User talk:2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D

Talkback

Hello, 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account?

Any chance you could create an account? I protected Generation X because of the confirmed sock puppetry [1] but that mean you're blocked from editing as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Millennials 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. Scr★pIron^IV 20:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Generation Z, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 20:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Generation Z 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. Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Not an edit war. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting multiple editors on the same content - SOURCED content, at that - is the very definition of an edit war. Next revert of sourced material will be treated as vandalism. Scr★pIron^IV 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're now at your limit, so dont make any more reverts either, thanks.2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of infoboxes

Hi. Your reverts of my adding of infoboxes on generational pages has obviously been noticed. All of my data is clearly from the article itself, but I understand your concerns with sourcing; that is, of course, a high objective for us. However, my problem lies with your intentions within the Wikipedia project itself. By carelessly deleting infoboxes, you are directly countering a Wikipedia objective. The addition of infoboxes is a high priority for Wikipedia. Second, your instinct to delete the progress I made with adding, call them first draft infoboxes even, instead of trying to help with fixing the problems you saw collaboratively are detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Please allow the infoboxes to come back. STOP your incessant edit warring. Help us make Wikipedia great instead of advocating mediocrity. Bnosnhoj (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Generation Z. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Template

Don't remove "=" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z

Better to discuss this at Talk:Generation Z if you're jumping around IPs. My edit didn't say "this is the new definition right now" or anything like that, it just said that they were using a "newer definition" in 2009 (and yes, this is mentioned in the source). --McGeddon (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, could you point out the page number please ?2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm Therexbanner. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Generation Z without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Therexbanner (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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.