User talk:Urklistre

Spam from User Indrek

I have noticed that Indrek has choosed to spam my talkpage./Urklistre (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think ordinary notices, reminders and attempts to contact you are spam (see WP:TALKPAGE for information on what talk pages are for, and guidelines for using them), but if you're so bothered by them, feel free to clear them out. This is your talk page, after all, and if you have noticed my posts, then they have served their purpose. Indrek (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please be advised that your constant removal of referenced content in the 16:10 article constitutes an edit war. Kindly take the time to actually read the references, after which you should be able to see that there are no subjective comments in that section, only statements taken directly from the references. If you have a problem with the references themselves, then say so, preferrably in the talk page so an amicable consensus can be reached. Your current behaviour is unconstructive and, if continued, will be reported. Indrek (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "16:10". Thank you. --Indrek (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that your input has been requested in the 16:10 DRN discussion thread. If you haven't yet checked out the discussion, kindly do so at your earliest convenience, so we can move forward with the dispute resolution. Thanks! Indrek (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Discussion has resumed on the 16:10 talk page, as a third editor has chimed in, following my request at WP:3O. It would thus be appreciated if you could take the time to read the new discussion and respond with your point of view. Thanks. Indrek (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to complete lack of opposition for you, and as advised by another editor, I went ahead with my proposed changes in the 16:10 article. Your subsequent edits, however, consist completely of a) material directly copy&pasted from a source, b) claims that are not backed by reliable sources, and c) content that is not relevant to that section of the article. You also removed valid examples backed by reliable sources, with no explanation other than a vague "false rumours". I've therefore had to revert your edits. Kindly explain your point of view and proposed wording on the article's talk page so a consensus can be achieved, before making substantial changes to previously disputed content. Indrek (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice about WP:ANI report

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your conduct during a content dispute. The thread is User:Urklistre.The discussion is about the topic Talk:16:10. Thank you. —Indrek (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Your recent edits ([1] and [2]) had to be reverted, because a) they misrepresent the sources (none of the cited sources name matching HD formats used in televisions as a primary reason), and b) they constitute a WP:COPYVIO (direct copy&paste from [3]). Per WP:BRD, please explain your edits (preferrably on the article's talk page), rather than just adding them back in without explanation.

On a related note, when you revert a change, kindly make sure you don't revert other, unrelated changes in the process. Case in point, your latest revert at 16:10 ([4]) also reverted two of my intermediate edits tagging incomplete sections of the article. See WP:REVERT (particularly WP:UNDO) for more information on how to selectively revert changes. Indrek (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10 once again

Can you please explain how exactly the removal of a whole paragraph of valid, sourced content (a lot of which you've written yourself) under the excuse of "speculations" is reasonable? Indrek (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that editing while logged out and creating alternative accounts to create an illusion of support and to contribute to the same page or discussion is not allowed and usually leads to a block; in this case, considering that the article in question has already been fully protected, I am leaning towards not blocking you — although I have blocked your sock account —. Please, consider this a warning that further instances of sock puppetry will result in swift sanctions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason to leave the article blocked just because you have used a sock puppet account on it; what seemed like a legitimate dispute about content between editors is now to be valued as something else entirely given that you used a sock puppet account. To prevent disruption and immediate retaliation, I have blocked your account for two weeks. I hope that on your return you will not return to the same behavior. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Hi, I see you've once again removed a whole paragraph of valid content without any explanation whatsoever. "Disputed see talk" is not sufficient explanation, especially when there's no dispute whatsoever on the talk page; even before the archival, the only active thread was you agreeing with your sockpuppet. Also note that your edit is contradicting existing consensus for the inclusion of that paragraph, which is all the more reason for you to provide a clear explanation of why you think it should be removed. Should you fail to do that and persist in removing the content without explanation, I'll have to report it as a continuation of your previous disruptive behaviour, and you may well find yourself blocked again from editing Wikipedia, possibly permanently. Indrek (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your continued disruptive behaviour. The thread is User:Urklistre. Thank you. —Indrek (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at 16:10. 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have no issue with any admin unblocking once they are fully convinced this editor has sufficient clue to be able to participate in a collegiate manner, but at this time, and due to the previous circumstances, I have no choice but to choose a duration of indefinite, as it isn't clear what period of time would stop the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16:10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tablet (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) 12:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)