User talk:Idenitor

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Idenitor! Thank you for your contributions. I am Phinumu and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! pʰeːnuːmuː →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

February 2016
I want to apologize for this, this wasn't a vandal edit. Ugh, hate when I make a mistake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Art Deco
There is a discussion about the word "influential" at Talk:Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Edward Albee
Hi and thanks for your nomination of Edward Albee at WP:ITNC. Unfortunately that article has already been nominated. See this entry for September 16. While I have deleted the duplicate nomination please feel free to join the original discussion. Thanks for your contributions to the project! -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Gerganoff
was, in fact, a "prolific" (defined as "producing many works") architect. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What is "prolific" to one may not be to another. I'm sure 99.9% of articles about architects don't have "prolific" in the first sentence.  Let the reader decide on their own if they are or not. Idenitor (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Your recent editing history at Philip Johnson 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. freshacconci talk to me  03:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are to take it to the talk page, as you were asked. WP:PEACOCK does not apply in this instance, as the wording wasn't "puffery" (by that link's own definition). Since it was sourced, WP:SUBJECTIVE applies. I suggest you refrain from edit warring and discuss your point of view (as per WP:BRD). freshacconci talk to me  03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You certainly are edit warring and you have been warned. I would suggest WP:OWN applies to you since three editors disagree with you and you are refusing to discuss this on the talk page as you are required and simply reverting to your preferred edit. This is not your article to do whatever you want with. You have now been warned sufficiently for disruptive editing. The next revert will result in a report. freshacconci talk to me  18:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * More edit warring here is VERY unhelpful please discuss on the talk page or face a block. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * More edit warring????? cool it Modernist (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Philip Johnson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Katietalk 20:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism again
...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You just come off a block and you immediately do the very thing that got you blocked? freshacconci talk to me  13:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. 5 albert square (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)