User talk:78.16.122.227

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion

You're not suppose to change things, without discussing it. As you're the one who wants change, it's you who must explain why. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. You'd swear wikipedia was a democracy! All this formal mumbo jumbo. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Clearly you know nothing about Ireland and have nothing better to do than stop edits which are factually correct.78.16.122.227 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Discuss what you want changed first. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 29

March 2008 (UTC)

I engage in factually correct edits. Not bureaucracy. Cheers.78.16.122.227 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually you've engaged in disruption (see below). GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't. I haven't broken any rules I think you'll find.78.16.122.227 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I counted 4 reverts - but since you have stopped I am not going to enact a block. Please note that you don't get 3 reverts per 24 hours, it is an upper limit but you can be sanctioned for less. As I am not going to block you I am therefore free to comment; the country is the Republic of Ireland or Eire, but the land mass that includes Eire and the province of Northern Ireland is Ireland. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (from the Duchy of Cornwall)
Whoops, too late, I shall have a word with the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment just proves why wikipedia is a joke. All that you have said there is completely wrong!! The country is called Ireland. Check its constitution. Ireland is the official name of the country. Not Republic of Ireland which is a description used by FIFA. ÉIRE (at least spell it right) is the name of the country in Irish. We are talking English here. Your comments have just proven to me how clueless Brits are getting theit way over correct facts which they are just refusing to acknowledge.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't edit the article - but then why should you have looked in the edit history, you can't even see the four reverts you did... I was the admin responding to a vandal report who decided that blocking you was inappropriate and when found you had been blocked anyway went an got the block lifted. Your appreciation and thanks overwhelm me. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I did one edit and three reverts. And monkey who understood the wikipedia rules that are set out would have unblocked me.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The first edit reverted the consensus - I note there was an earlier edit war this year. One plus three equals...? Plus, as I have said, you don't get three go's before the banhammer can be swung, blocking for edit warring can happen after the first, second or third revert. Tell you what, I shan't tell you about Éire if you won't tell me how to do the admin thing. Alright? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm begging you, don't do this. The Administrators are serious, you may get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Northern Ireland. 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. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block notice

You have been blocked for a period of 12 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I haven't broken 3RR so by Wikipedia rules there is no reason for banning me.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

While you have technically broken 3RR your undertaking to cease reverting made earlier gives reason to lift the block.

Request handled by: LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can give you the count at the template page - but it would be easier if you would simply accept the matter and go forward and contribute usefully. I would re-iterate that you do not have to make 4 or more edits to be considered edit warring; there is no maximum limit before you can be blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, I've put out a request to others, to revert your last edits at British Isles and Northern Ireland as you still didn't seek discussing it. Here's hoping in future, you'll bring your proposals to those articles' talk-pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(to ip editor) Yes, please use the talkpages. Any more blind reverts will not be appreciated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Say anon, meet me at Talk: British Isles & Talk: Northern Ireland, I've opened up discussions there. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed another editor removed you posting at one of our discussions & you correctly restored it. However, you personally attacked that editor on your 'edit summary', that's not a permitted at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but his edit was completely uncalled for.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Be cool, like my uncle. He's so laid back, he walks on his elbows. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. PS- could you sign in? Jumping from IP to IP can be nauseating to other editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that the editor will have had a new ip assigned after logging off. I presume you have the articles the two of you were working on watchlisted? You may be bettor off keeping an eye out for familiar edits there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) ps. Persuading the editor to open an account is a great idea.

[edit] Register?

Hello,

Just a note that users tend to get more respect if they create an account. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the case these days. There are other benefits, including your own userspace, setting preferences and having a "watchlist". Hope you consider this, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)