User talk:37.110.218.43

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

September 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Stark Raving Dad 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: Stark Raving Dad was changed by 37.110.218.43 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880065 on 2016-09-06T14:05:36+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Moses Odubajo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Moses Odubajo. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Template:Serbia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Chick Gillen, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David.moreno72 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ireland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 12:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2016[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Robbie Brady. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Eurovision Song Contest 2017. Wes Mouse ^Talk 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Cyprus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Wes Mouse ^Talk 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

lewis hamilton is a door knob

January 2017[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ruby Buckton. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. – JuneGloom07 Talk 02:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Leixlip Confey railway station, you may be blocked from editing. – Gilliam (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Water park— 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. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding episode counts to List of The Middle characters. Per MOS:TV we do not include such counts, and the way in which you are including these counts does not comply with formatting requirements.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Middle characters, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Middle characters. AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gotti (2018 film). 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. R9tgokunks ⯃ 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Gotti (2018 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. R9tgokunks ⯃ 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:WNCAA

This is Wikipedia. You do not have to log in to edit, and almost anyone can edit almost any article at any given time. But be aware that the source of an edit is always publicly displayed; making edits with an artificially named Wikipedia account means your account's name will be linked to every edit. That means less freedom and less transparency. By contrast, an IP address allows editors more freedom to edit (and more protection from wikidrama). Wherever you are, whatever your device, if you make edits using your IP address, your transparency will be total: only the IP address you used will ever be displayed to anyone, even CheckUsers. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Felipe Contepomi, 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. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion[edit]

Hi there. I saw your request for a third opinion. I have removed it as the talk page discussion is less than a day old (edit comments aren't real discussion). See if through conversation there you can't come to an agreement. If after a reasonable amount of discussion, you find you still need a third opinion you should definitely relist it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel like I've been reverted twice and got so little back in the edit summary that I'm fighting an uphill battle to even understand the resistance to a good faith edit.

Sure the article could do it the way he suggests but I don't see any particular reason to do it that way (let alone a benefit to doing it that way) and I don't want to jump to conclusions but I'm getting strong feelings like this person thinks they own the page.

I'll expand my comments on the talk page and give it a bit more time but I'd be surprised if I get feedback. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it and feel like he was very rude and it is a glaring case of WP:OWN that it took so many people to convince him to make such a trivial change. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Who Do You Think You Are? (Irish TV series) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Who Do You Think You Are? (Irish TV series) 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://twitter.com/rte/status/1017469891618668545?lang=en) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
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) 14:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

This IP is shared. Please help users who are probably still learning how to use Wikipedia. Thanks for your patience and links to explanatory documentation. Someone replaced the Twitter link to a newspaper link and I went ahead and formatted it as a reference using the <ref>http://independent.ie</ref> tags. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat reverts at Crazy Rich Asians[edit]

You appear to be edit warring on the page for Crazy Rich Asians. Establish consensus on the Talk page first prior to further edtis. All casting discussion must be kept in the casting section. The material uses sources written prior to the release of the film and belongs with the production discussion of the film. You are also editing from an account with a history of prior poor edit conduct and you might think about creating your own regular account for editing articles at Wikipedia. FutureForecasts (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's edit warring, but it's not this IP. Grandpallama (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpallama: Please read the diff I have provided on the Talk page of the film. You appear to be incorrect here regarding the diff and its contents. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood perfectly well. In your zeal to undo the move of a section from casting to controversy, you also proceeded to undo all of the IP's good-faith copyedits. There is zero justification for these. [2][3][4][5] If you don't understand that, then you have no business reverting someone else's edits. Grandpallama (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were done properly and responsibly. You appear not to have read my comment in the edit history. If you have not read my comment on the diff I have provided on the film's Talk page, then please read it. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this one last time, because I sense you're not listening. You don't revert constructive edits without a specific objection. You could have restored all of the material to the casting section without undoing the other edits, but you chose to undo them anyway. Individually, no less. That is disruptive, combative, and unacceptable, as is then attempting to bar the IP from contributing to the page while simultaneously claiming on the talkpage that you've encouraged them to keep copyediting. And if I see this again, you will take a trip to ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were done properly and responsibly. You appear not to have read my comment in the edit history. The IP was offered to bring the individual edits back into the article but declined. You then brought the edits into the article. If you have not read my comment on the diff I have provided on the film's Talk page, then please read it. FutureForecasts (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

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 notice boards.
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 Matilda (1996 film), you may be blocked from editing. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Account Creation[edit]

I know that a few (maybe a number of) different users edit from this IP address. I would strongly encourage those users to create accounts. While there is no requirement to do so, and editing anonymously from an IP address is perfectly acceptable, the fact that some of the users from this IP are disruptive may result in the IP address being blocked (again). For the person (or persons) who are editing productively, I would encourage you to register so that you can avoid suffering the repercussions that may be enacted based upon the editing of other people from the same IP address. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a gateway with possibly as many as few hundred people behind it. I'd guess I've made more than half of the edits from this IP over the last few weeks. Until a few months back this IP was blocked.

Unless the rules are changed to require an account I am very unlikely to get one, based on my past and present experience of Wikipedia. I'm also reminded that I should be spending my time on other things. Thanks for your help though. I'm going to try and go back to not editing at all.

