) Wakari07 ( talk) 11:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk)
02:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reported your disruptive behavior at the Administrators' noticeboard. Do feel free to get involved. Thanks. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 02:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Front for Liberation–Tahrir al-Sham conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reported you for knowingly violating the 1RR and for continuing your edit warring. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)I have reported you for violating the 1RR again, mere hours after the first block expired. EDIT: I didn't see that you self-reverted. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTVANDALISM and WP:NPA. Then reconsider why you made this revert. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I would point you to the government statement that is days old that definitively states that the British government backs the opposition government and does not recognise Maduro. There is no ambiguity with the United Kingdom. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-statement-on-situation-in-venezuela Qaei ☎ 01:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Jim, I am so sorry because I put my nomination in the wrong place accidentally by mistake. But don't worry I have put this in the in the right place, hopefully to avoid the screw up in the future. Sheldybett ( talk) 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed
maintenance templates from
Operation Euphrates Shield. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Please see
Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop removing
maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered
disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being
blocked from editing.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk)
20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@ MSGJ:, @ Mikrobølgeovn: User Mikrobølgeovn has clearly taken advantage of me being blocked and further edit warred on the subjects that we weren't discussing. Since I got block Mikrobølgeovn not only reverted once again what we were discussing about (adding a unreliable tag to a source which he does not approve but has not presented a source for it not being unreliable). He completely removed the sourced material, reverting, edit warring further and taking advantage of by block as well taking it a even step further. Jim7049 ( talk) 23:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
20:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)This is for edit-warring and battleground behaviour on various articles, most recently at 2013 Egyptian coup d'état — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Jim7049 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Did not edit war. Jim7049 ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You didn't go over 3RR, but you did edit war. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:46, 8 February 2019 (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.
@ MSGJ: Brief reason given for block, first of all what other articles as you claim have I edit warred? If you are gonna accuse somebody of something you better present evidence on what those are. As in the case of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, I have made no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, which were reverts of different edits rather than reverting the same thing 3 times. Jim7049 ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Jim7049 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Did not know 3 reverts was edit warring. Jim7049 ( talk) 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Now you do. Isn't learning fun?! Yunshui 雲 水 00:08, 9 February 2019 (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.
I was not aware that edits that did not violate 3RR were also considered edit warring. Request to unblock and not to edit war. Was blocked for 3 reverts in past 24 hours in an article. Jim7049 ( talk) 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Please describe the steps you would take to resolve a disagreement with another editor about content without edit warring. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Please read and describe how WP:BRD relates to avoiding causing disruption. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capture of Southern Naval Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Fakhri Pasha into
List of last stands. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Madness
Darkness
23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/2019 March 11 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 BRD 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. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a
discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
AmericanAgent (
talk)
13:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 02:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Danski454 ( talk) 20:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Due to the fact that you have been blocked and warned many times, and have failed to change your behavior, you have been blocked indefinitely per WP:CIR. We have already attempted to give you a chance to stop, multiple times. We've blocked you, we've unblocked you, we've tried explaining to you, we've believed your promises to stop, and yet nothing is changing. If you wish to edit here again, you will have to make serious changes. That does not mean more promises to stop, that means an editing restriction, such as a WP:0RR (ban on reverting) or something similar. For extended comments regarding this block, see my comments at AN/I. [2] ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)