User talk:1.36.109.173

March 2024

Hello, I'm ExclusiveEditor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Manuel II of Portugal 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Exclusive Editor _{Notify Me!} 18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've simply been wrong. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. Exclusive Editor _{Notify Me!} 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? 1.36.109.173 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Manuel II of Portugal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No content was added or changed in my edits. All I did was inserting wikilinks for existing content. Stop your false accusations. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Manuel II of Portugal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently haven't read. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Cola, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please note MOS:ENGVAR, in particular MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop engaging in SVs. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what SV stands for. It is not listed at SV or explained in any relevant google hits for that abbreviation. I assume you mean Subtle Vandalism. See Wikipedia:Civility: "referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked". Please note Wikipedia:No personal attacks and your civility warning from a week ago. DrKay (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think yours have been good-faith edits.1.36.109.173 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Cola. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That were you who made the disruptive edits. The US doesn't own the topic just because the subject originated from there. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (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.

Manuel II of Portugal

I had reverted your edit, because you had wrote the wrong spelling of Reinke's edema (Reinke's oedema) which caused the link to remain broken. Thanks for correcting it now. Exclusive Editor _{Notify Me!} 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a wrong spelling you Yankee... 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2024 (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.

March 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not you are an American. You have to understand that different people understand Wp:Ties[1] wrt to a topic differently. E.g. To many the coverage of the article Cola has apparently demonstrated that it's a global topic though people like you may call it an American topic; in most of the Commonwealth and among EU countries Commonwealth spellings prevail. As for Wp:Retain Commonwealth spellings were also used in the article until you came around to remove them all. Meanwhile I am not sure how you count the 24-hour period. 3RR has obviously not been violated. For the sake of impartiality you should have asked another admin for review and to block anyone given that you were involved in those edit disputes. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen by looking at the edit history, the article used American spelling predominantly before your edits[2] and has done so for over 20 years[3]. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bet most if not all lay editors won't look at 20 years of edit history before they edit. They only look at how the articles are like as they are at the time of editing. The fact was that both spellings were used. It was not consistent throughout the article. What I did was to count very roughly the number of countries where the Commonwealth/EU style is used, as opposed to those where American spelling predominates. The answer was clear. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that for some articles inconsistencies are accepted, as long as consistency is achieved in the same paragraphs or sections, when those are articles that cover many countries. But for this particular entry I don't find this necessary. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before your edit there were 11 instances of flavor and one of flavour. There were 4 instances of color and none of colour. The article self-evidently used American spelling and claiming that it was somehow unclear is unpersuasive at best. DrKay (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dare you count organisation? 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said my focus was on the number of countries, given Wp:Retain was imo not entirely conclusive at the time of the edits (which you may have seen differently since you looked at something back score(s) ago). 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A supermajority of countries mentioned in the article spell with -our, and a slightly smaller number of countries yet still a supermajority would stick with -is- as opposed to -iz-. Only the United States is known to go always with -or. The Philippines and Liberia, for instance, aren't mentioned. (I hadn't counted non-English speaking, non-EU/EEA countries since their preference are often not readily clear.., nor consistent.) 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I would have lifted the block and asked for an impartial third party for a review. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

As stated above. (Review by another admin who has not been involved in DrKay or his/her edits is requested.) 1.36.109.173 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2024 (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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2024 (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.

I notice that DrKay has not reverted my edits to Manuel I and Manuel II regarding spelling. I think both of us know very well how things ought to work. The Cola entry unfortunately went forward as a content dispute and that he/she misused his/her admin rights to claim higher ground. No one should use such rights when he/she is him/herself involved in those particular content disputes. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why Miguel I of Portugal should use American spelling. Manuel II lived (and died) in Britain. Per MOS:TIES, British spelling is more appropriate. There is no content dispute at Cola. This is solely an issue of editor behaviour. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's point to assert that there is no content dispute if the one who asserts so isn't stating any rationale why he/she thinks so. I have made it clear that Retain was not entirely conclusive at the time of the edits, and for Ties this is presented in the entry as a global topic. 1.36.109.173 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2024 (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.

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.