User talk:Somethingoranother

Blocked, again
You have been blocked for 48 hours for your second violation of the three-revert rule on Scotland. --Guinnog 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
I have reset your block as a result of your creation of User:Lucy Locket. Please don't do that again. --Guinnog 11:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Emerging super powers.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Emerging super powers.PNG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

X damr talk 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts on Japan
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR block
Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Japan and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy carefully to make sure you don't violate it again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Euro statements in UK history section
Please see Talk:United Kingdom. Thanks/wangi 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very Long
Hello could you please explain your reasoning for removing from the England article diff and then in next few minutes placing the template in the Scotland diff and them Republic of Ireland diff both of which are smaller articles. -- Barry   talk  23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to England
Hi,

Some users have expressed concern with your contributions to England - most of which appear to be of a speculative and unreferenced nature.

When adding content, please be mindful that it the onus of you as a contributor to provide a reliable source of your text, facts and/or figures, so that it can be verified.

Also, Wikipedia has increasingly strict guidelines on writing about countries, and some of your edits, such as the addition of a (unreferenced) Military section, were in breach of policy.

I trust this explains why you may find much of your recent contributions have been reverted. Jhamez84 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the inclusion of a Military section as such which is against policy - it is the style and content you adopted to include which is not permissable.


 * Scotland's section is, broadly, of a historical background, and is fully referenced, which is fine. I for one would welcome a section on the England article which can emulate this kind of content. It must use reliable references however and be of a neutral point of view, otherwise other users are obliged to remove it. Jhamez84 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. RHB Talk - Edits 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to User talk:RHB. Since I have made one revert to the page, I am not. You have made around five or more edits or reverts to the page, and though you have not been reported to WP:AN/3RR it is a possibility - you are currently operating against consensus and are not verifying you additions. RHB Talk - Edits 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude on Wikipedia
You are being very belligerent. I note that you threaten other editors with reporting to the admin board if they revert your edits. Did you actually read the responses to your last attempt at doing this? Please take a moment to do so, and to reflect on your attitude here. Gsd2000 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola_apps_important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. Gsd2000 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy
Hi again,

With regards to some of your edit summaries, please look at WP:V where you will learn:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Your editting style in this instance is likely to see you blocked from editting for multiple breach of policy, which is most disappointing as I have thanked you in the past for your contributions here. Jhamez84 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by replying here on your |talk page, by adding the text. Heimstern Läufer 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You are now using a sockpuppet account to continue your reverts. Gsd2000 04:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

London
Answered on my talk page. Keizuko 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most Major"
Quite apart from the fact that you are adding irrelevant sections to articles (what on earth does it have to do with the article at hand, "Great Power", that the name of the British currency is the Pound????), you have a bizarre obsession with the grammatically awful "most major". Seriously, what is your problem? Are you having a difficult adolescence? Gsd2000 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Great power. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. RJASE1 Talk  21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you didn't heed the warning (I know you're well aware of the policy, since you've been blocked several times before) - I've reported your edit-warring at the 3RR noticeboard. RJASE1 Talk  21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi. Based on this edit, I have blocked you indefinitely. This takes into account the fact that you have clearly not learned from your previous blocks. I am prepared to reduce this block to a finite time, such as a month, if you are prepared to apologise for such comments and promise to respect other editors in future. This month will give you the time to consider whether you would like to be a part of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, or not. You have the right to challenge this block with unblock. You can also email me if you have any questions, or post them here (I will be watching). Proto  ►  22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you blanked this page, I have protected this page to prevent you doing so again.  Proto   ►  22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:EUmap2007.png


The file File:EUmap2007.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned map."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Location of England 2.png


The file File:Location of England 2.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused low-res map"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Location Scotland.PNG


The file File:Location Scotland.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Location-NorthernIreland.png


The file File:Location-NorthernIreland.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)