User talk:Wordfunk

Welcome!


Hello, Wordfunk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Nickdigital2.0/Lipsum
Hi. I have declined your speedy nomination because the attack elements of this page were the result of recent vandalism. The page itself seems to be an abandoned draft, but it is not speediable on that account. I will probably nominate it at WP:MFD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Indian pariah dog with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian pariah dog
I would suggest starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs Just deleting a large amount of content with wp:citations as you did here without adding an wp:edit summary raises red flags. The content has been there awhile, so it would seem to not matter too much if it remains there while a discussion takes place. wp:dispute resolution covers the recommended way to resolve disputes. Also, if someone reverts your edit, it is best to discuss on the talk page as you have done and the other editor has not responded to. You can either wp:ping (for instance a registered user (with a user name) or leave  template on the editor's talk page. If you use ping, you need to add the ping, sign your message with four tildes "~" and save both at the same time or the notification will not be sent. For questions, please leave a message at the wp:Teahouse. My apology regards getting back to you so slowly. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notification
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Indian pariah dog. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Why the notice above
i.e. edit warring. If you had reverted four times, you would be up on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for recommendations. And, no, I will not apologize nor remove my warning. It was quite appropriate. Feel free to do so yourself. Jim1138 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You made edits here
 * You were reverted here
 * You reverted here without comment.
 * You were reverted again here
 * You again reverted here

Kitten and Apology
 Fylbecatulous has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}


 * Good morning, I am the one who needs to apologise: for undoing both of your edits at Cat. The first about the musical instruments did need to be done better and you did a good change the second time. But I carelessly reverted your good edit about the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment in the process. I confess I was led astray by your newness and the cautions you had already received on your page. That unfortunately is my error and I shall try harder to be careful to examine all facets of a change before I undo it. You could have rightfully come fussing to my talk page about my treatment of you as an editor. I give you my best apology, even though it comes with a kitten. ツ  I wish you all the best and happy editing.  Fylbecatulous talk 13:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian pariah dog, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Outsider and Admixture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning
Stop posting User talk:Jim1138. You're courting a harassment problem.  Tide  rolls ,
 * You were warned once already - this is your final warning. Drop the argument and move on, if you continue the posts on this subject at User talk:Jim1138, you will be blocked for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for abuse of editing privileges. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined.  Tide  rolls  13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your acknowledgement, you were edit warring in a content dispute (it may not fit your personal definition of either, but it does fit Wikipedia's definition of both). You then began asking Jim1138 to apologize and remove the warning. That user declined multiple such requests, but advised (above on this page) "feel free to do so yourself". Rather than doing so, you continued to hound the other user over this, despite being warned by two different admins to stop the harassment. The block was 100% appropriate. When the block expires, you are strongly advised to not resume the harassment - doing so will simply result in longer term blocks. Instead, try moving onto article improvements. If you need help, feel free to seek assistance at either the Help desk or to seek guidance on the community at Teahouse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, I would advise you to delete your unblock request and resubmit after you have read the WP:GAB. Your request does not address the issue that resulted in the block and will almost certainly be declined. Bear in mind that abusing the unblock template, which is what you're doing by posting request reasons that have previously been declined, can lead to the loss of the ability to edit this page.  By the way, you are able to remove any warning from your user talk.  Tide  rolls  19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Your most recent sockpuppet account has been blocked per Wikipedia policy. Note that socks used for block evasion can be blocked immediately, and edits reverted.

Due to the talk page of your original account (this page) also being blocked due to your abuse of talk page privileges, your only remaining acceptable method to discuss your block or to request its removal is by using Unblock Ticket Request System.

Note that prior to starting that discussion, it's highly recommended that you read Guide to appealing blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested at WP:ANI that when you requested "removal", you meant that you wanted a "Revision deletion".
 * If that is the case, please note that (a) Jim1138 also does not have the ability to perform a RevDel, and (b) even if he did, Wikipedia policy restricts the use of RevDel to only specific situations - it's not a tool that admins have free-will to utilize as they personally choose. Performing a RevDel on the warning on your talk page would not be an appropriate use of the tool per that policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that I have restored talk page access on this page. Should abuse of the unblock template resume, or other talk page abuse take place, that access could potentially be revoked at a later date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued socking
I stopped reading posts by your sock accounts over a week or two ago (most are reverted by other editors and admins before I even see them - and I fully welcome those reverts on my talk page); but I saw your edit at user talk:C.Fred. As to your claim to C.Fred that we are having a "discussion", there is nothing to discuss - see WP:STICK.

As to your claim of not socking, you should read WP:Sockpuppet, which expressly prohibits the use of additional accounts to evade a block. Despite your claims, you are socking - just as despite your claims, you were harassing Jim1138, and despite your claims you were in a content dispute, and edit warring is not acceptable regardless of which version is a claimed improvement (few exceptions exist, and none of those apply to your case). Everything that has taken place has been a direct result of your own actions, and your utter and complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which have been mentioned to you from the very start. It's unfortunate that you cannot see that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)