User talk:Reverse polish

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jonathan Blow has been reverted.
Your edit here to Jonathan Blow was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://tig.wikia.com/wiki/Jonathan_Blow) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse polish, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Reverse polish! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, remember that minor edits have a specific meaning here and they mean the edit is so superficial it would not require any review. I see you have marked most of your edits minor, while they in fact changed the context. Please only use the minor flag for actually minor corrections, like obvious spelling, formatting or layout errors. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Higher consciousness without discussing, despite requests to do so. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you familiarise yourself with Wiki-policies: WP:BRD Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Higher consciousness. 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. You've repeatedly removed a sourced quote, despite repeated requests to discuss this at the talkpage. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't sufficient reason for this. Please discuss at Talk:Higher consciousness#God. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you did start a thread at the talkpage: Talk:Higher consciousness#Completely biased article. And nevertheless you reverted a fourth time... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 14 September 2014 (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. Thank you.

Edit warring on Oscar Wilde

Please refrain from edit warring at Oscar Wilde. It is one of Wikipedia's "Good Articles", and such behavior is unacceptable. Please discuss and defend your wish to remove certain descriptors from the infobox at the talkpage. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 15:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wilt Chamberlain. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello, Reverse. I apologise for the overly harsh warnings you received earlier. However, it is considered good practice to describe each edit you make in an edit summary. It would be helpful if you could do that for your future edits. Thanks, and regards, Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Cera. 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. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Michael Cera. 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. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | reason=I now understand that I should not revert more than three times on an article. My edits were made in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style, and my edits were not damaging or disruptive to Wikipedia. I will continue to make these useful contributions, but this time I will make sure to add an edit summary so that other editors do not get confused and erroneously revert me. This will prevent future edit wars based on confusions. [[User:Reverse polish|Reverse polish]] ([[User talk:Reverse polish#top|talk]]) 19:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)}}

This block expired before being reviewed. You are welcome to remove your unblock request and this comment (and, well, anything else on this page, if you wish, as you are not currently blocked). --Yamla (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of removed talk page messages

Hello, I saw your reverts on Justeditingtoday's user talk page, when you reverted their removal of your message. Users are not allowed to edit other user's talk page messages to e.g. change their meaning, or remove parts of the message, without the author's permission (with some exceptions, see WP:TPO), but they are allowed to remove an entire message from their own user talk page according to WP:BLANKING. Removal of a message by its recipient is an indication they have read the message, and admins who wish to take action can view the message in the page's history. I'm assuming you were operating in good faith, but in future please do not restore user talk page messages removed by their recipient. Thank you. Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 23:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.

--John (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Reverse polish. 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]