User talk:101.178.163.208

July 2017
You seem to constantly edit various articles without adding any valuable sources and did not seem constructive to me. I recommend you use the talk page first before making such edits to the number of articles you edited. Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC))


 * I recommend you take it to talk before you delete them. Just because YOU view them as such, does not mean they are.
 * Actually, it's you who needs to take it to talk since it's you who are making the initiative edits, and you've done quite a lot and most of them without sources or talk page consensus. I've reverted most of your recent edits as custom to keep eye on such constant IP edits. Please see WP:BOLD. Also remember to sign your messages. (N0n3up (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC))
 * BTW just reverted edits without sources. (N0n3up (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC))

August 2017
Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Lone Wolf McQuade— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jus da  fax   07:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Victoria Harbour crossings, 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. Citobun (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2017
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cassini–Huygens, you may be blocked from editing. -★- PlyrStar93. → Message me. ← 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oi. Learn to assume good faith. I've corrected it now!101.178.163.208 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ash (disambiguation). -★- PlyrStar93. → Message me. ← 04:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made a mistake you twit.

Names go on Ash (name) See wp:No personal attacks Jim1138 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. And thanks. But please, tell the other guy to stop making threats. I mean, how was I to know this? 101.178.163.208 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Ash
Is a minor character in The Human Sexipede i.e. does not meet wp:notable (people). Create an article for Jordan Ash, then add his name to wp:disambiguation pages. Jim1138 (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Caribbean Sea. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rachel Dolezal, 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. Swag Gangster  ★ 01:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rachel Dolezal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Swag Gangster  ★ 01:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit warring on Caribbean Sea
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Caribbean Sea. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * What do you mean by " Do not edit war even if you believe you are right "..

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Singapore Changi Airport. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Competence issue
Your edits at Interstate 110 show a possible comptence issue, as you twice inserted a circular redirect that led back to the dab about a road that was already mentioned on the pae. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Inexusable anti-Muslim edit
This edit claiming many people said the pilot was Muslim was based on a source which said those people were conservative/rightwin sources and that the prosecutor had denied any relious motivation (sorry. some keys not workin on my laptop). There's no excuse for that. Either it was meant to be anti-Muslim or it was another competence issue, and I'm not sure I should continue to let you edit. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Either way, I am not responsible for what other people think. And before you accuse me of being Anti Muslim, let me tell you that I regularly visit Muslim countries for holiday and some of my good friends are Muslims.


 * ok, then you either were careless, didn't read the bit where the prosecution said there was no religious issue, or chose to leave that out. Doug Weller  talk 06:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct on that one. There is alot of stuff I dont know about. I am no Wikipedia veteran.

Drmies comment was critical of you but not a personal attack
There's a difference. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Drmies comment was critical and personal. Atleast borderline. If I were to make similar comments against him/her, I would have been told off.


 * The only difference is your comments/posts were critical and appropriate. I appreciate that.

February 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Syrian Democratic Forces, you may be blocked from editing. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2018
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Thawb. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * I did add a source. You yourself admitted it mate.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to U.S. Route 66. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. ''US 66 was in the Texas Panhandle, parallel to, and hundreds of miles from I-10 in the state. They never crossed in Texas. They only approached each other in the state of California, not Texas, so please stop reinserted factually false information.''  Imzadi 1979  →   05:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Vandalism 21-MAR-2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at American Airlines Flight 587, you may be blocked from editing.      Spintendo       08:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That is not vandalism you twit.
 * Lets... let's not respond to messages by behaving uncivilly and with personal attacks, okay? Not only is this against Wikipedia's policy on user interaction and behavior, it just won't result in any positive or good results - you know what I mean?


 * Spintendo, can you please explain why you believe this edit that you reverted was vandalism? This user appears to be frustrated over the warning you left and disagrees with it... Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologise for that. Oshwah, he has reverted another edit. He claims that the 1960 collision did not happen; that is far from the truth. One of the planes did crash into Staten Island.


