User talk:46.19.231.255

February 2013

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Domenico Berardi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Giant Snowman 11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Gerard Piqué because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2013 (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.

Recent edit to Lisa Ann

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you have posted content to the Lisa Ann article in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English. Thank you! Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm McDonald of Kindness. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ismail Kadare 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 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. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Winner 42. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Thraco-Roman with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by removing rival theories from articles, as you did at Justinian I, Belisarius, and other articles, you may be blocked from editing. Constantine ✍ 21:31, 4 July 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.

Battle of Callinicum

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dardani. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:41, 1 October 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 Dardani 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:21, 1 October 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.

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 ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 2 October 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:46.19.231.255 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you warning me??Why aren't you warning instead those who are vandalizing Wikipedia, by removing edits that have reliable sources??But it seems like some Wikipedia users including you are only focused on deleting my edits, instead of contributing on Wikipedia 46.19.231.255 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we have rules for editing. Your editorial choice has not been accepted by other users. Our three revert rule is a bright line and you have crossed it twice so far for a total of six reverts. You cannot keep reverting to your preferred version. If you self-revert you may avoid being blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided over and over again sources for my edits.Why don't you tell this, to alexikoua who is deleting my edits over and over again?46.19.231.255 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one with the six reverts which are a violation of our there-revert rule. You are risking being blocked if you don't self-revert. Alexikoua explained to you the reasons for his reversions and you have no consensus for your edit. You cannot use editorial violence like reverting other editors. You must make them agree to your points and vice versa. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get it, why should my edits be deleted if I provide a reliable source?46.19.231.255 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 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:46.19.231.255 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Constantine the Great

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring

See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing on Constantine the Great. 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. CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 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.

Edit warring at Constantine the Great

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:46.19.231.255 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked). You appear to be promoting connections to Illyria, which is in the Balkans, and your motivations may be nationalistic. So I'm also leaving you a warning under WP:ARBMAC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.