Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Winx Club has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Winx Club was changed by 89.248.248.2(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.95504 on 2013-11-02T11:32:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent editing history at Quantum mysticism 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your recent editing history at Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997) 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. With regard to this edit summary, please review our policy at WP:CIVILITY. Your edits solely serve to push Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong, even if they don't make sense from a formatting standpoint, or are just needless disambiguation. It's not necessary to write "China" after every single instance of "Hong Kong" – the only logical reasons to do this include disambiguation or to provide more context. But there is only one Hong Kong, and it is commonly recognised. For brevity, "Hong Kong" is fine. Given your accusation that I'm a "separatist", you appear to be doing this for political reasons. Please review our policy at WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not pushing anything, I'm stating basic geographical facts. Hong Kong is a region of a country (China) and Wikipedia will threat it as such. It will not cow-tow to separatist notions of China.89.248.248.2 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
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).
I have been erroneously blocked for 48 hours for "vandalism" when all I did was change the nationality of an infobox from 'Hong Kong' to 'Hong Kong Chinese' as Hong Kong is not a country, but a region of the People's Republic of China. How is this vandalism exactly? You may construe it as a illegitimate edit but vandalism? Don't be daft. 89.248.248.2 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
Please show where you achieved consensus for that change. Yamla (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
User:Yamla, this is a red herring. The reason I am blocked is because of false accusations of vandalism, which you now appear to acknowledge are false. As such there is no justification for the block. But to answer your silly irrelevant question, no consensus was achieved because Wikipedia encourages people to WP:BE BOLD89.248.248.2 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
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).
I have been erroneously blocked for 48 hours for "vandalism" when all I did was change the nationality of an infobox from 'Hong Kong' to 'Hong Kong Chinese' as Hong Kong is not a country, but a region of the People's Republic of China. How is this vandalism exactly? You may construe it as a illegitimate edit but vandalism? Don't be daft.89.248.248.2 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
Yes, you were bold- and once reverted, it is up to you to discuss the matter and achieve consensus. You did not do this, and were blocked. As you don't indicate how you will act differently in the future, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Hello. I'm extending the block on this IP address, in line with the open proxy policy. Put simply, we are not going to unblock an anonymising proxy. This doesn't affect your block or unblock request(s), since this block extension is for the IP address and not you as a user, whereas the original 48 hour block still applies to you (yes you). You will need to find another IP after the original 48 hour block expires, preferably your own ISP. Also, expect further anonymising proxies to be blocked. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:zzuuzz Hello, I see no reason why I should abide by this 48 hour block as it is illegitimate per WP:INVOLVED and I did not vandalise anything either way. I notice you are guilty of cronyism and do not care that an admin of yours has broken the rules. As such I will be ignoring this block and will continue editing when I please. Catch me if you can! 89.248.248.2 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