 * The crash of flight 587 was not a collision, it did not take place in Park Slope, it did not occur during the 1960's, and it did not involve any of the same aircraft type. The only similarities between these two crashes are the IP's repeated attempts at linking both of them together on their Wikipedia pages in the face of a clear consensus which reverts their changes each and every time. Not to mention the other dozen complaints on their talk page about them adding spurious, worthless information to many other Wikipedia pages.      Spintendo       14:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo - Cool deal; thanks for responding and for the explanation :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Spintendo, so why didnt you say so earlier, instead of beating around the frigging bush? And no, you are wrong. There are other similarities. One plane crashed into Park Slope, the other into Belle Harbour. Belle Harbour is in neighbouring Queens. Both events also involved planes crashing into houses/populated areas. Furthermore, some of the flights had a common airport, JFK airport. Oshwah thanks for your assistance and for your good demeanor.


 * P)lease stop adding the link to the Park Slope crash without gaining consensus on the talkpage. They're similar only in geography. Bluster is not a substitute for discussion, and a slow-motion edit-war to get your preferred version is disruptive. Please reconsider your approach to other editors. See my talkpage note here   Acroterion   (talk)   11:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Staten Island, you may be blocked from editing. ''An airplane crash that did not happen on Staten Island is not relevant to the article. You have already been warned about this, as well as several other cases of adding factual errors and editing disruptively.'' epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * What kind of editor are you? You pick on me and you fail to do your research?? Next time read the whole article.
 * Show me some reliable sources then. Or else you will be reported. Also, I guess you failed to read the article yourself, because the text you were adding is already mentioned in another section. An air crash is not transportation, so stop blaming other people for your own wrongs. epicgenius (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Then why didnt you say so earlier? I HAVE put a source in my edits last week. And if you look at the article there is NO source, so atleast I have added a source. You should swallow your own advice and stop trying to make it seem that you have a clean, perfect record. Sure report me, and I will report you.101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Constant edits
I reverted some of your edits in a few articles since they don't really seem constructive. I asked you multiple times to explain yourself and your edits on the talk page which you refused, which I can assume that your edits must be in bad nature due to the fact that you refuse to use the talk page. I'm really reluctant on IP's so I think you should really consider using the talk pages whenever you have the chance. (N0n3up (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC))


 * How come other users did not revert my edits? What makes you a special user? Sorry, I do not need to explain my edits to you, you are the one vandalising the page by deleting content. Even User CambridgeBayWeather was happy to help me. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of your edits lack sources and for many instances gave you the chance to make your case on the talk page yet refused, which I can assume that it's because your edits aren't as well intentioned enough to support them on the talk page and your behavior and disregard for consensus with other editors shows me that your arbitrary nature will not fare well. That's the meaning behind WP:BOLD, if someone reverts you then you take it to the talk page and discuss why your edits are legitimate. This assures that your edits are well-intentioned contributions and shows me that you are not an arbitrary troublesome as you've been acting throughout your time in Wikipedia. At this point you should have at least told me why your edits are correct in the talk pages of the articles you've been reverted. Nevertheless you've been attacking other editors you have different opinions than your own, above for example instead of trying to be diplomatic and constructive your get in the offence and start making personal attacks which shows me that you're not serious about collaborating with other editors nor being constructive. Again, If an editor makes "new" changes to an article and gets reverted then that editor is the one who makes the case on the talk page, not the one who reverts, again that's what BOLD means. You have been having an arbitrary attitude, it's time you started acting more constructive. (N0n3up (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC))


 * It's a good idea for you to do the same. All you have done is acted like a vandal. I too have asked you but you refuse to talk. At least the other editors have been helpful unlike you. And they also have reverted your edits, but you keep deleting them. What do you have to say to that? Oh that's right, the rule probably don't apply to you.
 * Again, I didn't initiate the edits. When someone initiates an edit in an article and gets reverted, they talk it out on the "talk page", that's the rule in WP:BOLD and since it's you who initiated the edits, not me, the onus is on you to provide an argument. Also, the "no, it's you who should..." type of rebuttal won't get you anywhere but closer to a block. This and also the way you interacted with other editors as seen above is sufficient enough for a block if I were to report you, which I have been generous enough not to on the hopes that you would get wise enough to use the talk page, but considering how long this has been going on, I will consider otherwise. (N0n3up (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC))
 * Agree with N0n3up. I have deleted the photo again.  You added it; Please justify on the talk page why you feel it should be there.Phatblackmama (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Louvre Abu Dhabi. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.   02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * I have supplied sources. And there is nothing wrong with my Grammar. Please take it up with the vandal. Thank you.101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism to revert your edits, but it is when you violate WP:BOLD. (N0n3up (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2018 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have replied. Thank you.101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I replied to your comment.   02:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 12:02, 3 May 2018 (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.

