User talk:175.103.25.138

October 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Huh, what edit??175.103.25.138 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Air France accidents and incidents. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Additionally please stop adding non-notable aviation incidents to Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH only notable incidents that result in airframe lose, large procedural changes or loss of life are considered notable. An incident where someone scratches the paint on another plane, puts a dent in it or otherwise minor thing is not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. I never said that someone put paint on another aircraft. I stated that one big plane hit another smaller plane. That is nothing small!175.103.25.138 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable, those things happen all the time. We don't cover every little bump. As stated above per WP:AIRCRASH only certain types of incidents can be included.

Additionally stop adding mentions of the Air France crash to the 401 article, it's completely irrelevant to that article. The incident didn't happen on the 401, it happened at the airport which only coincidentally happens to be by the 401. If the plane had crashed onto the 401 it's a different story, but it didn't. Continuing to add it is considered disruptive editing and edit warring and if you continue you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Henderson (surname). Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your recent editing history at Ethnic groups in Asia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:175.103.25.138 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ). Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You also added defamation on 27 November at Henderson (surname) that had to be revision-deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. Your recent edit(s) to the page Vashi Bridge appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, you have made a mistake. Please go to Mumbai Suburban Railway. Then look at Google maps.175.103.25.138 (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not just re-revert without discussion. See my edit summary, and discuss on the talk page if necessary. Sources need to be provided, because there is no evidence in the article that there is a railway there (nor in the one you've provided above). The other photo does not look like the same bridge, and needs removal. The onus is on you to provide evidence in the article before you add something to the infobox. This is just another example of edit-warring. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Google Maps clearly shows three bridges: Old Vashi Bridge, Vashi Bridge, and Mankurd Vashi Railway Bridge. If you want to add something useful, you can find citations for all of this (and please cite properly - bare urls are sloppy), and add content to the two articles so that the three bridges are not confused. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So also take it up with the one who put that old photo there. I just read the article again, and it looks like the article talks about both, the new bridge and the old bridge.175.103.25.138 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention, Graeme Bartlett. Sorry, I hadn't seen this before I just posted at ANI, but will let that stand and be resolved by whoever gets to attend to it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at WP:ANI. See also the edit filter log. You were previously blocked per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding non-notable names to standalone lists[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Victoria Police, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tahmid02016 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mythdon. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Trooping the Colour have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just leave it. It was an entourage.175.103.25.138 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall, London - the description of the photo is detailed as The Mall, London. Looking towards Buckingham Palace Photo taken 1 June 2003 copyright Richard Gallagher. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why its got 2005 written on another page.175.103.25.138 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Texas Attorney General. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding the name of an attorney to Texas Attorney General. An attorney is not an attorney general. Please take a moment to read the article and you will see that adding the name of an attorney is incorrect, and edit warring over it is inappropriate. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

He was a government attorney. So whats wrong with the edit?175.103.25.138 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bayswater Road, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

YOU are being disruptive! Just look up a map.175.103.25.138 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bayswater Road. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nope, you are the disruptive individual. Please look at yourself first175.103.25.138 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello there. Whats going on in here, people cannot edit. This is a common use network. It is used by many members of the public. Why is this blocked? 175.103.25.138 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please see above for the many reasons why this IP address was blocked. Yamla (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi there. Thanks for the information. But I feel that this is unreasonable; you are stopping people from making edits to Wikipedia. Is there any way around this? 175.103.25.138 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sarjeant, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HunMaster (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

He was a gunman you plonker.175.103.25.138 (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Your recent editing history at Buckingham Palace shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to John Ausonius, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.