NoNDeSCRiPT

Welcome

Hello, NoNDeSCRiPT, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

NoNDeSCRiPT, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello, I'm Psiĥedelisto. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Swardspeak, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't change text attributed to a citation without also changing the citation. The source cited doesn't say what you added, which can be extremely confusing for readers. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Hariboneagle927. The discussion is about the topic Rappler. Thank you. —Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Soapbox

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rappler. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Rappler 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. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm...edit warring (after being warned), false accusations, forum posts, and in general a kind of incompetence about what Wikipedia is for, and what the various places in Wikipedia is for. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusative and Inappropriate Edit Summaries

My edits in Rappler are verifiable and good faith. My last edit about the subpoena is not disruptive. I was reverting promotional materials and vandalisms there as well. The edit summaries of Jytdog are accusative and inappropriate like "silly" and "self-sourced" when the references I provided are independent sources. The features of Rappler that I added are verifiable as well. I know my points are valid so you cannot dismiss them just by excusing that I do not know how to use this site. Contributors are volunteers who spend time researching for useful content so at least don't insult us because we don't deserve it.

• Jytdog and I are also volunteers, who were having to do extra work because of your disruption. If you persist in that way after the block runs out, you may find yourself blocked for longer. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Underlying Problems of the Three Revert Rule

“ Jytdog and I are also volunteers, who were having to do extra work because of your disruption. If you persist in that way after the block runs out, you may find yourself blocked for longer. ”

— Drmies (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• We still don't deserve your arrogant and disrespectful approach.
• The 3-revert rule is unfit for editors with slow connections especially those connecting via cellular data (no wifi for travelers). The page doesn't load when submitting excessively lengthy edits (editing whole article at once) so it has to be submitted in installments (via the edit section).

Your bureaucratic approach to (new) members makes you overlook the underlying problems and unintended causes why new editors might be violating your 3-revert dogma. Editors with slow connections often have long intervals between loading pages while submitting little chunks of texts. This might've never crossed your minds because the only reason you can think of is that new users → disruptive → block. It is a fact that different countries have different connection speeds and that still depends on local area and the ISP. Editors in countries with slowest connections cannot do anything on that part.

Now, please go and check the IP country of those with the history of edit warring/3-revert violation and try to find the ranking of their country in researches documenting internet speed. I am betting that many of those accused of edit warring/3-revert violation are false positives, their edits were sent from mobile devices and sent from countries with slowest internet.

I do recognize my shortcomings but I still have to reiterate my point that my edits are done on good faith, and that we don't deserve your harsh treatment and threats especially if the rules those treatments were based on are problematic.

This response might hurt some high egos here that could result in "longer blocks" but at least I know I've made my points clear before getting silenced. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Only checkusers have the ability to see a user's IP address, and they are very constrained in what they are allowed to do. They certainty are not allowed to randomly check vandal IP address to see if there is some country pattern. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Rappler. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, I'm Hiwilms. I noticed that you recently removed content from RJ Nieto without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Claims are backed by reliable sources. Hiwilms (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fan criticism

Isn't encyclopedic content. I suggest you read the manual of style. You clearly ignored what I said before, still added your "content" back! So stop being stubborn and read the manual of style for television shows. You obviously need to be informed. Hotwiki (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2018

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television "In the case of the general public, we use Nielsen ratings to determine popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion. This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information." Hotwiki (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 notice

Your recent editing history at Victor Magtanggol 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. Hotwiki (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion and collobration

A reminder that you need to collaborate and discuss content issues with other editors if you wish to edit wikipedia. So far, you're the only one who has expressed significant concerns warranting removal of the content at RJ Nieto. However you have not yet engaged in the discussion at Talk:RJ Nieto#Social Media Entries As Citation although you have edited elsewhere. If you fail to respond in a reasonable time frame, it will likely be okay to assume WP:Silence means WP:consensus and having read the comments left by the other party you now agree your removal was a mistake. In that case, the other editor can ask for the page to be editted through protection or simply for the page to be unprotected. If you don't engage in discussion and continue to edit war after the page has been unprotected, you should reasonably expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote that Talk section more than a year ago and it was Object404 who went silent for more than a year after my last response. So why am I the one being subjected to "Silence means Consensus"? Object404 is the one who engaged in edit war and constant reverting despite failing to justify his actions for more than a year, and now that he made a reply I have also pointed out that those "exceptions" he mentioned do not apply to how he cited the subject's Facebook posts. I also have to emphasize that it doesn't matter if I am the only one expressing concern on the article, as my concerns are about the implemented rules already written on a notice there by an admin about biography of living persons. I have also consulted the guidelines about reliable sources and constructed my arguments upon those. Isn't that enough? Or you mean to say that Wikipedia guidelines can be overridden if it has been agreed upon by multiple editors? NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Talk:RJ Nieto. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  — Newslinger talk 08:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  — Newslinger talk 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)