User talk:80.189.93.6

September 2017
Hello, I'm Oshwah. An edit you recently made to Coyote seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

In a recent edit to the page Chutney, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Ireland, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MarkSewath. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more 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! MarkSewath (talk) 10:01, 30 September 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 stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MarkSewath (talk) 16:39, 30 September 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian. MarkSewath (talk) 16:42, 30 September 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.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Nyeri, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MarkSewath (talk) 16:44, 30 September 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.

Your recent editing history at Nyeri shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarkSewath (talk) 16:45, 30 September 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.

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. MarkSewath (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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:. Alexf(talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (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.

1995–96 Rugby Football League season…
What is the purpose of truncating the actual names of the clubs in the 1995–96 Rugby Football League season article? DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Paul Scholes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:18, 14 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jeannie Carson. WikiMasterGhibif (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Alexf(talk) 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Accused of vandalism, please explain.
Please will you explain why I have been blocked due to an accusation of 'vandalism'? Exactly what have I done wrong? Please specify.

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Avril Angers— 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. LakesideMiners (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Matt Sarsfield, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Fleets (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Thornley. Fleets (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ben White (rugby league). Fleets (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Jordan Hand, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleets (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rob Lever, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleets (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

November 2017
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:05, 4 November 2017 (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.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Richmond, Virginia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 15 November 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (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.

'Unsourced content'
Starting from today (24 November 2017) I have been barred from editing until 1 December 2017, the reason being 'unsourced content'. Can you please be more specific as I would like to know exactly what I have done wrong and perhaps I can avoid the same mistake in the future? Sometimes I get the distinct feeling it's like being monitored by a 'secret state police' type organisation or is that just me being over sensitive? Please explain will you? Thank you.
 * You've got a whole page full of warnings. I suggest you read them.  Some of the warnings strike me as being a bit questionable, but you've still been warned several times that you can be blocked for adding unsourced content to Wikipedia.  More specifically, the reason why I blocked you is because of  and, both of which added an unsourced date of birth.  When you add or change content on Wikipedia, it must be properly sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have put the source (IMDB) of the date of birth and maybe then you would not have acted as you have done by blocking me. Only a few days ago I amended what was clearly a bit of vandalism when the 'origin' was given as '69th Century' instead of '1964' I think. I therefore rightly changed it to 1964. Thank you for your comments.
 * Well, unfortunately, the IMDb is not a reliable source and generally can't be cited on Wikipedia. It's user-generated content, much like Wikipedia.  Reliable sources would be newspapers, magazines, academic journals, books from reputable publishers, etc.  Websites can also be reliable, but they need to have a history of fact checking and editorial control.  This is especially important in biographies of living people, which have more stringent requirements for quality sourcing.  You should take a look through the linked policies and guidelines to help avoid further problems.  You don't have to wait out the entire week-long block, by the way.  Once you can explain to the satisfaction any administrator that you understand what the problem was, you can be unblocked.  You sound like you're already 90% of the way there to me; if you agree to avoid adding unsourced content or to copying content from unreliable sources like the IMDb, I'll unblock you myself.  If you want a simple rule of thumb, just stick to newspapers and magazines (and their associated websites, like nytimes.com or bbc.co.uk).  User-generated content (IMDb, Discogs, TV.com, etc), self-published blogs, public records (California Birth Index, genealogy websites), and random fly-by-night websites (which, unfortunately, covers a lot of the spam-filled hits you get from a Google search) can't be used in biographies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not realise IMDb was so badly thought of, but I chose to use its details on the basis that their info was better than simply showing the year of birth, i.e., more precise. Never again! as the man with a hangover said. What I do appreciate is being able to communicate with the people such as yourselves for the main purpose of guidance. It you're met with a wall of silence, it's a real windup. I normally tend to limit myself to basically 'proof reading', just correcting obvious everyday errors, such as spelling mistakes, missing or misuse of apostrophes, correcting when a word should/should not begin with a capital letter. Or anything based on my fairly extensive local knowledge. Thanks again.
 * Alright, I've unblocked you. If you have trouble, you can always come to my talk page.  I'll try to help if I can.  I'm sorry things got off to bad start like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)