More edit warring and more calling good-faith editors "vandals" will result in longer blocks. --Neil N  talk to me 12:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. So what about other editors that are edit warring? And about my good faith edits ( that are sourced ). Are you going to just going ignore that or are you going to remind them too? 101.178.163.208 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * TU-nor is right that you need to respect the fact that once you've been reverted you need to support your edits with sources, explanations and consensus. And since I have not seen you do any of those but instead edit-war, then I had no choice but to revert you. Remember that it's more than just having sources, you need support and consensus. In response to me "hounding" your edits, I had every right to revert your edits since your edits were arbitrary without being talked in the talk page and it's common checking on an IP's edits after problems, thus hope that you get in the habit of using the talk page rather than edit-warring like you have been. So if I see you making a new edit that has been reverted three times without taking it to the talk page I will report you to ANI leading to your block. (N0n3up (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC))
 * Also learn to sign your posts with four tildes between parentheses. (N0n3up (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC))
 * And if you delete this message, you'll only be proving my point. (N0n3up (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC))


 * I only delete messages if they cross the line. So you don't have to worry about about it, unless you plan to cross the line. Yes, TU-Nor is also right about you. He has agreed with me on many things too. Besides, I've supplied sources and you too have failed to see that. TU-Nor and other users also have the right to look at your edits and if necessary revert. You might think they don't, but they do. If it applies to me, it most definitely applies to you. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is right and all of us have our mistakes. Yes, I might make some mistakes in Wikipedia, we all have done mistakes but we need to learn from them instead of edit-warring. (N0n3up (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Self destruction?
My message to you here obviously did not get through to you. Your bout of edit war reverts today is a safe way of getting yourself blocked for a long time. I advice you to self revert those and take them to the respective talk pages. Also, none of the edits you reverted are vandalism. --T*U (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * But I thought you said that you've agreed with some of my edits?101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some, yes. But I do not agree with edit war. --T*U (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Which ones you agree with?101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You will find out when you have self reverted and started talk page discussions. --T*U (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'll write something.101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Gliding and hang-gliding
If you look at the web-site of the governing body for air sports Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, you will see that there is a sport called Gliding, and another sport called Hang gliding. Gliding is a sport that uses sailplanes. Hang gliding uses foot-launched aircraft. These are quite distinct. They have their own championships at different places. The equivalent would be mixing Rugby League and Rugby Union in the same article even though they contain the same word. What links the sports, as well as other forms of flight, is that they involve Gliding flight. I think you are trying to show this link between the sports in the wrong article. You can see a comparison of the two types of aircraft in Glider (sailplane). I have been flying gliders for 36 years and I have written a book on the subject. Please acknowledge that there are people out there with more knowledge that you. The history on this page indicates that you find this difficult to accept. I have to preserve the quality of this featured article and so I must revert your reversion. JMcC (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that there many people who know more than you and me. Thanks for that. You too need to acknowledge that people make good faith edits and that I was mistaken. I did take a look at the Gliding flight though. You are right; that article would be more appropriate and not the Gliding article. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Double
Double picture of the same subject, the Strait of Bonifacio.--Xóil (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

 * User:NeilN warned you what would happen if you continued to call other editors vandals.  Doug Weller  talk 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Since you've been reverted once again withing the short breadth of a week, I'll leave this message so you'll be reminded of the actions that lead to your block.

