User talk:88.104.25.210

Isabelle Turell
Please create Articles for deletion/Isabelle Turell for me (I can't make it, as an IP).

Deletion reason is, "Does not meet WP:GNG".

Thanks, 88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please request its creation at WP:REQ using the topic selection that looks closer to the article subject and a volunteer would create it for you. Gryllida (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Requested articles? With respect, I think that's the wrong place. I've done this before using help-requests, and it's worked out fine. IPs are supposed to be able to contribute fully, and all I wanna do is, AfD something - which is fine but, technically, I can't create the empty page, that's all.
 * If you make the page, I can populate it. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-opening this query. I misread; I thought your URL was ArticlesForCreation, not ArticlesForDeletion...
 * I get an error "You need to be logged in to nominate an article for deletion." when logged out. I have created the page for you. Gryllida (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * -) Thanks, worked. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Clare Devine
Hi,

In your recent edit [3], you said "She debuted on-screen during the episode airing on 26 December 2005 and was introduced by series producer David Hanson as a new love interest for [[Max Cunningham]".

Do you have any appropriate reliable source to verify that?

88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that - I restored content which you deleted without explanation. Denisarona (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you understand WP:BURDEN? 88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to. It doesn't apply to reverting less than constructive edits such as yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't call you a cretin - I said the ramblings were cretinous. The statement in English was quite clear. Denisarona (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean - that's fine then.


 * You speak like a total fucking cunt, but I'm sure you are not one. Best, 88.104.25.210 (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Is this you? When your block expires, please create an account, get over this edit war thing, take a deep breath. I think you are a potentially valuable editor, but you need to take it slow. Seriously, if you need some mentoring I'll be happy to help. Don't get bummed out by a block and come back angry, that will be worse. We'll get back into the Andrew Gilligan thing as well. There's no rush. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, yep, it was. I'm not angry. The block makes no difference at all, as my IP changes almost hourly; even if the range were blocked, I've got access to several others - so there's no issue there.
 * Whether I'll bother or not is another matter - the admin blocked me without warning for removing unreferenced info, and did nothing about the other 2 users who broke 3RR; that's pretty typical of the disappointing way these things are handled. 88.104.21.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)