User talk:103.100.11.3

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.

December 2018

Hello, I'm Home Lander. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mental health, 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. Home Lander (talk) 15:49, 31 December 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.

March 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Diving suit. 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. RexxS (talk) 13:30, 27 March 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.

Oh shut up. A shark proof suit is like a diving suit.

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 Cold chain, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 28 March 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.

June 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding my personal analysis. 103.100.11.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "Some weird legislation" sounds right to you for an encyclopedia entry? El_C 16:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Hong Kong people protested? Clearly the Chinese government is a weird government103.100.11.3 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is about both proper sourcing that connects the protests to sedition as well as adhering to a formal tone that befits an encyclopedia entry. El_C 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced additions — you are still doing it! El_C 16:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Corniche (Abu Dhabi)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Corniche (Abu Dhabi), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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! ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Religion in Afghanistan, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Visa policy of Afghanistan. Flix11 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Urvasi Urvasi, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not unsourced. Madras is the old name of Chennai. Refresh your knowledge.103.100.11.3 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. El_C 05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image, as you did at Dark skin. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 11 July 2020 (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.

The image was not inappropriate. Thankyou.103.100.11.3 (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors disagree. Accordingly, you must discuss the matter at Talk:Dark skin and get consensus before trying to add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your recent editing history at Dark skin 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. Sundayclose (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on your last edit summary, I am no longer convinced that you are editing Dark skin in an effort to improve the article. Instead, you appear to be disrupting the article to make a point. If you think the image does add you our understanding of the topic, you need to explain why at the talk page and get consensus for the change. Wikipedia operates based on consensus.
If you are unwilling or unable to work collaboratively with other editors and build consensus, then your editing privileges will need to be restricted, to preserve the project. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youth article

Stop it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You stop it. They are not minor.103.100.11.3 (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Lotteries in Australia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then don't make me lose my cool. 103.100.11.3 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lotteries in Australia. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah go ahead you schmuck... The entire paragraph has zero sources. Why don't you delete that too, hypocrite.103.100.11.3 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Youth 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. Sundayclose (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 2021

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can someone post this user to edit war for the Hawkesbury Bridge ? Dave Rave (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You appear to have a grudge against the Metropolitan Police. Wikipedia is not the place to air that grudge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heinkel He 111. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. BilCat (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jubilee line. WP:UNDUE as incidents that you mentioned are incidents that are not affecting the whole line. It may be included in the respective stations, but not on the article discussing the whole train line. SunDawn (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have put a lengthy note on Talk:Victoria line about why your edit is factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how good The Observer is as a source if it doesn't verify the claims made in your edits. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you this editor? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Heinkel He 111 ‎.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2021 (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 should expect much longer blocks if you continue to edit war and spam irrelevant photos and material across multiple articles when this block expires. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not irrelevant when the photo matches the content.103.100.11.3 (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year 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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2021 (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 were told that you would be blocked for a lengthy period if you continued edit warring and image spamming, but have continued this as soon as the block expired. If this was a registered account I would have imposed an indefinite duration block for this kind of conduct, especially given the huge numbers of warnings going back months for similar issues above. As this is a stable IP account I am blocking for the longest time allowable, one year. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different rule for actual editors, is there? By the way, I went through the list of blocks. And they were not blocks for a few months.103.100.11.3 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, History of Maine, 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. Adakiko (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.