User talk:178.95.99.242

I am not a vandal

stop reverting the sandbox edits

They are on sandboxes

You are using the official article about a sandbox, which explains on how to use it. To experiment, please use your own sandbox.


 * but this is a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1640:28D9:68EF:9D91:63F5:82CE (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is a sandbox, it's just the article which explains how to use it. You can use the sandbox on your own talk page, by inserting. — and then you can experiment.

June 2023
Hello, I'm Wpscatter. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2020s, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WP scatter t/c 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I recently provided sources. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Windows NT 4.0, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Windows 2000 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; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then 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 being blocked from editing&mdash;especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vt320 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Windows Vista 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vt320 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Pursuant to your recent edit to List of Wikipedias (which I have reverted), I'd like to point you to the short section at WP:SDNONE, which tells us that  be used to add the article to. There's no need to remove an SD with "none" as its value (unless, I suppose, if you were going to replace it). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Because list articles don't need short description, that's why I removed short description template from a list article. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, all articles should have the, even when they need no short description. That's why we should use  (and not remove it from pages like List of Wikipedias). I hope that's clearer. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because list articles are intentionally blank, I feel short description template needs to be removed.178.95.99.242 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "list articles are intentionally blank"? Tfess up?or down? 09:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that list articles don't need short description. Short description for list articles is none, that's what I mean that list articles are intentionally blank, per WP:SDNONE. That's why I think short description template needs to be removed in list articles. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All articles, regardless of whether they are list articles or not, must have the short description template. Please keep this in mind next time. Tfess up?or down? 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You have cited WP:SDNONE, twice, as I did once in my first message here, but you have apparently not it. And the message, "This page intentionally has no description", appears  and   is used. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless RFPP requests
Please stop making pointless unprotection requests. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I found a page which I thought to be unprotected, sorry of pointless unprotection requests. But is there a reason to stop making pointless unprotection requests. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not make pointless unprotection requests, I found a few pages which I thought to be unprotected. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look back at your "track record", your requests have been pretty consistently declined. Please stop! Your energy is better expended in other areas. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please explain
Please explain this edit. Thank you, Technopat (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that they have switched IP addresses to this one given their editing style and pages of interest. Tfess up?or down? 01:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and now this one. Tfess up?or down? 12:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)