User talk:175.103.25.137

Mus(s)affah

Hi! I'm not an expert on Abu Dhabi or anything having to do with the middle east, really. I don't know about the spelling but I managed to find the Port's page. It seems that the spelling in the "Industrial area"'s page is different! We should sort this out. Musaffah Port vs Mussafah Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes, I will see what I can do.175.103.25.137 (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Muhammad Saad al-Beshi have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Vehicle recovery 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. Mojoworker (talk) 18:26, 28 August 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.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana

To answer your question of "Why did you spend all afternoon?", it's because we cannot put articles on the main page's "On This Day" section that have serious problems such as a lack of sourcing. However, I thought if we have a main page without anything Diana-related today, it would look a bit odd, especially now given The Sun has gone Diana-mad on their front page. So I asked The Rambling Man, who raised the issue on WP:ERRORS, that I would hold of pulling the entry and went through and retrospectively added reliable sources to about 85% of the article, and would rather we didn't go back the previous way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every newspaper has gone mad I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.137 (talk)

.... except the Daily Express which never stopped going on about Diana like a broken record in the first place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Regarding your insertions of Princess Diana related topics on many unrelated pages.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. They are not unrelated. And yea, go ahead and break my heart. Ta. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Bene: based on subject matter and contiguous IP address, 175.103.25.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the same editor. See warnings and blocklog (including an SPI block) there. Mojoworker (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material

The next time you add controversial unreferenced material to Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing, per edits like this. Canterbury Tail talk 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For continued addition of unreferenced material, namely this.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, boohoo.. Big deal. Thanks for that.

September 2017

Hello, I'm Jackfork. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shark attack have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jackfork (talk) 01:46, 24 September 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.

THe next time you disrupt Wikipedia such as here, or here, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boo hoo hoo.. Go do some real work, kid.

Blocked for continued disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, cry baby Canterbury..

June 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sosthenes Behn, 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)} 04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm Abelmoschus Esculentus. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia— because it 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 Help Desk. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar was wrong! Please do not revert my edit.175.103.25.137 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? The original grammar was wrong!! 175.103.25.137 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Two-way radio, you may be blocked from editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reported if you talk rubbish. YOU are the vandal and you clearly have refused to engage. I have atleast made an attempt to communicate on TALK.175.103.25.137 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Abelmoschus Esculentus for 24 hours for disruptive edit warring. However, I do not think he was engaging in vandalism but simply inexperienced in dispute resolution. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.175.103.25.137 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labor camp

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you keep reverting because you are a vandal perhaps? Its sourced and my edits are not vandalism. And they are related to the article.175.103.25.137 (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big cat ‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
You have made this edit at least five times. It is not a good image for the article, and the claim you make in the caption is unsourced. Propose the image on the talk page or leave it out. Meters (talk) 06:32, 10 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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Toplessness. 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Read WP:BRD. Your edit was challenged. It's up to you to go to the talk page and attempt to get consensus for it. I don't think that image contributes anything useful to the article. If you think it does and can convince other editors of that on the talk page then give it a try, but do not keep restoring it. Meters (talk) 06:45, 10 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.

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 Rosalynn Carter, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring to add inappropriate images. When someone challenges your addition, do not restore it without first discussing it on the talk page. I fully agree with the removal of this image by user:TwoTwoHello. It has nothing to do with her personal life, teh incident it shows is not mentioned in the article, and the image simply does not belong in the article. Meters (talk) 06:58, 10 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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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 ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 10 March 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.

Some competency is required to edit on Wikipedia. If you think that trying to shoehorn an image of someone with a murderer into a section on their personal life is appropriate ~~when there is nothing else there~~ then you need to stop editing. If you think that showing the front of a British passport is so important in the article on Big cat that you are going to edit war over it then you need blocked. This isn't looking like it is for you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That photo of Carter is there in John Wayne Gacy's article too. As for the Big cats article, well, if you go to the British Passports article or the Emblem article, it talks about the big cats and heraldry. And nope, I dont need to stop editing. And never will. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not telling you to stop editing. We're telling you to stop making disruptive edits. Edit warring inappropriate material that multiple editors have challenged, and refusing to discuss the edits is disruptive. Not understanding the problem and suggesting that you will continue after your block speaks to the WP:CIR issue mentioned in your block. Meters (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue editing after the block, I meant. Not that I will be a vandal,etc etc..175.103.25.137 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you understand that when an edit of yours has been challenged by being undone, per WP:BRD you should discuss the edit on the article's talk page and attempt to get consensus for the edit rather than restoring it even once? From your past behaviour you really don't seem to get this. Meters (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some other editors have done the same, they just revert my edit without providing any explanation and they seem to get away with it? 175.103.25.137 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at specific incidents I cannot say. No-one should be making repeated reverts without discussing the material, unless it is a case of vandalism or other clearly inappropriate material. but this isn't about what others have done. It's about what you have done. This IP has had multiple recent warnings for this. I would suggest that you not restore any of your edits that have been undone without discussing the issue on the talk page, unless you can legitimately call the undo vandalism. And seeing that you suggested that this [1] by experienced editor user: Beyond My Ken was vandalism, I don't think your view of what is vandalism is to be trusted. Note that that edit of yours was also undone by two other experienced editors. Meters (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, as if experienced editors do not make mistakes? Besides, many of my edits have been accepted too, some after a bit of tweaking and some without it. Therefore, I am competent and will continue to edit after the block. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no-one has told you that you cannot continue to edit after your block ends, and again, this isn't about what other editors have done. This is about what you have done. Your edits are disruptive and you don't seem to understand why. That's why the admin who blocked you, user:Berean Hunter, logged the reason as "Disruptive editing...CIR issues". It really does not matter what other editors have done, or that you think your edits are good and that you are a competent editor. My suggestion to you is that you never restore an edit of yours that has been undone without first following WP:BRD and discussing the edit on the article's talkpage.

