User talk:Travelbybus

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Travelbybus. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person by golly! And this real person (that would be me), wants to say welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've made an account! Thanks for joining; you're on your way to making some great contributions.

Because I've noticed you've just joined, I wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. Any questions are fine, nothing is too silly (we've heard them all). Now, the tips below - hop on them - they should help you begin editing. Best of luck! JoeSmack ^Talk 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yessss! You made an account! Totally sweet!

Anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. Besides that, you shouldn't feel nervous or anything about a good-willed contribution. If you're concerned, talk to us.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Travelbybus/test. If you feel nervous, feel free to talk to us.

When you're ready, start your first article using the Article Wizard. You don't HAVE to use it, but for your first article it really helps. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. If you'd like more guidance, you guessed it, talk to us.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. (You'll want to sign your name with these four tildes ~~~~ when you leave something on a talk page to help know who you are!)

Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--JoeSmack ^Talk 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you just feel like poking around, Wikipedia:Help is a good place to start. :)

December 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Philip Emeagwali, you will be blocked from editing. Hqb (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking

I gave reasons for my edit. The sources DO NOT say that he claims to be an agnostic. It was quite improper of you to just revert with no explanation. If you really think you are right, you need to come up with sources and reasons, then discuss it on the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Anders Behring Breivik has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

I have reverted your two recent edits to Anders Behring Breivik where you reinstated material which I had previously removed. I had explained clearly in my edit summaries why this material was being removed. You on the other hand made no edit summary at all explaining your actions. I suggest you begin to interact with other contributors and refrain from unconstructive editing that ignores the ordinary editing process. __meco (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic United Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRP of South korea is not fascist

The Democratic Republican Party of South Korea ideology is not fascist, not far-right --186.79.8.90 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cowry Forces for an Emerging Benin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Centre

Democratic United Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Centre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Democratic Republican Party (South Korea) 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. --RJFF (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danrolo/ IP 190...

Hello Travelbybus,

User:Danrolo who edit-warred with you across different pages has been blocked for 72 h. However, he often edits with changing IPs. The administrator, User:Bbb23 asks us to inform him if Danrolo returns with a new IP. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park Chung-hee

I was looking at reverting the removal of "dictator". However, I did not find a wp:rs calling Park Chung-hee a dictator. When someone removes something, it is often a good idea to add more references. Got one? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Hello Travalbybus,

please do not add information to Wikipedia without citing reliable sources, as you have repeatedly done in People's Democratic Party of Uzbekistan and other articles. As you surely know, verifiability is a main principle of Wikipedia. Therefore, content that is not supported by reliable sources, can and will be removed. If you know reliable sources that support the information you added, please cite them. If you do not know how to do this, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes, or ask other users to help you. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

I gave reasons for my edit. Like what was said above, it's quite improper of you to just revert with no explanation. If you really think you are right, you need to come up with sources/reasons, then discuss it on the Talk page. The sources DO NOT say 31.6. It had a typo of 45.6 before, but the reference has 54.6. You need to reach a consensus. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalism. You have to read a source first. See page http://www.vpsc.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14%3Asaviudybi-statistika&id=49%3Asaviudybi-danis-lietuvoje-1930-40-ir-1986-2008-metais&Itemid=24 The average suicide rate of Lithuania is not 54.6 but 31.6. The rate 54.6 is only a male rate.

WHERE on there does it say 31.6? The source has either 45 or higher. Lithuania's rate has NOT gone down. The persistent vandalism on that article is getting ridiculous. And judging by the comments above, this isn't your first time. Keep this up and you'll be blocked, I guarantee it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saenuri Party

Saenuri Party is not a radical right political party like the UKIP or Alternative for Germany. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing and far-right politics are different political positions. (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipeida, 'Right-wing' generally means that radical right-wing, and 'Centre-right' means that moderate or mainstream rigt-wing. Also, radical right is not as same as far-right. (centre-right is different from the centre position.) There is no source that Saenuri's political position is similar to the parties that part of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy like the UKIP. So, I reverted your edit. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you must not forge your signature. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4 --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saenuri Party 2

If you want to change to the article's lede, you must have talk first. If you don't, your edits are going to revert. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Saenuri Party. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are obsessed about the term 'right wing' but anyway, it's not constructive. First, Saenuri Party is a centre-right party, which means that the party is on the right wing political spectrum that has some centrist elements. Second, the right wing term is contained in the term 'centre-right'. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 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:Travelbybus reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kuru (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning again

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:22, 11 May 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. Thank you. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. only (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]