User talk:203.26.123.208

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


April 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Funkytown. 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.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Immediate Support Vessel, 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. BilCat (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

January 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.  Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

About your addition on Man-eater[edit]

Can you make your addition more encyclopedic? JueLinLi (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is. There is a reference.
"Australia too has a lot of big crocs too." That was your addition and it was under the crocodile section. That sentence is completely unrelated and does not fit in with the rest of the sentences. Australia does have a lot of big crocs, but there are places elsewhere with a lot of big crocs, the quality of the addition is not consistent with the rest of the article. Providing a reference does not make it an encyclopedic addition, the quality of the addition and how it fits in is what makes it encyclopedic. JueLinLi (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Aircraft marshalling, 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. Jim1138 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Structural fire[edit]

Find a photo after the fireball, that would be a structural fire. The photo and caption are misleading, it implies that the fireball is a structural fire. Jim1138 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 401[edit]

If the plane crash had a substantial impact upon the roadway, say a major closure and massive loss of life, like the case with Interstate 94 in Michigan and Northwest Airlines Flight 255, then it would be appropriate to mention the crash in the appropriate location within the "History" section. (As a side note, per WP:LEAD, we never include something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of an article.) However, with Air France Flight 358 and Ontario Highway 401, there wasn't the same impact. Traffic was congested for a few days, not a total closure; in the case, various other editors and I do no believe this warrants any mention in the highway article. Imzadi 1979  05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You said it, traffic was congested. So I believe this needs a mention. Atleast one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talkcontribs) 06:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So should we mention every snowstorm that congested the road? It's Ontario, I'm sure there's a lot of snow. --Rschen7754 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So you're comparing a plane crash to a snow storm?? What have you been smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talkcontribs) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just following the logical conclusion from your statement. --Rschen7754 06:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well if you use your logic, you will find that there have been no other crashes next to this highway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talkcontribs) 06:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't mention most automobile accidents on highways, in part, because they're relatively common events. (Tragic, yes, but still fairly common.) Snow storms and events off the roadway both can cause increased congestion, just as automobile accidents on the roadway can. So the question comes down to lasting impact. Did an even have a lasting impact on the roadway; in this case, it did not. Highway 401 was not redesigned, signage was not changed, the roadway was not closed. So while it was unusual that the event involved an airplane, it does not seem to warrant a mention, not even a single sentence. Imzadi 1979  06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Then what about the Hudson river crash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talkcontribs) 06:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
What about it? In short, experienced editors who have collectively worked on dozens of Featured Articles on major highways are telling you that this is not a significant event connected to the history of Highway 401. This crash did not close the highway, it did not damage the roadway nor did it result in a major loss of life. No mention is warranted, because it would be undue weight, especially putting it in the lead as you have, as Ontario Highway 401 is a Featured Article (see the little bronze star at the upper right corner), stability, quality and compliance with our guidelines is important.
As a helpful hint, when replying to discussions on a talk page, always indent your newest comments by adding one more colon (:) beyond what the previous poster has used. Also, you should follow your comments with a signature, this is generated by adding four tildes (~~~~) in a row after the last sentence. The servers will convert that code into a signature for you once you save your edit. (And please, only sign talk pages, not articles.) Imzadi 1979  06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Maryland 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. bonadea contributions talk 06:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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.
Hi Bonadea, I've tried to reason with User:YSSYguy. All he does is vandalise my edits. Can you help me here please?
I am not going to discuss anything under a Talk page section that is inaccurately titled "unexplained removal" that then says, "There is a vandal who is obsessed with deleting my edits. Stop it or you will be reported." That is not a starting point for a discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, you don't want to discuss, then enjoy the consequences. Thanks.
Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

IP, I'm sorry but your edits do not seem particularly constructive - they are not vandalism (and nor are YSSYguys edits, so stop calling them a vandal) but you do need to stop revert warring. Both of you, in fact. I notice that this IP has been blocked for edit warring before so you know it's disruptive behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi Bonadea, sure. I've started a new section in some 'Talk pages' a while ago, but the other party ignores that. I want to bring your attention to this article Bridge to Nowhere. Now, I've added a new entry with appropriate reference only for YSSYguy to revert them without saying anything else. Can you view this page? Thanks

March 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Border Security Force. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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 disrupting the pages. You have a clear Conflict of Interest since you took those images, those images are not relevant on that page. If you disagree, take to the article talk page and initiate a discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest? Prove it, if you want to accuse. You know nothing. Do you just come on here to say big words? just because you are from Mumbai, does not mean that you can delete the photos. Maybe, if you disagree you should discuss it.
Now stop being a vandal or I am going to report you.
You yourself claimed that you took that picture. That was not my claim. Also, those images are not relevant there (the BSF and Pak Rangers one). If you feel they still need to be added then gain consensus on the article talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I said " I was the one that added the photo. ". I did not say that I clicked the photos. There is a difference. Do you not understand? If you don't, please go study and then reply and accuse people. And those photos are relevant. If you want to vandalise the article you should stop it.
You said you know these women, You are the one who added the photo. This means you took the image. If that is not case, even then those images are not relevant there, discuss your edits on the talk page. Maintain WP:STATUSQUO till then. Also, your edits have been reverted by another editor for the very same reason as I did. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Show me your proof. These are excerpts from my edits. Tell me where I said that I know these women and where does it say that I clicked the photos. Read carefully and slowly. 1) " I know those are female personnel. I was the one that added the photo. You take it to talk, stop vandalizing the article". 2) "Stop vandalizing. You take it to talk, because you are the vandal"
Atleast the other editor has not made accusations; You have.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Gulfstream III. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I will report you for you picking on me. I've put a reference now, but you will need to also warn the other users that wrote the other paragraphs in that section.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shanty town. 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.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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.
  • Hi, as it is suggested above, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Please discuss in details why you feel that the image should be included in the article and wait for others to comment. Please also see WP:3RR, please do not keep on reverting changes. Feel free to ask questions. --Titodutta (contact) 02:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Works both ways. Other users are not allowed to attack me and make unsubstantiated comments. Thanks Titodutta.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Income inequality in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. SummerPhDv2.0 02:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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.
Sorry mate. I had to look for a source and I clicked Submit before I added the source.
In the future, please do not make changes until you have the source for it and can add the citation at the same time.
Additionally, the source you added does not support the claim you added. The sourced does not discuss income inequity, the subject of the article, let alone tie it to U.S. "spending too much" on various issues/programs. It would seem that you feel this is the case. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions do not belong in Wikipedia articles. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Eh what do you mean 'tie it to the US'. The source is about the US. Can you explain further. Thanks.
I said the source does not tie it to the "U.S. 'spending too much' on various issues/programs". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
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 violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Qatar Airways. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What wrong did I do? The picture looks multiethnic.
It violates the NPOV policy. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 08:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
So why add the picture and blame me then?? I was not the one that put this photo there.
You were the one who added that caption, but the picture could stay there. Please do not blame other people about that picture. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 01:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yea, but I did not add the picture. Just merely stating what is in the picture. So yea, like you said, blame other people about that picture.203.26.123.208 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Your change was disruptive. If you understood that, you are a vandal and should be blocked from editing. If you did not understand that, you arenot competent and should be blocked from editing.
If you continue the pointless discussion here, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked for the remainder of your block. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)