User talk:202.156.13.11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warnings[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]
As this is a shared IP address, and if you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2011[edit]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Setia Alam has been reverted.
Your edit here to Setia Alam was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Setia-Alam/146218485451742) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ha, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Arthena(talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Setia Alam do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.  
Your edit here to Setia Alam was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Setia-Alam/146218485451742?sk=wall) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

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).

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

Request reason:

It is clearly stated on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations that "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims." However why is La goutte de pluie allowed to make claims that " I'm using a new account so the users named above will not be alerted to this report". I am repeatedly accused of being a sockpuppet of users whom I do not know. It is most absurd La goutte de pluie goes around accusing me of being affliated with other accounts mentioned just because I know of the report. Does she not know she left traces all about? I am also a victim of La goutte de pluie who abuses her tools to block whenever there's a dispute for the past few months. By blocking me, you are just showing that accused parties aren't given a chance for fair plea.

I would like to highlight to you the ip flips between 202.156.13.226 and 202.156.13.11 for the whole night. I have never tried to hide that info. You can check they actually overlap.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You call that a review? I added in my comments as an accused party. Someone tries to delete it so I reverted it back.

Decline reason:

New appeals at the bottom of the page please, thanks. And yes, that was a legitimate review, as appeals that focus solely on the actions of others are not considered. You were blocked for your actions; focus on them, and convince us that unblocking you would not harm the encyclopedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (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.

For any admins confused about the block log shown on the edit screen, check here for the current block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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).

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

Request reason:

The appeal is I added in my comments as an accused party. Someone tries to delete it so I reverted it back. I cannot control the IP just so you know...

Decline reason:

You can't expect us to control the IP either, anyway, according the block log - see below - the account is not blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 2 August 2011 (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.

(- 17:04, 6 July 2011 La goutte de pluie (talk | contribs | block) unblocked 202.156.13.11)

Have you given serious thought to creating an account? None of the problems you have experienced would have arisen had you had one.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you violated our three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, I've blocked you for 24 hours. If you wish to make accusations of sockpuppetry, create a new sockpuppet investigation; don't try to insert it into an existing one.

I don't know why the system thought you were blocked before, but when I imposed the block on you just now, the system told me that you were currently blocked, even though you had been unblocked a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block one month ago was done by La goutte de pluie. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

Not doing disruptive editing

Decline reason:

The stated reason for your block is systematically using logged-out editing to avoid scrutiny during a lengthy dispute. You'll need to address that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Am on dynamic IP which flips frequently. Not on proxy.

Decline reason:

Great. That wasn't the reason you were blocked. TNXMan 16:39, 10 August 2011 (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.

La goutte de pluie abusing tools[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#La_goutte_de_pluie.27s_personal_agenda



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).

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

Request reason:

If you are referring to the edits made on S.R. Nathan page under User_talk:202.156.13.10, edits made were not disruptive but to revert vandalism done by IP users. Also User talk: La goutte de pluie had been reverting back to his version, despite disagreement in the Talk page.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.. Also, consider WP:NOTTHEM - this is about your actions such as editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Further unblock requests that do not show that a) you understand the reasons for your block and b) include WP:NOTTHEM arguments will result in locking this talkpage for the duration of the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 11 August 2011 (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.

August 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:202.156.13.11. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Omkar1234 Leave me a message! 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

La goutte de pluie editing despite page protected for content dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.R._Nathan&action=historysubmit&diff=444089777&oldid=443984865


since when is temasek review accepted source? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Tan_Keng_Yam&diff=prev&oldid=444104663

TEMASEK REVIEW ACCEPTED SOURCE???=====[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALa_goutte_de_pluie&action=historysubmit&diff=444138546&oldid=444138382 Since when is TEMASEK REVIEW ACCEPTED SOURCE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temasek_Review_Emeritus&action=historysubmit&diff=427483672&oldid=427483634 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temasek_Review_Emeritus



From "explain" to "argue"????


Blocked again[edit]

Blocked again, for the same reasons as before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And you expect me to respond on a Talk page when you keep blocking me?!202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want a large portion of Singapore to lose Wikipedia editing access, as is now highly possible as you keep jumping Starhub IPs and the only way to manage this may well be to block an entire range of Starhub, you would do well to cease and desist. I've generally been sympathetic to you but this needs to stop, now. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Agnivesh ‎ , please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more of the external links you added to the page Surigao, because they did not seem to meet our definition of appropriate links.

If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before adding it again. If you have any questions, you can also ask at the Help desk.  
I did this because http://www.spusedu.blogspot.com is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We usually avoid linking to blogs, forums, and social media sites.

Even though Wikipedia is strict about having appropriate links, we really appreciate your help. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk. --XLinkBot (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.[reply]

Commentary in article Oli 96.8FM[edit]

Use the discussion tab to find an article's talk page.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Oli 96.8FM. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article.

Also, be sure to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) – this will automatically produce a signature so other contributors can identify multiple posts from you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page! And again, thanks for your help! Jusses2 (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ice cap. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Perey (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at SQL injection. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hemoglobin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zujua (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Archipelago, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Wiki13 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Japanese occupation of Singapore, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ZZArch talk to me 10:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
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).

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

Request reason:

i did not evade any blocking.

Decline reason:

Block has expired per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not evade any blocking. Why block me?

Decline reason:

Per above. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2012 (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.

Now moot as block has expired by the time of this post. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Multiprocessor, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Jncraton (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:202.156.13.11/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:202.156.13.11/Enter your new article name here, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:202.156.13.11/Enter your new article name here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:202.156.13.11/Enter your new article name here during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Hosni Mubarak . It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Materialscientist (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aberystwyth, you may be blocked from editing. Polyamorph (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Pet ‎ , but we cannot accept original research. Original research 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. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.156.13.11&oldid=1146529057"