User talk:94.234.33.218

Neat! Yeah I dunno why he's gatekeeping the list of nicknames like this. He stopped responding on the talk and then I added it again and then he decided to show back up. It's a little funny actually.

Stockholm article

Hello! Someone using this IP made a change to the article while the item is being discussed on the talk page. We do not do that. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Since someone using this IP has continued inappropriate editing (see previous section here) you are warned that it is likely you will be blocked if it continues. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh? No I won't be blocked because you yourself aren't even using the talk page and I added it properly sourced. You went on som tangent about English advertising?

Warning - you added that homosexual pejorative again without consensus on the talk page. We talk first, then change if consensus is reached. You also added an irrelevant source where that word is not mentioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the lies? It's in the source?

Stockholm

Your recent editing history at Stockholm 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.

This is a content dispute - please take to the article talk page to discuss. GiantSnowman 10:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

The person known to be using this IP was repeatedly ignored WP:SIG and also ignored a request to begin to sign the comments made. Ignoring one of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines is not acceptable.

Another behavioral guideline repeatedly ignored by the person known to be using this IP is listed at WP:TPYES and linked from there further to this helpful page. It would be appreciated if the reminders to follow established talk page format did not continue to be ignored.

Being new, while declining to even try to learn established policy, is not a good excuse. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Erm... Calling my additions and sources false and going around telling lies while only discussing me under the topic at hand is probably worse than not including four tildes in an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.32.197 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And now you are removing my request for other opinions based on that there are enough people involved? It's literally just you? You are in half of the threads that have requests for a third opinion? Who are you? /JTD

Thanks to the user who reinstated it!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.32.197 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) 

---