Astrohoundy
Welcome! edit
|
August 2012 edit
Your recent editing history at Steven Pinker shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. edit
I apologize. I did not mean to undo your recent edit to the Great Depression. I immediately undid my revert. I had never before seen that "Rollback Vandal" link at the top of any revision history page, and I thought it was an information link. I was very startled when I discovered that I undid your revision, and that the automatically generated edit summary said your revision was vandalism. I know it clearly was not vandalism. If there is no consensus among scholars regarding the statement you removed, then it does not belong in the lead section.Dulcimer music (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
July 2013 edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- What you're arguing is that your personal opinion needs to be in the encyclopedia. This is never the case. If that criticism of Lisak's study matters, a reliable source will publish it. (Doubtful, as you don't seem to understand that a false accusation isn't some abstract philosophical exercise but an actual action by someone, but that's actually irrelevant since either way, it doesn't belong if you can't source it.) I recommend that you revert your edit immediately; your edit-warring to insert your own personal views is damaging both to the encyclopedia and to your own future as an editor.
- By the way, if you think that logging out and editing as an IP will throw people off the scent, you are sadly mistaken. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at False accusation of rape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you may have recently made edits to False accusation of rape while logged out. There are two reasons why you should not edit while logged out: 1) doing so will reveal your IP address; and 2) people may accuse you of sockpuppetry, i.e. trying to make yourself look like multiple users in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute or rig votes in polls. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrohoundy. You are welcome to comment on that page, to explain the situation. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry edit
 | This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrohoundy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC) |
October 2013 edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
July 2014 edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
After seeing your countless violations of neutral point of view, your additions of unsourced conent on articles related to Islam and how you have yet to be warned, I advise you to remain neutral and source your edits on such articles. If not, you risk being blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
November 2014 edit
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decolonization 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:
- of Berlin]] in 1878. However, the Montenegrin nation has been de facto independent since 1711 (officially accepted by the [[Tsardom of Russia]] by the order of [[Peter the Great|Tsar Petr I
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Unblock edit
Astrohoundy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
All I did was post in the section where it said I could post after being accused of using a sockpuppet. If Berean Hunter doesn't want me commenting there, he shouldn't be saying that I'm allowed to comment there.
Decline reason:
It was explained to you that you couldn't edit it because it was an archive and yet you edited it. only (talk) 01:50, 11 September 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.
- I told you both here and here that it was an archive from 2013 and not to touch it again.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
All you, some random person, did was say not to edit it even though the comment clearly said I could/should edit it. You didn't explain why that template says I can edit, or if you did, I certainly didn't receive notice of your reply. I also don't understand the significance of it being an archive even though it says I can comment in that section. If I'm not supposed to comment in that section, say so, but don't then post in the template that I can comment there. Astrohoundy (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You didn't explain anything at all about the template saying that accused users could comment there. You, a random person, said I couldn't comment there while you accused me of using sockpuppets, yet the template said I could.
- You took part in the SPI case back in 2013 and I blocked you then...so you know that I'm not some random person. You had to look that case up and it wasn't listed as an active case. If you saw your own answers from 2013 then you know this wasn't active. Don't pretend this was something new and you just found out about it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I saw some notification bubble about the case. I looked you up because I saw this stuff now. I don't see anything on there indicating the significance of a case being active or inactive. I don't understand the significance of that status. I also saw absolutely nothing on there suggesting that the template saying that I could comment in that section only applied to cases that somebody designated as 'active.' I don't know anything about those answers that you're saying I wrote either. Astrohoundy (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is asinine at best. First you people say I can edit in one specific section, then one of you random people says I can't edit something designated as an "archive", and then the template says I can edit without saying anything about archive status and whatever that means. I see this investigation, an alleged comment by me that I don't remember making and could be way out of context if I made it, and outright efforts from you people to prevent me from rebutting these claims that I used a sockpuppet. Astrohoundy (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- This has been on your talk page for more than seven years. "I don't know anything about those answers that you're saying I wrote either." You don't know much do you? For someone with all of this lack of understanding, you shouldn't edit so brashly then. We require competence to edit. I suggest that you review your contributions and particularly those in July 2013 to refresh your memory. Plausibility of denial does not work here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC) - Please make sure that you have read No personal attacks and you were quick to try to drag unrelated and unfounded accusations into this. Don't do it again. You are getting close to being blocked as a troll.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 edit
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)