89.100.207.51

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Katana 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. 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. You need to discuss this or invite some outside opinions (maybe start an RfC). You can't just keep on reverting eathother and calling eachother names like "vandal" or "troll". DanielRigal (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lily Allen

She lived and went to school in Leixlip. http://www.stevecummins.com/interviews/lily-allen-whats-up-tiger-lily:

"He lives in Dunboyne, but I lived in Leixlip for about a year and a half,” she explains. “My mom was doing a film in Ireland called Hear My Song. I was really young, like six or seven at the time. Weirdly enough, he was in the same school as me in Leixlip, but we didn’t meet again until something like eight or nine years later, which was a mad coincidence.”

Hope this clears it up for you. Murry1975 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I assumed it was vandalism. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Leixlip 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. 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. Murry1975 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wesley☀Mouse 21:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Following the minor misunderstandings at ANI and here, I feel that a lot of things may have been learnt from the outcome. Therefore, I would like to send this WikiLove Cup of Tea, as a sign of peace between us all. Wesley☀Mouse 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• If I weren't such an impudent shit, I'd throw in a cookie--but I ate them all. Best, Drmies (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, I forgive you, Drmies. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain

Hi. Please be careful not to get caught up in an edit war about Chaplin. (It's always difficult to know if we are talking to the same person on an IP address, but if you have not already done so, please read WP:3RR). As far as Chaplin is concerned you are wishing to remove content which has been accepted for some time (possibly grudgingly) and has a reference (even if possibly not good enough). It would be fine to remove it, with a good explanation such as you have provided in your most recent edit summary, if nobody objects (see WP:BOLD) but since that is not the case it is probably better to open a talk page section about it. --Mirokado (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Blunt force solution to a disagreement that probably needs an admin with more tact

I've protected the article for 3 days. Please form consensus for the article title and scope on the article talk page. Once consensus is clear on both, use {{editrequest}} to ask for an admin to change it. Until then, don't leave any more messages on Nick's talk page, and don't start reverting on that article again when the protection expires. You've both used up your allotment of reverts on that article for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We've both been going with blunt force for days, so blunt force on us from a third party might be the only thing that works. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Behave

Nick and 89.100 – I would encourage both of you to refrain from further contentious discussion on Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland and allow the RFC to run its course. You both have made your positions clear, and repeatedly badgering each other or other editors with your positions is not productive. I moved the article back to its pre-RFC title and move protected it for 30 days. It is also edit protected. Additionally, I have sought input from the Olympic Wikiproject to resolve the 50 meter, Olympic sized and Olympic standard discussion. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Secular humanism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Secular humanism. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

how do you know?

that passion pit formed conventionally?are u friends w/ them?Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, sources need to be provided by the editor who adds text, not by the editor who challenges dubious sounding original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ok but are you friends w/ them because you asserted that 'nothing unconventional about it' & so that seems to imply you know them or sthing?Happy monsoon day (talk) or was that just an offhand remark. not that i dont believe u... —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I might be friends with them from. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 89.100.207.51. You have new messages at Talk:Bacon#Uncooked_bacon_RFC.
Message added 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

3rr warning

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute 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. Kahastok talk 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sophie, Princess of Prussia. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. Kahastok talk 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Find a better way to express yourself than this [1] or you will be blocked. There isn't a reason for this, even if you think he tagged you improper, as this only makes it worse. If you are having a content dispute, take it to WP:DRN, work it out. Next personal attack will force my hand and result in a block, so consider this a final warning. Just tone it down and try to hammer this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• The block on you that was put in place by another editor has been lifted. Let me perfectly clear here: You need to stop reverting the article, go to the talk page, discuss, form a consensus, and live with that consensus. If you revert against consensus, I will block you on sight and for a much longer period of time than this 1 week block, as it will be clear that your intentions are to be disruptive at any price, and preventing you from editing would be my only tool to insure the disruption ended. This is most certainly your last and only warning on this issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for warring on Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring. I've tried to create an environment to allow discussion, but it appears your warring stretches over more articles than I was led to believe. Due to this, I'm forced to block you for a period that will insure your warring won't disrupt Wikipedia. After the block expires, if you come back warring, you will be blocked for a longer period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC). 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 adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Falkland Islands Sovereignty

Hello, 89.100.207.51. You have new messages at Vertium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Might want to rethink

Your posting at WP:AN/3RR was a pretty bad idea. Tit-for-tat filings typically lead to blocks for the second person. Admins look at the actions of both parties in any filing: if you thought the other person was "guilty", you merely make an argument in the original filing accordingly, while proving that you did not edit war yourself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So... Whoever makes an accusation first is treated as being in the right? That's a bit ridiculous. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I said whatsoever. Re-read it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to User talk:Yopie. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (89.100.207.51) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Yopie (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Byrne, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It is entirely inappropriate to call another editor a "dickhead", as you did in an edit summary at Byrne. Don't do that again. Personal attacks of that degree are taken very seriously.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---