User talk:Idenitor

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Idenitor! Thank you for your contributions. I am Phinumu and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

I want to apologize for this, this wasn't a vandal edit. Ugh, hate when I make a mistake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco

There is a discussion about the word "influential" at Talk:Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Albee

Hi and thanks for your nomination of Edward Albee at WP:ITNC. Unfortunately that article has already been nominated. See this entry for September 16. While I have deleted the duplicate nomination please feel free to join the original discussion. Thanks for your contributions to the project! -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Gerganoff

was, in fact, a "prolific" (defined as "producing many works") architect. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is "prolific" to one may not be to another. I'm sure 99.9% of articles about architects don't have "prolific" in the first sentence. Let the reader decide on their own if they are or not. Idenitor (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Idenitor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Philip Johnson 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 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 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. freshacconci talk to me 03:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are to take it to the talk page, as you were asked. WP:PEACOCK does not apply in this instance, as the wording wasn't "puffery" (by that link's own definition). Since it was sourced, WP:SUBJECTIVE applies. I suggest you refrain from edit warring and discuss your point of view (as per WP:BRD). freshacconci talk to me 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are edit warring and you have been warned. I would suggest WP:OWN applies to you since three editors disagree with you and you are refusing to discuss this on the talk page as you are required and simply reverting to your preferred edit. This is not your article to do whatever you want with. You have now been warned sufficiently for disruptive editing. The next revert will result in a report. freshacconci talk to me 18:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring here [1] is VERY unhelpful please discuss on the talk page or face a block. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring????? cool it Modernist (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Philip Johnson. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. Katie^talk 20:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism again

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Philip Johnson again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just come off a block and you immediately do the very thing that got you blocked? freshacconci talk to me 13:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. 5 albert square (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Idenitor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: There is no apparent block on this account; if you are still unable to edit then please add a new unblock template below, copying the message that you see when you try to edit. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a good editor. Please remove the block. I do not use sockpuppets. Very puzzled.

Decline reason:

The evidence indicates that you have used another account to evade a block, which is called socking or using a sockpuppet. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never used a sockpuppet. I am a good editor, as shown by my edit history here. I did not "abuse" anything. I would like to be unblocked. All my edits were helpful to the quality of the site. One minute, I fixed a typo on a page, the next minute, I'm blocked. Don't follow.

Decline reason:

Clear case of sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (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.