92.13.20.60

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in I Shouldn't Be Alive, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in I Shouldn't Be Alive. There is a Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at I Shouldn't Be Alive, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at I Shouldn't Be Alive, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better sources needed

Per WP:BLP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, you'll need much more reliable sources to include that material in Graham Linehan. Please do not restore it without much better sources. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Your recent editing history 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 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 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. Toddst1 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I added a fact on an article (that Graham Linehan had been reported to the police) and included a citation from https://gcn.ie. I asked why this wasn't enough in a talk page after it was deleted and pointed out it had also been reported in The Times and The Daily Mail. That should not result in a bad

Decline reason:

Here isn't the place to continue your argument, here is the place to show you achieved consensus for your addition, consensus that the addition is correct, well-sourced, and does not violate WP:BLP. I took a look at the article's talk page. You do not seem to have achieved that. Yamla (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2018 (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.

so wasn't that it not correct, well-sourced, and did not violate WP:BLP, it was because one guy kept deleting it whilst refusing to state a reason and so "consensus wasn't acheived". gotcha

The Daily Mail has been determined by the community to not be a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Your behavior indicates you were editing the article from a POV perspective likely motivated by animus towards the subject. You need to read WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I also find it highly probable that you were editing under the account user:Hahahagrahamyoubigot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

---