User talk:81.110.106.169

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 31 hour block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

It is inappropriate to use warning templates where there is a content dispute, and blanking your userpage - while allowable in itself - with a misleading edit summary does not indicate a predisposition to attempt to resolve disputes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Please provide specific evidence (i.e. diffs, in context) of the above."

Decline reason: "Please do not remove old unblock templates while you are blocked. This is disruptive, doubly so a second time around after an admin has already told you you could be blocked for such actions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

While we're at it, this is paatently not a valid AIV, and amounts to trying to exclude one party to a dispute - particularly disgusting while discussion was ongoing on their talk page. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This was vandalism rather than a dispute, hence why I reported you Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laos

The s in Laos is pronounced in English. Check any dictionary. kwami (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St David's Day

I agree with you. The Welsh flag is flown all year round, whereas St David's flag (gold cross on a black field) is flown on St David's Day. I agree so much, I bought the company... I mean I've changed that paragraph to "The flag of Saint David often plays a central role in the celebrations, and can be seen flying throughout Wales." --CubBC (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Overground

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London Overground. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. You might want to take the discussion to the talk page. DrFrench (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Er thanks for posting random stuff on my talk page. Your content dispute does not concern or interest me in the slightest. All I was doing was giving you a friendly warning that you are in violation of WP:3RR and a suggestion that you take the dispute to the article's talk page before you get blocked. Oh and it's considered poor form to remove warnings from your talk page. Removing it won't prevent you being blocked - Admins can still see an appropriate warning was given. DrFrench (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have discussed it, but I see from the talk page that it was already discussed, and no compelling reason for keeping the images in the article was put forward. They're in there purely to show what they'll look like which is a clear failure. Repeatedly adding non-free content to an article deliberately is vandalism, to which 3RR does not apply. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion appears to have been quite a few months ago. It's also worth noting that there is no current consensus on critereon 8 (significance) of WP:NFCC. I still suggest that talking about on the article's talk page is better than getting blocked for WP:3RR. DrFrench (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What does it matter? The images do not meet either of the two competing interpretations. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that is the case, then take the discussion to the appropriate place. There doesn't appear to be any consensus to exclude the images and they both have a fair-use rationale for use in that article. So adding them to the article does not appear to me to be simple vandalism. Obviously what you choose to do abot it is up to you, but continually reverting the article is not a Good Thing. DrFrench (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you check the talk pages, I have repeatedly invited User:D-Notice to confirm whether or not the image can be used at WP:Media copyright questions, but they have refused to do so repeatedly. Earlier this evening, I opened a discussion there, but it has yet to attract an answer. It is also well-established on Wikipedia that the burden of proof lies with the user including the image to justify it - without fail. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to this to which I responded by referring you to this? D-Notice (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to the plenty of times on the talk pages and on the IDPs and in the article comments where I have suggested that you CONFIRM AT WP:MCQ BEFORE REINSTATING. Is it really too much trouble to do that rather than repeatedly re-insert the images blindly? 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) - I'm also referring to this, where another anon asked you to do the same. Did you? 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And on the face of it it looks like users have provided a 'justification' by providing a fair-use rationale and discussing the issue on the talk page. You obviously feel strongly about the issue, so why don't you do something more constructive than merely edit-warring. Have you taken it to WP:NFCC? Have you thought about taking it to dispute resolution? I don't personally care either way about the image. But you obviously do and like I said before - it's your choice, but edit-warring is WP:DISRUPT and will get you blocked. DrFrench (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They haven't provided a justification. Re-read that discussion. Remember, the images must significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic - it doesn't take a genius to realise that they don't. Why didn't I go to the policy talk pages? Because the burden is not on me to do so. However, if you check, you'll find that I have asked at WT:NFCC and WP:MCQ about the use of decorative images in relation to NFCC8.

81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I really don't care. I'm trying to give you a few pointers to stop you getting blocked. You can either do something positive, or you can carry-on edit-warring and get yourself blocked. Your choice. Discussion closed. DrFrench (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you've written on my talk page. I respectfully refer you to the previous discussion we had on this subject... D-Notice (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Treat this as your final warning. If you do not stop edit-warring and reporting users to AIV for non-vandalism, you may be blocked. Enigma message 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I've never met you before, I know nothing of London Overground, and I wasn't involved in the prior dispute over the two images that you feel are lacking appropriate fair use rationales in two articles. All that to say, continuing on the path that you are on, which is disruptive, will eventually land you another block. I'm not convinced that the images are appropriate, but it seems like the consensus has previously been decided that the fair use rationales are adequate. If you continue to revert to your preferred version, you will be blocked from editing (you have already broken WP:3RR today, I'm feeling lenient). Also, please refrain from attacking other editors when a disagreement occurs. You can disagree without losing your civility and without sounding so "urgent" about it all. It's only Wikipedia. It's one article or two out of 2+ million. The world won't end if those pictures stay there while the disagreement is worked out. Don't report editors that are trying to improve the encyclopedia to AIV, it's disruptive. Use an article talkpage to come to an agreement. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough I had to block you for edit warring. You interpretation of the fair use policy is not mainstream enough to warrant mass breaking of the 3RR rules. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)