You need to respect the fact that once you've been reverted you need to support your edits with sources, explanations and consensus. And since I have not seen you do any of those but instead edit-war, then I had no choice but to revert you. Remember that it's more than just having sources, you need support and consensus. In response to me "hounding" your edits, I had every right to revert your edits since your edits were arbitrary without being talked in the talk page and it's common checking on an IP's edits after problems, thus hope that you get in the habit of using the talk page rather than edit-warring like you have been. So it's not vandalism when an editor reverts an edit that violated WP:BRD.

You kept calling me a vandal, (when it's clearly you, and I explained why above), but I'm not the one who's constantly getting blocked, so have fun getting blocked. I'll say this one more time, if I see you making a new edit that has been reverted three times without taking it to the talk page I will report you to ANI leading to another block.(N0n3up (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

May 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Abseiling, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * It is certain that IP101.178 has a lot to learn about consensus, talk page discussions and edits without proper explanation. Therefore they are frequently reverted and has also been blocked several times for edit warring. In this particular case, however, you have got the situation wrong. It was not the IP that removed this particular piece of content. The picture was actually added by this IP, and it was that removed it twice (with no explanation) in their eternal quest to revert almost every single edit this IP does. From your edit summary it seems obvious that your removal was done by mistake, since you say that you revert a removal when actually removing. I could, of course revert your revert of the revert, but I do not want to become more involved in the crossfire of the IP/N0n3up feud than I already am. So I would prefer that you do it yourself. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. My apologies. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. You seem to be getting reverted by a few people. I suggest opening conversations to explore why, and what you can do to get your edits accepted if you believe they should be. I think I've just deleted hatnotes that you added to two articles. I explained why in the edit summaries - the places in question already had qualified/disambiguated names, so they don't need hatnotes to point readers to an article with a different name about a different place. --Scott Davis Talk 10:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Megan. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.''You have been warned about edit warring multiple times, and you have been pointed to WP:BRD, including very recent and detailed message by user:N0n3up. And yet here you are again, just a few days after your last block ended. Discuss the edit on the talk page the first time you are undone. Don't keep restoring it.'' Meters (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * You have made this edit four times without discussing it, including three times in 45 minutes today. Read WP:3RR Meters (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Hackney, South Australia. Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert war
Your revert wars with are disruptive. Your unwillingness to use talk pages and your repeated reverts are harming Wikipedia in several ways. Repeated changes back and forth of article content make the encyclopaedia unstable and less useful for those who use Wikipedia as a source for information. Remember that Wikipedia is not there for the editors, but for the end users.

Edit war also scares other editors away from the articles. I have spent quite a lot of time trying to find solutions to some of the disputed articles, a task that is made very difficult by the obsessive reverts from the two of you. In some cases I have tried to find a middle way, in other cases I have agreed with one or the other, but have been forced to make long explanations and detailed descriptions about rather trivial and simple things. Now I am fed up. There are limits for how long I am willing to use time cleaning up after the two of you. I have better things to do both in real life and in Wikipedia. At least no-one can say that I have not tried.

I have still not seen any examples of vandalism from any of you two, so I hope the accusations about that is something in the past. I wish that the edit wars were history, too, but that seems to be beyond reach.

You have already been blocked several times for this behaviour. If you continue down this road, there is nothing to save you from a much longer block. --T*U (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

