User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, TeaLover1996/Archive 3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Warning

Your recent editing history at Rafael Benítez 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mattress because it did not appear constructive. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Materialscientist:, Sorry that was my sister joking around, I had forgotten to log outTeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 23:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Focus Live, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistics and timestamp

Hi,

When updating any form of statistics you must update the timestamp (which you failed here and someone had to correct here). If not updating the timestamp you introduce errors in an article as in this case the player has not played that amount of games by the date you left it with. To update a timestamp in infobox, use five tildes like for example |pcupdate=~~~~~. For other stats just correct the date manually. QED237 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Facebook age policy

I have reverted your unsourced edit on Facebook. Please join me in discussing it on the talk page here: Talk:Facebook#age_policy_edit. Thanks! --Padenton (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding message on userpages

Hi,

Stop now with adding messages on userpages of others, like you were told here. You are not an administrator and have no reason for adding the messages. Your next edit will be considered disruptive and honestly you have been warned several times now recently and are getting closer to a block.

Note that I am giving you this notice to help you, you have been reverted twice before but still continue which ius highly disruptive and I dont want to see you blocked so I wanted to inform you again instead of putting a big warning on you. QED237 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:, Ok cheers friend I'll keep it in mind :) TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

You have been repeatedly reverting at the murder article without any edit summary, and without any response at the article talk page. That's disruptive, especially since you have (in the process) restored some vandalism and also removed some longstanding material from last year.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is, but if you think you get 3 free reverts with no explanation of what you're doing (including restoring vandalism), after someone starts a talk page discussion, you're mistaken. If you revert without prior discussion and consensus in your favor when this block expires, the next one will be for 1 month. See template below for info on requesting an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Why hasn't User:Anythingyouwant been blocked as they were edit warring too TeaLover1996 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Because they weren't acting like a complete jerk, and they used edit summaries, started a talk page thread, and were removing, rather than restoring, vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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).

TeaLover1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't believe that I was vandalising or disruptive editing as another editor had entered text into an article that was possibly not needed that's why I repeatedly undid the edits as I did not believe them to be constructive but I don't believe that the editor was trying to hurt the article TeaLover1996 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What I see is a content dispute, I don't see vandalism by either side. What I do see is you repeatedly reverting without any attempt at communication while the other editor was trying to talk to you with edit summaries and the talk page. Edit warring is the repeated revert of other users without attempting to get consensus, you can read the details at WP:EW. This block seems correct, I think you should wait it out and be more careful about repeated reverting. Chillum 16:36, 10 March 2015 (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.

{{unblock|reason= I am sorry that I disrupted Wikipedia, I give my word that I will think carefully about my edits before changing or reverting an article [[User:TeaLover1996|TeaLover1996]] ([[User talk:TeaLover1996#top|talk]]) 09:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)}} @Chillum: (or any other admin reviewing any future unblock request) when I say "restoring vandalism", I mean that TL96 is was restoring old vandalism Category:Banana death, which ATYW had removed in one of the edits TL96 was reverting. I'm not saying TL96 is vandalizing; I'm saying they're restoring old vandalism as part of their blind reverting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I assumed you meant, I just did not see the "banana" part. Chillum 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: @Chillum: User:Anythingyouwant, did not notify me of a discussion on the talk page TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

He mentioned the article talk page 3 times I know of; once in the warning above, and twice in edit summaries that you can't possibly have missed if you were reverting him. Edits to the talk page should also show up in your watchlist once you've edited the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've deactivated the unblock request above as the block has expired. Please be more careful when reverting in the future. Kuru (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)