User talk:Hillandrew

Welcome

Hello Hillandrew and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page User talk:JesseRafe, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:JesseRafe. 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. JesseRafe (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was this a personal attack and not staying cool??

Talkback

Hello, Hillandrew. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at MxPx. 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 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 editing privileges. 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 lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hillandrew reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Swarm ♠ 05:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, MxPx. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines for adding information about albums is discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, if a band has a discography article, only the album name and year should be listed. Don't list all of the info because that's what the discography article is for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made a comment on my user page that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've read the guidelines, but Wikipedia's guidelines clearly go counter to what the band wants to represent. They can run their website however they want and Wikipedia can run their they way they want. I suggest that you read the guidelines linked two paragraphs above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to MxPx, did not appear to be constructive and has or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You're misrepresenting Wikipedia guidelines in your edit and removing valid content. Please stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Hillandrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hillandrew". The reason given for Hillandrew's block is: "Disruptive editing".

Blocking administrator: Materialscientist (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Not autoblocked, blocked directly. Yamla (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillandrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

will respectfully not engage in anymore playful edit warring. I promise. Hillandrew (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If an admin unblocked you, what edits would you make? FixCop (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Hillandrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18597 was submitted on Jun 26, 2017 16:56:14. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]