I'm not going to respond again. I suggest that you do not either. You might want to read First law of holes. Continuing to argue that your edits are fine and that there is no competency issue is not helping your case. Meters (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please dont respond, you dont have to reply if you dont want to. And yes, it does matter that I think that some of my edits are acceptable, because, they are acceptable. History speaks for itself Thank you. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging I see. If you can't see why adding sensationalized images to tangentially related pages is problematic, then yes, it is a WP:CIR issue. This is an encyclopedia, while your edits suggest that you think it's a tabloid. When there are so many other ways that you could contribute positively and uncontroversially, why do you insist on making these sorts of problematic edits? It's great that you want to help build Wikipedia, but you are making a lot of work for other people. If you need some future advice on what's appropriate, ask someone. Most editors here at WP are happy to help. Mojoworker (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Emiratis, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. UA3 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2019 (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.

Sorry, but I removed factually incorrect stuff. Not all Emiratis are natives. Therefore, I removed this incorrect bit. I know people from there and the other Persian Gulf countries. So I do know what I am talking about.175.103.25.137 (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't enforce our own point of view, any assertions should be supported with a proper source, please read WP:OR as I mentioned above. Best Regards, UA3 (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits on Lam Chau

If you think the notice that you want to add is necessary and justifiable, you should find out the proper formatting (one source would be a similar article which has such a note). The current edits neither justify the necessity of such a notice, nor are done in a proper format. So, I have reverted them. Do not revert them again, or you might be considered a disruptive editor or a vandal, and some actions may be taken by relevant bodies here. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGF means Assume Good Faith. In essence, I believe you are trying to do what you think is a constructive contribution to wikipedia, even though the desired result hasn't been achieved. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be constructive So don't you call me a vandal, regardless of how cool you think you are. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Caste 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 help desk. Please note that caste is not the same thing as discrimination. In addition to ritual status in a hierarchy, it requires endogamy, and hereditary transmission of a profession, narrowly interpreted, from one male generation to another. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you do not understand about caste? Here's the definition: "Caste is a form of social stratification characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a style of life which often includes an occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy, and customary social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of purity and pollution." Do you know what endogamy is? Please find reliable secondary sources which confirm its existence in the UAE. Please do so for each of the other elements of caste. Caste has nothing to do with class. In Hindu India, the paradigmatic example of caste, a brahmin of the highest caste, can be very poor. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laymen believe that Caste and Class is Same. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You have just violated the 3 revert rule of Wikipedia on the page Lam Chau. This is just a friendly reminder that such an action can lead to a block. So, please refrain from committing such a violation in the future on that or any other pages. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not. Actually, I changed the format. 175.103.25.137 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Girth Summit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rashida Tlaib, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (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 refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lam Chau. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lam Chau, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lam Chau. Serols (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 24 June 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.

@Ferret:, I am not sure if this is the proper place to ask but when they engaged in vandalising one of the pages that I caught during recent changes patrolling, I checked their contributions and all of them looked questionable, including but not limited to a few pages that 2-3 other users have started a discussion on this page about. Perhaps, a mass revert is in order, for all their contributions today or longer? Interested to hear what you think. If this comment isn't appropriate here, I could move it to my talkpage maybe? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: There's less than 100 edits since their last block in March (Anything after April). I'd recommend just reviewing those by hand, many are likely to have already been reverted. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably all sorted then. Assuming, the first page of contributions contains 50, I think I've looked through most of them during my first canvassing I talked about. Seeing as so many users have created a talk here today alone, it's probably safe to assume, almost all of them have been handled. Thanks for the quick response. See you around. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:22, 24 June 2019 (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.