User talk:Johnsc1277

Johnsc1277, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Johnsc1277! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm Sro23. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sro23 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2016 (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:Johnsc1277 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: ). Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 appeal this block 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. Widr (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16320 was submitted on Aug 11, 2016 19:38:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. You were edit warring, but since Sro23 was also edit warring, and they failed to check the reasons they were reverting, and they were not blocked, and I have no appetite to block them as well, it is just that you be unblocked. I would counsel you to follow WP:BRD and give fuller explanations if you are challenged in future. Please not that this unblocking does not mean you can get away with future edit wars. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to the TechInsider source it was 2000, not 2001, but I'm assuming good faith with respect to your math. If you believe it is indeed 2001, please explain so with sources on the article talk page. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auli’i Cravalho

Why do you keep requesting unwarranted protection of this article? Have you read our protection policy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South African republic referendum, 1960

Why are you repeatedly changing the text of the question on South African republic referendum, 1960, when there are multiple sources showing that the wording was "a Republic for the Union"? - htonl (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

Above, BethNaught warned you against edit warring. It seems you have not heeded her warning. So, three points:

Continued edit warring will probably lead to a block. Use article talk pages.
Misuse of WP:RFPP will lead to a block. Do not continually put in requests to indefinitely protect your preferred version of an article.
Referring to good faith edits of other editors as "vandalism" will result in a block. Please read WP:NOTVAND

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 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 appeal this block 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16363 was submitted on Aug 18, 2016 18:08:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johnsc1277 (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:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Johnsc1277". The reason given for Johnsc1277's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: NeilN (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: I have lifted the autoblock since the original block ran out. Huon (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Auli'i Cravalho. 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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 21 August 2016 (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).

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unecessary Johnsc1277 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2016 (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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:23, 21 August 2016 (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).

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hate being blocked! Johnsc1277 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you used this opportunity to demonstrate your utter lack of clue, I have decided to make your block indefinite and revoke your talk page accesss. Favonian (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (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 blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16381 was submitted on Aug 21, 2016 16:12:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johnsc1277 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16410 was submitted on Aug 24, 2016 22:20:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]