Other people editing from this IP are probably new to Wikipedia and many will be unfamiliar with the rules and might make good faith edits but also make a lot of mistakes. For example I saw some edits to the article for the film Matilda that weren't particularly good edits but clearly weren't malicious either. I would like to hope that editors will follow their own rules be slow to delete and quick to help and encourage the beginners, but that's probably expecting too much.

Some vandalism might happen, and the IP address could get blocked. If it has to happen it has to happen, but I hope admins will be careful to consider other options, such as using semi-protection on articles rather than locking them entirely from IP editors.

Expect any further comments from anyone else here to be from someone else entirely. Best of luck to you all. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello 37.110.218.43, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to County Leitrim have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Endometriosis 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) 15:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hang on. People are jumping to conclusions pretty quickly and not taking edits in WP:GOODFAITH. MOS:HOWEVER makes it pretty clear lots of people have concerns with how that word is used and overused.

Flyer22 was SHOUTING and saying my edits would be ignored and reverted later anyway, but I'm being accused of being disruptive? -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your changes on the talk page. I have prepared the edit warring case and i have very little doubt that you will be blocked if you revert again. Edit warring over style is a CWOT. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised Flyer22 objected to my initial change, so I reconsidered and remade a slightly different edit hoping it might be more acceptable. I didn't expect to be accused of edit warring as if I was the one making a big deal out of a small change, and shouted at in all caps.

I'm more surprised Jytdog is accusing me of edit warring, and objecting to a tiny space change as a way to make a quick comment in an edit summary. I'm also disappointed that you have twice used the term CWOT and expected me to know what it is. I tried WP:CWOT and a quick google search and I still I don't know what you are talking about.

I've no doubt that an experienced Wikipedia editor can easily get pages locked and anonymous IP users banned, but I had hoped an experienced editor would be less quick to revert and more willing to take such a small change on good faith. --

Unblock request[edit]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

37.110.218.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "1996Larry". The reason given for 1996Larry's block is: "restore TP access per UTRS ticket id 23142".

Blocking administrator: 331dot (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this IP address is a gateway address shared by many students. I must strongly object to any long term ban of this IP due to the actions of a single user. Please try to see that although some edits may be misguided, and not necessarily good edits, they are not vandalism and are good faith edits. I accept short term blocks may ultimately be necessary, but I believe other approaches would be more productive.

While I support efforts to help User:1996Larry to better understand and abide by the rules, I feel I must point out that the rules are many and difficult to understand, and often selectively enforced (I'd love if more people would follow the rules and provide meaningful edit summaries like the rules say they should do). He does seem to be trying his best and is learning to better follow the rules even if others do not always lead by example and follow the rules themselves. The suggestions that 1996Larry edit documents in draft space to show he better understands what is required seems like a good start. Is there any system of mentoring or guidance he might be able to access?

I would encourage Larry to follow the rules and perhaps give him advice myself but due to this block I cannot even comment on User:1996Larry's talk page. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the removal of "Love Interest" in The Lego Movie Cast section.[edit]

Hello!

In The Lego Movie page, there is no need to remove the line (Emmet/Wydstyle's love Interest). Because in the ending of the film after Emmet saved the world, Emmet and Wydstyle became engaged after she broked up with Batman after the events of the film. There's no unnessesary to remove it from the character description.

And I already read your reason of removal after you reverted my edit as mentioned above.

I hope you understand it.

VictorTorres2002 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section should contain short character descriptions to introduce the characters. Plot details are better avoided. As it currently stands the film project guidelines on WP:CASTLIST emphasizes talking about the people and not the characters, in fact it discourages adding character descriptions "Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided."

It is reductive and unnecessary to describe characters in terms of their love interests and I personally find it objectionable. Descriptions that reduce characters to their sexuality or ethnicity are also bad and unfortunately happen too often.

The change had only been introduced a few edits earlier by Special:Contributions/107.77.207.217

So in summary: it was a bad change and a recent change that I was removing.

If you think this needs any further discussion please start a new topic on the article talk page. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I clearly understand your situation now why the things you've removed were not reliable. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ian Wright. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's a gateway shared by possibly a few hundred people. Revert as needed but please also remember WP:GOODFAITH. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for persistent vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

As I have repeatedly stated it is a shared gateway. While I accept the necessity of short term blocks, I must again object to any long term block. It may be weeks before I have time to follow up on this formally and go through the appeals process. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this relates to the Ian Wright vandalism on Tuesday January 29. I recognize this vandalism is unacceptable but I hope any serious look at this address would make it clear that the vandalism is intermittent not persistent due to the fact that it is a shared gateway.

I would think a one month ban would be appropriate and proportionate.

A 2 year ban may as well be a permanent ban. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that in this edit to List of Coronation Street characters, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Norm Macdonald, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2022 (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.

March 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Coronation Street characters (2023) 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Coronation Street characters. 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. Thank you. – Meena • 13:03, 12 April 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.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of Coronation Street characters, you may be blocked from editing. – Meena • 13:16, 12 April 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Coronation Street characters. – Meena • 13:42, 12 April 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.