User talk:HPotato

Welcome!

Hello, HPotato, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Editing wikipedia

Hello. I assume you are the user who has previously edited using two IPs from Leicester. Please read the comments on Talk:Marseille. If you wish to add content to the article, particularly speculative content, you will need to find good secondary sources. Please read WP:RS. Your additions were reverted accoriding to the cycle WP:BRD. Now please discuss alternative sources on the talk page of the article and not on my user talk page. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marseille. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to my talk page. Thanks for the warning, but unless you can show me an official guideline which makes it clear that the programme guide is not a reliable source I think my version should stand. HPotato (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. Sorry for the disturbance but the message I left you contains a lot of information about the rules and it is much more convenient to leave a prepared message rather than having to type the rules all over again. Sorry you took it as a warning. In any case I left a reply at the talk of the article. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

You are not going to win this one. It is clear that you will be hounded with meritless SPI charges by your adversary untill after sufficient reptition someone will assume that what has been repeated enough times must be true. After all, no sensible person can rsuppose that even if you were editing from an IP in Leicester without logging in, then that proves anything except that at one point you were in Leicester, but somehow that will be used as some kinf od proof of something. I seriously suggest that you consider as your plan B simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki, but equally it would be imperative that you privately communicate the link to AC and assure them that you intend to respect any restrictions applicable to your current name while they are in force. Of course you'll have to avoid any articles edited by your adversary, but there are millions of those. It is an annoyance but that seems to be what happens to people to are here to build an encyclopedia, as opposed to playing some kind of game. 188.30.248.48 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise :). But since the objections are (as you say) so far without merit, I'm inclined to be optimistic. HPotato (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was trolling content added by a sockpuppet of a community banned user, now blocked indefinitely. The arbitration committee has enacted a motion concerning those enabling his edits. Please do not restore them and read WP:BAN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have good evidence that this user is a banned editor you shouldn't edit his content. Please don't edit my remarks, and please don't edit other users' content on my talk page :) HPotato (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blocklog in 188.30.248.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) gives a link to the banned user's WP page. The IP was reported at WP:SPI. A similar trolling edit to the one above was removed by the blocking administrator here with the edit summary "ban-evading sock"[1] Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marseille shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks you have reverted five times in one day at Marseille, considering that the two different IPs seem to be you editing logged out. This breaks the WP:3RR rule, so an admin may choose to block you. It would be to your advantage to respond at WP:AN3 and agree to wait for consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) HPotato (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Marseille

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Marseille. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:HPotato (with IP edits) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]