How come why not
May 2016
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to European turtle dove 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.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: European turtle dove was changed by How come why not (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912127 on 2016-05-08T00:15:42+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to European turtle dove, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You didn't just delete the hatnote; you deleted the bulk of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I accidently deleted most of the article European turtle dove. The program that I used does not support more than 5000 characters, so it deleted most of the article. But Turtle dove does not redirect here, so the hatnote should be deleted. --How come why not (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Turtle dove did redirect there before you changed it, and it redirects there again at last check. I suggest you discuss the situation and get support from other editors before creating a new page for generic turtle doves. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Turtle-dove may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
- {{Taxobox
- | superordo = [[Telluaves]] [expand article before enabling (messes up layout) -->
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
How come why not, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi How come why not! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC) |
Your contributed article, Turtle-dove
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Turtle-dove. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Streptopelia. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Streptopelia – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —teb728 t c 05:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Dinosaur with this edit, you may be blocked from editing.
That was not vandalism. Birds are dinosaurs. Many articles about dinosaurs on Wikipedia say that, including Dinosaur. So it's fine to have an image of a bird as the main image of Dinosaur. --How come why not (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- My apology on the warning. There are birds below in the article. There is no need to replace the image of well-known species of extinct dinosaurs with an image of a bird. BTW: Most editors don't monitor other's talk pages. I would suggest a wp:ping. In my case,
{{ping|Jim1138}}Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dinosaur. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
{{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.
Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How come why not (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I will try to resolve the issue about the main image of Dinosaur by discussing it on Talk:Dinosaur.How come why not (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wow. How were you only blocked for 31 hours? The next block is going to be indefinite, I'm sure. Yamla (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2016 (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.
How come why not (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why indefinite? 31 hours is bad enough. Besides, I've learnt my lesson. I promise never to edit war on Wikipedia again, unless it is absolutely necessary. And I'll discuss the issue about the main image of Dinosaur on Talk:Dinosaur. --How come why not (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
He was simply commenting on the fact that you were lucky for only being blocked for 31 hours. If the behavior is repeated again after this block expires, he predicted your next block to be an indefinite one (a correct prediction, I will add...) - you're more than welcome to make constructive contributions that follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after your block expires. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:24, 12 May 2016 (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.
Under what circumstances is it "necessary" to edit war? I'm not sure you understand the guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- When reverting vandalism. --How come why not (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring again and reconsider your answer. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
{{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.
Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
How come why not (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I never breached the edit warring policy. According to the edit warring policy, you're breaching it if you make at least three reverts within a period of 24 hours. I only made 1 revert, and another one much later. And that was not a 24 hour period. And I discussed the issue about the main image of Dinosaur on Talk:Dinosaur. --How come why not (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nope, 3 in 24 hours is the "3RR" bright line rule - see WP:EW where it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Also, the mere fact that you are discussing something does not give you permission to force your preferred version on to an article - you need to wait for consensus supporting the version you want. Finally, this is your second block for edit warring, and you have only been here just over a week - so please be warned that blocks will quickly escalate to indefinite if you do not rapidly change your approach to collaborative editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2016 (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.
In case you're wondering why I changed the main image of Dinosaur, the answer is because it's not right to deny that birds are dinosaurs because its the truth. I know you might say non-avian dinosaur skeletons are better, because the article is primarily about non-avian dinosaurs. Well, if it is, then it's not representing a general view of the subject. It's called ‘Dinosaur’. That means it should be about dinosaurs in general, not just non-avian dinosaurs. If you want an article about non-avian dinosaurs, than call it ‘Non-avian dinosaur’. Not ‘Dinosaur’! Don't forget that thanks to the automatic taxobox, there are many articles about birds on Wikipedia which have ‘Dinosauria’ (the scientific name for ‘dinosaur’) in them! As far as I know, all articles about birds which have automatic taxoboxes on them on the English Wikipedia have ‘Dinosauria' in their automatic taxobox! If an article about birds doesn't mention dinosaurs, than it doesn't have an automatic taxobox. Note: I would have posted this comment on Talk:Dinosaur and not here if I hadn't been blocked. --How come why not (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you had not continued your edit war over the main image on the Dinosaur article, you might not be blocked! If you wish to replace the image, please get a consensus supporting your change first - the fact that multiple editors have reverted you so far means that you do not have that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
How come why not (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I promise not to change the main image of Dinosaur unless there is consensus (and I'm afraid that would take ages!) I just felt the main image of Dinosaur should be changed, and I couldn't wait that long. But I guess that if I try to change the image myself, it will take even longer as I will be blocked. And by the way, I was totally unaware of the fact that edit warring was discouraged on Wikipedia until Jim1138 told me so. And I certainly did not expect to be blocked! I didn't use the same image when I changed it on 14 May (UTC). But I guess you can call it edit warring because, while it may not be the same image, it was an image of a living bird. So same general idea. --How come why not (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Ah ha. Now blocked indefinitely. You are clearly doing this deliberately and have no intention of ever stopping. Yamla (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2016 (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.
How come why not (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yamla, do you really think that I'm a vandal? I am no more a vandal than you — or most editors of Wikipedia. I assure you, 100% of all edits I have made to Wikipedia are good-faith. I'm no vandal. I'm just bold. I guess that there is such a thing as being too bold. Honestly, I tell you, this is not the first time I was accused of vandalism. It is the third. The first time was by ClueBot NG. It was because I deleted most of European turtle dove. But really, it was a mistake. I only intended to delete the hatnote that said Turtle dove redirected there, which it didn't because I had redirected it to Turtle-dove. The second time was by Jim1138. I had changed the main image of Dinosaur to the main image of Bell miner, BellMiner.jpg. Jim1138 thought it was vandalism because they didn't know birds are dinosaurs. But I explained they were, and they agreed. And this is the third time I've been accused of vandalism, this time by Yamla. I don't know why. And no, I won't edit war. Never. And could Yamla please explain how I was vandalising. --How come why not (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've already wasted enough of others' time here. Talk page access removed.OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 20 May 2016 (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.
- Comment For the record, I was quite aware of the evolutionary history of birds being descendants of dinosaurs. Your repeatedly changing the main infobox photo to a bird was getting quite wp:pointy. There was, previous to your addition, images of birds in the dinosaur article. Also, given that the pigeon article is Columbiformes and not pigeons your move of Category:Columbiformes stubs to Category:Pigeon stubs was quite unnecessary and is now a mess that needs to be cleaned up. It appears that you are WP:NOTHERE Jim1138 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- You sent me an email and I choose to respond here. Your email addresses only your edit warring without addressing the fact that your edits were inappropriate (most likely, deliberately so) and without addressing your abuse of the unblock process. I firmly believe it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Stop emailing me. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have asked you to stop emailing me. Now I demand it. DO NOT EMAIL ME AGAIN. You are welcome to use the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System but you are not welcome to email me again. Let me be crystal clear here, because you ignored my previous request. DO NOT EMAIL ME AGAIN. --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note, any further violations and I'll remove your ability to email from Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just got an email from them. I have revoked email access for inappropriate spamming of admins. UTRS is open as the last remaining route of appeal. BethNaught (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)