Dbdb

Hi there!

Regading Roger Lyons. I suggest that you work on your sources regarding your recent addictions to this article. You can do that in your Sandbox and then add the content all at once. For reference, here is the diff of your changes to the article [1]

Also, linking to your working copy of the changes and mentioning it on the article talk page would go a long way in getting consensus about those changes.

Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-27 02:05

Greetings

Hello. I have posted a conflict of interest notice on Atma Singh, and noticed your edits. Then I looked at your contributions, and realised that I know you. You may like to look at my own contributions and userpage.

And here's a pint of bitter for you. Enjoy!

RolandR (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green

I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've revision-deleted your edits to the McAlpine article regarding allegations against him. Even if accusations against a person appear to be legitimate, WP:BLPCRIME suggests not including them until a conviction is made. There has not yet been a conviction against McAlpine, and furthermore, the allegations appear to be unsubstatiated. Therefore, I have removed them from the article to avoid violation of the BLP policy. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Lyons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/Decisions/D3.04.pdf?ext=.pdf a ruling in May 2004]] that he should "cease forthwith to hold office as Joint General Secretary of Amicus". Lyons was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No original research

Hi there. I think you may need to re-read the definition of original research. OR occurs when editors analyse material themselves, which is not happening here. Instead it is The Age (a secondary source) doing the analysing. Stickee (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: I also might draw your attention to the three revert rule and the policy on edit warring. Stickee (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Atchison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackfish. 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) 09:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Nuland: WP:BLP

The article is about Nuland, not about her husband (Robert Kagan). There is a growing concern that articles about married women over-emphasize husbands.

Please find high-quality, reliable sources (hqrs) about Nuland and use them to guide the improvement of the article. If a hqrs of a small size has a long discussion of Kagan, it might plausibly be used to expand the sentence about Kagan, for example.

As it is, the article notes Kagan with the typical way he is identified in contemporary hqrses.

LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 08:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stickee (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat

Also, those sources were not all from Bellingcat. Dustin (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No original research

Wikipedia does not allow original research - material needs to be sourced to a reliable publication. Please read the policy page and do not re-add your own conclusions or synthesis as you did at Shooting of Tamir Rice. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RS noticeboard - Bellingcat

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bellingcat, you should bold your response "not RS" on your comment at the bottom so that your answer is apparent to other editors and administrators. In case you don't know how, place three single ' around the text: not RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the formatting change. [2] Undo if you do not want it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please review WP:3RR. You currently have 2 editors against your inclusion, who combined get 6 reverts a day (three x 2). You only have 3 reverts. You can't win that mathematically. So you either need to engage on the talk page and get consensus, or stop reverting. If you keep reverting you will be reported to an administrator and likely blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- GreenC 17:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Barrel bomb

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The block is re-set because you were WP:EVADING it by IP editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dbdb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dbdb. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at White Helmets (Syrian Civil War), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not use unreliable sources like Wikispooks. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dbdb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dbdb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring across multiple pages

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit, which you've done three times now, borders on vandalism.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you're already been warned about this, but to clarify, a Reddit post is absolutely not a reliable source for this kind of thing. Repeating this edit days later is still edit warring. Please stop and discuss on talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your addition to Knights of Liberty has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You haven't read the source you claim to be copyright infringed, have you? You have simply gone on my wording "it's in the reference almost word for word", which was my response to your original deletion of my addition, claiming it wasn't referenced. The key word you have ignored there is "almost". In fact my addition was a careful precis of the reference, not a copyright infringing cut-and-paste. It's a bit disappointing that you have acted so impulsively. Ditto your original vandalism on Knights of Liberty, which I have reported to Wikipedia and added to your talk page.Dbdb (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Knights of Liberty while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out in particular "There is no policy against editing the encyclopedia while logged out"Dbdb (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.Regardless of the copyright issue, you're clearly edit warring with multiple editors, across your account and your IPs. Continuing to do so will result in blocks. -- ferret (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dbdb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The indefinite block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, it violates Wikipedia's blocking policy. The reason I was given was "you're clearly edit warring with multiple editors, across your account and your IPs.".

The page Knights of Liberty (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knights_of_Liberty&action=history) was originally just a redirect and an erroneous redirect at that. I effectively created it as a proper page with correct information. I then had to undo what appeared to me to be vandalism by two editors who I suspected were the same (and I reported for sock puppetry). Each of my reverts was different - so I don't really see it as "edit warring" in the usual sense. My first revert was to undo the complete removal of the article which I had reported as vandalism. That same editor went on to claim different grounds for complete removal, namely 'copy infringement', also incorrect. I also initiated a discussion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knights_of_Liberty but got little engagement. Please review the history of the Knights of Liberty page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knights_of_Liberty&action=history , it was the first Wikipedia page I ever created so this treatment is very disappointing.

To edit I used my account and also, unlogged in, I used my normal IP address. This is normal for me - usually I don't log in to edit Wikipedia. I was not attempting to appear to be someone else and it wasn't "IPs" (plural), it was just my login and my IP address. As I explained on my talk page, according to Wikipedia's policy it is acceptable to do this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out , in particular "There is no policy against editing the encyclopedia while logged out". If I have that wrong please let me know, I apologise and will try and use only my ip address or my account in future, without mixing them.

In any case an indefinite ban seems disproportionate to me. I would also appreciate it if the matching 6 month ban on my ip address was also lifted: 2a02:c7d:14e2:d800::/64 .

Dbdb (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were using logged-out editing for edit warring at the Knights of Liberty page. That is clearly WP:ILLEGIT. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dbdb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me now. This block was done almost a year ago. Although 'indefinite' it was surely not intended to last forever. I submit it should have been 3 or 6 months. Or at least give me an expected duration for my sentence.

Decline reason:

 Confirmed block evasion. The block lasts until you convince us you'll stop violating our policies. As you continue to violate our policies, the block remains appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why do you say I am continuing to violate your policies? I haven't violated any policies since I was blocked nearly a year ago.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dbdb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. This block was done almost a year ago. Although 'indefinite' it was surely not intended to last forever. Would any admin declining this request kindly explain how long this block is meant to last and/or how I convince Wikipedia I'll stop violating policies whilst I am blocked. From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Indefinite does not mean infinite or permanent. " Dbdb (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The #1 way to convince us would be to stop editing logged out. It appears to me that you've edited logged out as recently as this week. SQL^{Query me!} 16:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dbdb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Re. "The #1 way to convince us would be to stop editing logged out". This is classic Catch-22. I can't edit while I am logged in as I am blocked. I can't be unblocked because all my edits are done while logged out. Incidentally have any of my logged out edits violated policy? That's rhetorical - they haven't. Dbdb (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We're obviously not making any progress here. Talk page access revoked to prevent further time-wasting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Try WP:EVADE. Blocks apply to the person, not the account. SQL^{Query me!} 20:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.