May/June 2018 - Hackney, South Australia
Thanks for your recent addition of references to Hackney, South Australia. Unfortunately, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au%2Fmessenger%2Fcity%2Fadelaide-faces-another-traffic-nightmare-as-work-begins-on-obahn-extension%2Fnews-story%2F3da93d924a42755190ff7504c159dd5a&usg=AOvVaw0cPj6uKTtEITUSX7bbZLbg returns an error 404. Can you provide a working link please (and correct the article)? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Harry (name), 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. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No redlinks on a disambiguation page. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harry (name). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Again: Self destruction?
You have been blocked several times for edit warring. And you have been thoroughly warned about WP:EDITWAR. If you continue to edit war, your next block will probably be very long. I see that you sometimes bring good additions to Wikipedia, but not always well explained, and then there may be need for discussion. Blind reverts back and forth are always disruptive. Please take a deep breath, drop the edit wars, and take your points to the talk pages instead. The alternative is so much worse. --T*U (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Glasses. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Find a better source than a Bible. It's a wp:primary source and there is no other credible evidence for Moses parting the Red Sea. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Red Sea. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Women driving in Saudi
None of the sources you give support your claim. The first source says that women with UAR drivers licence will get their Saudi licence easier since they do not have to prove their skills. It does not say that women used to drive in Saudi. The other source is underlining this. It clearly says that she was not allowed to drive in Saudi, even with a valid licence from UAR. Now please be a good editor and self revert your false claim in all the three articles. I have been trying to guide you, but I am kind of fed up with your edit warring and your reluctance to use talk pages. Do not say I have not warned you. --T*U (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Its UAE not UAR. And thats why I said she was arrested. Why cant you see that?101.178.163.208 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, UAE, then. That is hardly the point. The point is: None of the sources say that women used to drive in Saudi. --T*U (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. But my point is. They drove and THEN they were arrested101.178.163.208 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Bordello_of_Blood, you may be blocked from editing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 03:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That was not vandalizing. If anything, you're edit was vandalism. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Red Sea
Wind could have parted the Red Sea... Therefore Moses? If you fail to get wp:consensus before restoring that or similar content again, this 'discussion' will continue on wp:ANI to get some admins' opinions. Exodus is mentioned on the article already. After the Six Day War, the Israelis dug up the Sinai Peninsula and didn't find any evidence of a large migration. BTW: Your mention of Yemen was unsourced. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry I clicked 'undo' and forgot all about the other Yemen edit. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Blood (disambiguation)
I have reverted your edit to Blood (disambiguation). The disambiguation page is intended to allow readers to quickly sort through ambiguous titles (such as Blood (film)) to find the one they are interested in. Bordello of Blood is not ambiguous. Leschnei (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont understand what you mean. The movie Bordello of Blood has the word Blood in it. And disambg pages are for that. But thanks for your help on the other articles, mate101.178.163.208 (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's Disambiguation page; these pages are not intended to list every article with a particular word in them. For example, Blood (disambiguation) will help readers to find Blood (Franz Ferdinand album) vs. Blood (In This Moment album). Similar items like 'The Blood' would also be included. Names that are easily distinguished, like Bordello of Blood, are not. Leschnei (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Deb. Jim1138 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Aks
I have reverted your addition to Aks for the same reasons that I listed above for Blood (disambiguation). Aks (disambiguation) is a little different because it includes both items that use Aks as a word, like film titles, and acronyms, but it is not intended for every article that has aks in its title. Leschnei (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would like to continue editing disambiguation pages, I would be happy to help you so that you don't keep getting reverted (I know how frustrating that can be). If you leave notes on my talk page or on yours, we can discuss whether an article is worth adding. If you leave a note for me here, please start it with . Leschnei (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My apologies.Theres somethings which I dont know. I thought disamb. pages ( aks for instance ) have all articles there. For instance, Paris disamb. page might have all articles which start with 'Paris' or have 'Paris' in their title101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, please read Disambiguation. It explains what disambiguation pages are and what should (and shouldn't) be added to them. Leschnei (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kill. ''

After you posted above that you understand that disambiguation pages are not intended to list all articles with a particular word in the title, and after you have been warned multiple times about revert warring, you went ahead and re-added inappropriate entries to a number of dab pages (reverting other editors' removals of those entries). Please stop this behaviour. Thank you. bonadea'' contributions talk 08:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Excuse me, but I did NOT say that I understand that disambiguation pages are not intended to list all articles. Don't you make accusations like this. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm sorry for accusing you of being well-informed? It seems from your edit to Deb that you really do not understand. There is plenty of information in the links provided to you above, about liste and dab pages on Wikipedia. Will you please agree to stop adding inappropriate entries to dab pages now? --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Um no. This is what you typed " After you posted above that you understand that disambiguation pages are not intended to ". But I did not. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Multiple gunshot suicide have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Exsanguination have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jess. Can you explain why you reverted them?


 * I did provide explanations in the edit summaries, but to expand:
 * Your addition to Suicide by hanging is too brief to be very useful, does not belong under "Medical effects and treatment", and includes a wikipedia article used as a source, which is not done. I've re-removed your re-adding of this same content.


