86.174.124.67

August 2020

Hello, I'm WikiMacaroons. I noticed that in this edit to Red Dot, 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. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 19:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

It appears you didn't read the edit summaries.

Gah, sorry, my software only showed me that edit, so was unclear. I apologise WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK

Oxana Malaya & false allegations by TheSunIsAStar147147

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oxana Malaya. 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. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

The comment to the article added to note the linked video does not work in all locations. Please do not make further disruptive edits to that article, and please do not make false allegations about others.

WARNING about unconstructive and antagonistic editor TheSunIsAStar147147: The above was restored after it was deleted without reason by User:TheSunIsAStar147147 following their disruptive editing on the Oxana Malaya article then after making false allegations here.

WHY did you delete my reply? TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You have made false allegations; you are deleting content from other's Talk pages; you are have undertaken disruptive edits; you are censoring the record of your unconstructive and antagonistic behaviour.

"false allegations" I should have said this 15 minutes ago, but when did i ever make false allegations? TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Read your first message to me. You falsely accused me of disruptive editing. This was both false and hypocritical.

BUT i understand what i did was a mistake so i was removing it to show how i didn't mean to revert your edit. also please use ~~~~ to sign your messages! TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No: you have removed content without explanation, and you have removed the record of your disruptive editing and false allegations. And I DO NOT NEED YOU TO LECTURE ME ABOUT SIGNING MY COMMENTS.

Another unconstructive message from TheSunIsAStar147147 has been removed. This editor has quickly created a history of unconstructive edits & antagonising others (see messages on their Talk page, a number of which have been removed to censor record) within a month of starting on Wikipedia. Consider this message to them [1]

User:TheSunIsAStar147147 has a pattern of unthinkingly reverting good edits and then making false allegations to the constructive editor.

User:TheSunIsAStar147147 edit history is overwhelmingly of reverts made very quickly, which can not have allowed a review of the original edits. This looks to be the work of an unconstructive editor who is more interested in causing trouble or 'being heard' than contributing to the project.

Another unconstructive message from TheSunIsAStar147147 has been removed. This editor is engaged in a campaign of actions which are disrupting Wikipedia and antagonising other editors. These include blind reverts of good edits (the timescale of which precluded review) and then posting false allegations together with threats. Amusingly they have recently hypocritically whined about 'comment on content, not on other editors.' This after their unconstructive behaviour was challenged which followed their false allegations to others (and not just me) and threatening them with being blocked: so TheSunIsAStar147147 was attacking others and not commenting on content.

understand this! the warning messages are all from templates, so i don't write most the warnings myself, aside from signing them. For example, the one i mistakenly used on your talk page was: Template:Uw-disruptive2 TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who created them templates: you are using them and you are using them inappropriately. Your repeated behaviour (as indicated by your edit history & Talk page) is unconstructive and antagonistic. Not for the first time, and not the first person, I am noting you need to modify your behaviour: stop blind reverts, stop making false allegations, stop posting false warnings (and this includes templates) To quote another editor who has been the subject of your damaging actions 'Take your time to INVESTIGATE the matter properly before blindly acting' Also, he/she noted '.. inappropriate and unwarranted. Further refain from pushing people off wikipedia with harshness.' I add that you should consider why you are using Wikipedia as your actions suggest someone who enjoys confronting others or lecturing them rather than someone interested to improve Wikipedia.

Also, starting a message with 'understand this!' is unnecessarily confrontational, and is further support of the view that you need to modify your behaviour.

you know, i already understand my mistakes and i'm not enjoying this conversation at all. can we please have some kind of closure to this conversation? TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Guess what, others do not enjoy having false allegations levelled at them and being threatened. So to avoid such lack of enjoyment modify your behaviour.

TheSunIsAStar147147, please be extremely careful and thorough while using tools, especially if you are undoing someone else's work or issuing some kind of warning. Onus is on the tool user (you) to ensure tool is not misused, not used lazily, no knee jerk actions, no one is antagonised unduly, etc. There are more than one victims of your learning curve. Yes, I agree, time to close the issue. Seems bigger ball is in your court, perhaps slow down or stop using the tool until you learn to be more proficient. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

yes, i have read it and i understand it. i will be slower with twinkle from now on. i really promise. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The same claim again, again, again. Proof is in actions not repeating hollow words.

i actually mean it this time. if you check my contributions every so often from now on you won't see much new reverts. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

i actually mean it this time. By admitting you did not mean previously does not reflect well on you.

=V Pop

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, V-pop, 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, first of all my edit was a deletion and so it is not possible to find a 'reliable source and re-add it'. Secondly, my edit is in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see the pages Talk page and [2]

August 2020

Your recent editing history at V-pop 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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Hello - I'm reverting vandalism, and this has been discussed on both the articles talk page and [Requests for page protection]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:86.174.124.67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Quite unncessary.

August 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at V-pop.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 15 August 2020 (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.

Unncessary and inappropriate given I was reverting vandalism, which others (including yourself) have both reverted and discussed on various Talk pages,

You were both edit warring over a content-related issue. As I said in my response to your message on my user talk page, if you file an unblock request and assure me that it won't continue, I'll accept that as satisfactory and I'll unblock you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I currently am unable to repond to your reply to my message on your Talk page so'll I'll reply here.

Your reply was 'Hi there! This might not be the result you'll like, but I've blocked both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. If you file an unblock request and assure us that this won't continue, I'll accept it as satisfactory and I'll unblock you. I just can't have the disruption continue; that's all I'm asking for.' To which I note I'll wait for 24hours as it's not worth making an unblock request.

If you are able, please protect the 2 articles in questions as I've no doubt he'll return to both with the ridiculously long lists.

You don't even have to file a formal request - just tell me that you understand the policy and that it won't continue. I'm not that heartless. ;-) Yes, I will take a look at both articles for you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand and please unblock. Thanks.

 Done. Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

---