User talk:103.246.36.31

Edit war warning (1)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of counties in California. 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2021 (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.

Disruptive editing (1)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Al Nahyan family, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please check the facts before you talk shit.103.246.36.31 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (2)
As others have clearly pointed out, please discontinue your disruptions. If you continue to alter or add unsourced, false content, as you did here Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum, you will be blocked. As you say, please do check your facts before you post again. Ooopjfooo (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What disruption? I have posted sourced content. Thank you.103.246.36.31 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's that source? You continue to claim that a Navy vessel belonging to the United Arab Emirates is that of the Indian Coast Guard. Those are not the same, and you are incorrect. Ooopjfooo (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you were taking about my other posts. Well then, can't you remove "Indian Coast Guard" and put "UAE Coast Guard" instead of just deleting it? Maybe I can do it.103.246.36.31 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated, it is also not a UAE Coast Guard vessel, which is why your edits continue to be reverted. Please, simply take the time to ensure your understanding of a topic is correct *before* making any edit. That saves everyone's time in the end. Ooopjfooo (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok ok fine, ok I've put UAE Navy! Perhaps you could be have done it in the meantime, instead of repeatedly telling me about it.103.246.36.31 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose you're right. However, I had also hoped to convey the importance of verifying information before you make an edit.


 * Thanks for correcting. Ooopjfooo (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks.103.246.36.31 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (3)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at National Guard. 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. Thank you. - wolf  09:16, 15 May 2021 (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 noticeboards.
 * 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.

Disruptive editing (4)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at House of Al Said, you may be blocked from editing. Dudhhr (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2021 (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 noticeboards.
 * 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.

Edit war warning (2)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on National Guard. 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. -  wolf  13:44, 16 May 2021 (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.

Added note
You were given an edit warring notice just 3 weeks ago, which means you are already aware of this policy and yet you still violate it again. Since then, you've been given 4 warnings for disruptive editing from multiple editors on multiple articles. And now you're at it again. Per WP:BRD: you Boldly made an edit, it was Reverted. Now you Discuss the matter on the article talk page, (where a discussion has already begun). Adding additional edit summaries does not give you a free pass to continually revert that page. This is a collegial project, you are expected to engage with other editors if wish to edit here, that's what the talk pages are for.

At this point, you are becoming net-negative, with your constant battleground behavior and tendentious editing. If you continue in this manner, you will find that this community will become weary of all your disruption and your access will be blocked. That will apply to any account you use, whether registered or IP. - wolf  14:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at National Guard. 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. - wolf  09:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Added note
I'm not sure why you keep using "edit summaries" as a defense for your behavior. At this point, they're basically irrelevant. You made an edit, it was reverted. There is now a discussion regarding the disputed content on the talk page. Per WP:ONUS, you are required to discuss the edit on the talk page, not via additional edit summaries. Until then, the page remains at WP:QUO until you do. Further reverts are just considered edit warring and disruptive, regardless of what summaries you add. Go to the talk page. Explain your edit. - wolf  09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Airport police, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. - wolf  09:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (5)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Interstate 95, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2021 (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 noticeboards.
 * 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.
 * No, sorry. You are being disruptive, not me.103.246.36.47 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Incident on I-95
The history section of a highway article documents the events that shape that highway. Things like the construction of the various segments, realigning the routing of the highway, etc. We don't include routine maintenance though, because that doesn't alter the fundamental character of the highway. That's also the reason we leave most accidents and incidents out unless they result in some change to the highway, or the highway gains a reputation.

Recently, you've been adding information related to a stolen military vehicle that was driven on I-95. It is true that this event happened, but that doesn't mean we should include it in the highway articles. This stolen vehicle could have been driven on any public roadway, so the fact that I-95 was involved is mere coincidence. This incident will not likely result in any changes to I-95. There are other places where including this incident might make more sense, but the highway articles are not it.

When your block on editing expires, please don't try to add this information again. Adding it over and over again, when many editors have objected is disruptive.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Imzadi. Can I add this bit of information to the "I-95 in Virginia" article instead? Thanks.103.246.36.31 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's still non-relevant trivia, whether it's in the national or state articles. In short, that information does not belong in any highway article, period.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. If this was a bigger incident, then would this be included in these articles? How come the M5 highway article has car crashes and murders on it's page?103.246.36.31 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further vandalism. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As long as you keep adding trivial instances of crime in inappropriate places, you will be blocked. No means no.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Except that most of them are not trivial. No does not always mean no, atleast in this case.103.246.36.31 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No does mean no, because multiple editors have told you so. Since you appear to have an obsession with "killdozers" and tanks that nobody else shares, not to mention the "many bullets" business, you've been block for a long time for ignoring the consensus of other editors to disrupt the encyclopedia. You will be blocked for longer terms if you keep this up.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wrong, no does not always mean no. And wrong, not nobody; plenty of people share my "obsession" with tanks and bulldozers. That is why those articles exist in the first place. And the word "killdozer" was used many times in those articles, these are not my words.103.246.36.31 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me put it another way - if you repeat those edits when the block expires, the next block will be for a much longer term for disruptive editing and failure to listen to anybody else. In the meantime, I'm removing your access to this talkpage, since you're just using it to deny that there is any problem with your conduct.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is because you are making some false accusations. Whilst there have been some problems you are making it seem that other edits have problems. You should take a look at yourself first.103.246.36.31 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation (1)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Operation Grange. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Information about living people must be sourced when it is added, especially if criminal conduct is involved. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * She is no longer living. Plus, there is a source.103.246.36.31 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation (2)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Operation Grange. ''We don't post every step in an investigation, nor do we suggest people are guilty of crimes(such as being a "person of interest") until they are convicted. Please become familiar with WP:BLP.'' 331dot (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This chap was arrested wasn't he? And I found a reliable source.103.246.36.31 (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, "having a person of interest" does not mean anyone was arrested and charged with a crime. It might mean that someone has been interrogated or detained, but not arrested. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello 103.246.36.31! Your additions to You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 05:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, wrong. This is not a copyright issue. Please do not write this stuff again.103.246.36.31 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The video uploaded by Jorgen Petersen is a blatant copyright violation as he is not the copyright owner of either video. Per WP:ELNEVER, this is a copyright violation. Once you block expires, if you persist to add copyright violations, harder blocks will come. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That link is still an external link. That's for YouTube to decide. The other video is the correct video, it is owned by Bearforce 1. As for your comment about harder blocks, please go ahead. There's a way around that. You lose.103.246.36.31 (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just a 'head's up'... when you are blocked, you are really only supposed to use your talk page to request an unblock. But instead you are continuing to argue about about this article. That can wait until you can edit again. You should think about what led you to being blocked, what policies you violated, then post a request (down below) clearly stating that you understand what you did wrong, take responsibility for it, apologize and promise not to do it again. That just might get your block lifted or reduced. Anything else though, like continuing to argue about this video, or argue about the block, or post anything other than an unblock request, and you will probably have your talk page access revoked. Give it some thought... -  wolf  05:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Hello again. Along with the "Welcome" messages posted above that provide information on Help:Getting started, proper Sourcing, the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, links to various policies & guidelines and the Help Desk, there is also an invitation to Create an Account. Along with this invitation to the Teahouse, I wanted to ask if you have considered creating an account? It's quick, easy, free, has plenty of advantages and no real downside. If you hadn't done so previously, you should consider it now. Have a nice day -  wolf  16:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:50, 2 October 2021 (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.