User talk:129.94.8.198

November 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Shinhwa 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: Shinhwa was changed by 129.94.8.198 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853177 on 2016-11-29T05:01:31+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shinhwa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 2601:1C0:104:E5AA:51:8FA0:8ED:605B (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2019

Changes that have no effect on the rendered page, such as your changes at Cuneiform in capitalization of Templates, or deletion/addition of hyphens to citation params that are valid either way, do not result in improvements to the article. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive pattern of edits

Please stop edit-warring merely to enforce your personal preferences, as you did here at Cuneiform . Your repeated changes of this nature at this and other articles form a pattern of disruption that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For example: your replacement of <ref> by {{Efn}} is contrary to Wikipedia content guideline WP:CITEVAR, which says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference".

You have now been engaging in this disruptive pattern via several IP addresses. I've asked you to stop numerous times, and now I'm warning you that you must stop. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee made the following ruling in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Please observe MOS:VAR, MOS:SECTIONS, MOS:FNNR, WP:CITEVAR, and all other content guidelines. In particular:

1. Stop making changes between equally valid forms of ref and note tags, as you did here, here, here and here, merely to suit your own, personal preference. There's no need to change <ref> tags to {{Efn}} or {{NoteTag}} (or vice versa). ({{Efn}} is the same as <ref group=lower-alpha>. {{NoteTag}} merely adds "|group=note".)
2. Stop changing section titles in the bottom matter that already conform to the MOS:LAYOUT guideline, merely because you like the section titles named differently.
3. Stop making changes to white space that have no effect on the rendered page, such as spaces around section titles (as you did here and here), or within {{Citation}} templates (as you did here, here, and here), merely to suit yourself.
4. Stop making changes to valid template parameters, such as adding or removing hyphens from valid param aliases, (as you did here, here), here and here, or between equally valid param names such as "author" to "author1" as you did here and here, merely to suit yourself.
5. Stop making pointless changes to template capitalization, such as {{Use mdy dates}} to {{use mdy dates}}, or {{Cite}} to {{cite}} or isbn= to ISBN= as you did here, here, here and here.

These points are not optional; they are guidelines with the force of the Arbitration committee behind them. Per the Manual of Style's guideline on Retaining existing styles:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at the MoS talk page.

You have been repeatedly warned about your pattern of disruptive editing from this IP, and from several other IP addresses such as 49.195.51.159 (talk · contribs), 49.195.65.167 (talk · contribs), 49.195.156.113 (talk · contribs), 49.195.187.251 (talk · contribs), and 101.187.83.6 (talk · contribs). If you continue this disruptive pattern, I or another editor may raise an incident report at WP:ANI, or seek Arbitration enforcement against you. This may result in restrictions on your editing privileges. You can avoid this possibility, by ceasing your disruptive behavior now. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I've also removed edits in the same pattern at the following articles for violations of policy and guidelines as detailed above, and at their respective edit summaries:

• Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts
• FTSE Group
• Cytometry

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've notified Spinningspark, who blocked you elsewhere, of this discussion, so any other admins who land here can loop him in or consult as needed. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated list

At present, the list of users exhibiting substantially the same pattern of disruptive edits characterized by violations of MOS:VAR, WP:CITEVAR, MOS:SECTIONS, MOS:NOTES and other guidelines, includes: 49.195.51.159 (talk · contribs), 49.195.65.44 (talk · contribs), 49.195.65.46 (talk · contribs), 49.195.65.167 (talk · contribs), 49.195.96.45 (talk · contribs), 49.195.156.113 (talk · contribs), 49.195.187.251 (talk · contribs), 101.187.83.6 (talk · contribs), 129.94.8.27 (talk · contribs), 129.94.8.169 (talk · contribs), and 129.94.8.198 (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: as well as registered user Hopelesswiki. See #Sockpuppet investigation below. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your violent reverts of real edits are more harmful and less meaningful than my by-the-way over-wikifying

It has been hurting and disgusting.

I just fix. No interest in interacting with some hungury hunters for their funny power in reverting massively and recklessly.

That is why we must stop. You stop too please. Stop revert my recent edits. And I will write edit summary every time about exact fixes.

Thanks.

Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hopelesswiki: I know exactly who you are, and I will stop when you are indefinitely blocked for the sockpuppet that you are. Until somebody blocks you indefinitely, just keep in mind that any edit of yours that is in violation of Wikipedia policy, is subject to removal, just like edits by any other editor. And since about 95% of your edits are in violation of policy, almost all of your work will be for naught, as it will all be removed. Thanks for the authorlink fix. Happy editing (until you are blocked again). Mathglot (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop damaging like Ruhollah Khomeini and it is finished. So please stop vandalising Wikipedia in the name of hunting me. I fix citations and notes not only for formatting, but you damage just for hunting my formatting. Your reckless behaviour is not justified by even executing me for my crimes if any. ---- Hopelesswiki (talk)

Sorry, I did not have time or interest to respond alone to the group of eager hunters. But you all recklessly simplified what I did. Distinguishing notes from citations, fitting Refs with responsive version of Reflist, adding refbegin/refend, correcting section titles to fit their nature (eg Expl. Notes should not be called/put under References regardless of any layout preferences; Citations, cited sources, general refs are part of references; there should not be duplicated sections titled Footnotes/Endnotes AND (Notes footnotes OR Citation footnotes) at a same time; a list of more than books should not be called bibiography while the section title "Bibilography" itself is always confused with Refs, Further reading, and List of works/selected publications, and should be avoided as a common sense especially with non-books listed; Further Reading should not be part of References; ...), correcting parameters are not just simply changing "citation styles". Sometimes what I impose is just the article's exsiting or unclear style(s) (eg in one template or one page, param names were used/named in alreadly inconsistent ways, and I by the way fixed them into the most accurate forms to fit the values), or simply the natural meanings not just "my preferences". I did not change harv/APA/Vancouver citation styles, I fixed "cite" templates but also "sfn" template. However, refs should use ref tags and notes should use note tags.

For spacing, how confusing and disgusting

is

url=http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy 

 ? it should be

url = http://xxx.com/page?url=yyyy 

etc etc etc... Proper coding style should be human-friendly and machine-friendly and encouraged, by the way of editing a page for other reasons.

So for the quality of Wikipedia please stop massively reverting old edits. Thanks.

I always wanted to quit Wikipedia forever for ten plus years but so many disgusting confusions here randomly made me edit again just for the reader-friendly logical order and quality, not for hunting, not for a glorious user name, not fun at all. I do want to stop now and for ever but please do not revert again all my meaningful edits, though pointless in your eyes but not as harmful as your violently massive reverts.

Reckeless reverting did damage Wikipedia, not even improve as slightly or poitlessly as I did. Abuse of power should not be justified. Logical naming/use of prarameters/titles and proper coding style should be encouraged regardless of preferences of "citations styles" or section layout histories.

---- Hopelesswiki (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The posts above were copied here from User talk:Mathglot by indef blocked sock Hopelesswiki. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

September 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months 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 ~~~~}}.  SpinningSpark 09:12, 15 September 2019 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

czar 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

---