 * My removal of your edit at Multiple gunshot suicide seems to have not gone through earlier, but I have just submitted it, with explanation in the edit summary.


 * In general what I've noticed you doing in multiple articles is adding content and "see also" links which are tangentially related to the topic, but not important enough to include, or non sequiturs in the spots you've put them.


 * I hope this helps. Jessicapierce (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jessica. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition, I wouldn't think that facts about execution by hanging (and a reference to a book discussing the form of execution) would belong in an article about suicide by hanging. But that is of course something that could be discussed on the article's talk page, if the IP has good reason to think it should be included. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess your right. Execution is not the same as suicide. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Otay Mesa, San Diego. 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. bonadea contributions talk 07:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Important: Wikipedia articles can never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. See this information. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. But can you please go to this article and change the wording then? The article states that it is the world's first geographically binational airport "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Border_Xpress" Thanks101.178.163.208 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Perhaps you should actually read the source you added. IMeters (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you should, Meters. Then why did Kiezers add the content again? He basically reverted Bonadeas edit. Here is the link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otay_Mesa,_San_Diego&action=history 101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When you are blocked, you can't ask other people to continue the edit warring on your behalf, and as a matter of fact you shouldn't use your talk page other than to request a lifting of your block. (Also, there are a couple of important differences between Keizers' edit and yours: Keizers included reliable sources that did not say the opposite of the text they added to the article, and they made sure that the article text did not make incorrect or incomprehensible claims.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not " asking other people to continue the edit warring ". Anyway, Keizers has done a good job of modifying the edit and it looks good. Better than you reverting. As for me using my talk page, sorry, User:Widr never stated that I cannot use my talk page. Thank you.101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gold card, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Yeah, whatever. Its not disruptive.101.178.163.208 (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Cristabel0. I have reverted your edits on Angry Anderson and Blade as it did not appear constructive. If you want to test your edits please use Sandbox. Thank you. Cristabel0 (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rodney Alcala. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Read the article [PA redacted] Its sourced content. He appeared on the TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.208 (talk • contribs) 04:12, February 14, 2019 (UTC)
 * Appearing on an episode of The Dating Game does not make one an celebrity, and please read WP:NPA. Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Human rights in the United Arab Emirates ‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.Discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2019
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. An edit that you recently made to Religion in Greece seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 21 August 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.
 * Hello Miss Harpy. I think you did make a mistake.101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP 101.178.163.208. I took the 'extension' to the content to be a 'test' in as much as your WP:OR summary of what you think makes sense is essentially redundant original research commentary. At that point, I hadn't looked at your editing history, therefore thought you wanted to try out adding information with no inherent value. While your enthusiasm is appreciated, having checked your contributions, it's evident that you mean well, but you are constantly arguing with other editors about the value of your contributions when you've been told over and over that you are not improving the content of these articles. Good intentions or not, the bottom line is that WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit an encyclopaedic resource. Please take pause to WP:LISTEN to the overwhelming message being sent to you regarding your contributions. Thank you for hearing me out. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ehh, ok. But it wasn't a test, i will try to find some proper source. That stuff I put, its an actual wikipedia page and not rubbish.101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United Patriots Front, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 22 August 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.
 * sorry, I didn't know if they are who they say they are101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Costas Kilias has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Costas Kilias was changed by 101.178.163.208 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951498 on 2019-08-26T07:07:20+00:00

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harpy (disambiguation). Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Harpy (disambiguation) was changed by 101.178.163.208 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866053 on 2019-08-26T07:10:32+00:00

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harpy (disambiguation). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Inappropriate in several ways. bonadea'' contributions talk 07:25, 26 August 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vidal, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 07:26, 26 August 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.


 * Nacho Vidal IS a porno actor!101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not what you wrote, and he was already (appropriately) listed on the page. Stop being disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 07:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That IS what I wrote. I also mentioned his background, i.e. Latino.101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vidal. bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 26 August 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.


 * What the heck is wrong with you!! Nacho Vidal IS a porno actor! Check it out on the internet or just go to his page 101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)