User talk:Somethingoranother

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Blocked, again

You have been blocked for 48 hours for your second violation of the three-revert rule on Scotland. --Guinnog 22:38, 16 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request other Administrators to review my case that I have been unfairly blocked for trying to change the location map on the Scotland article to bring it into line with the style of location maps used by all other UK country articles. I have fully discussed the issue in length on the talk:scotland page and consensus was found to have the location map in the same style as used by all other UK countries as long as the map was in a clear colour for users to view. Guinnog has not discussed the issue on the talk:scotland page whatsoever and has blatantly blocked me for disagreeing with his POV illustrating total disregard for WP:NPOV policy. Many other editors of the Scotland page have broken the the three-revert rule also but have failed to have been blocked because they did not disagree with his POV. Guinnog has blocked me unfairly before and regularly chases up all my edits and reverts them regardless of how minor they might have been. I try my best to contribute in the best way I can towards articles and have greatly contributed and improved many articles in the past such as the United Kingdom article. However many times I have been nothing short of bullied by Guinnog as he refuses to allow me to contribute and improve articles by frequently threatening me with his administrative powers and continuously reverting all my contributions and improvements to many articles. I recommend other Administrators stay vigilant towards Guinnog’s behaviour and suggest they consider removing Guinnog’s administrative powers so that he can no longer posses them to bully other users. Somethingoranother 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on WP:3RR, having been blocked for this before. -- Yamla 00:48, 17 January 2007 (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.

WP:SOCK

I have reset your block as a result of your creation of User:Lucy Locket. Please don't do that again. --Guinnog 11:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emerging super powers.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Emerging super powers.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Xdamr^talk 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Japan

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Japan and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy carefully to make sure you don't violate it again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euro statements in UK history section

Please see Talk:United Kingdom#The public generally favours keeping the Pound Sterling.... Thanks/wangi 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Long

Hello could you please explain your reasoning for removing {{verylong}} from the England article diff and then in next few minutes placing the template in the Scotland diff and them Republic of Ireland diff both of which are smaller articles. --Barry talk 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to England

Hi,

Some users have expressed concern with your contributions to England - most of which appear to be of a speculative and unreferenced nature.

When adding content, please be mindful that it the onus of you as a contributor to provide a reliable source of your text, facts and/or figures, so that it can be verified.

Also, Wikipedia has increasingly strict guidelines on writing about countries, and some of your edits, such as the addition of a (unreferenced) Military section, were in breach of policy.

I trust this explains why you may find much of your recent contributions have been reverted. Jhamez84 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the inclusion of a Military section as such which is against policy - it is the style and content you adopted to include which is not permissable.

Scotland's section is, broadly, of a historical background, and is fully referenced, which is fine. I for one would welcome a section on the England article which can emulate this kind of content. It must use reliable references however and be of a neutral point of view, otherwise other users are obliged to remove it. Jhamez84 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on England. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User talk:RHB#Edit warring. Since I have made one revert to the page, I am not. You have made around five or more edits or reverts to the page, and though you have not been reported to WP:AN/3RR it is a possibility - you are currently operating against consensus and are not verifying you additions. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude on Wikipedia

You are being very belligerent. I note that you threaten other editors with reporting to the admin board if they revert your edits. Did you actually read the responses to your last attempt at doing this? [1] Please take a moment to do so, and to reflect on your attitude here. Gsd2000 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. Gsd2000 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy

Hi again,

With regards to some of your edit summaries, please look at WP:V where you will learn:

This page in a nutshell:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Your editting style in this instance is likely to see you blocked from editting for multiple breach of policy, which is most disappointing as I have thanked you in the past for your contributions here. Jhamez84 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the 3RR at United Kingdom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by replying here on your talk page, by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

Heimstern Läufer 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

You are now using a sockpuppet account [2] to continue your reverts. Gsd2000 04:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London

Answered on my talk page. Keizuko 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Major"

Quite apart from the fact that you are adding irrelevant sections to articles (what on earth does it have to do with the article at hand, "Great Power", that the name of the British currency is the Pound????), you have a bizarre obsession with the grammatically awful "most major". Seriously, what is your problem? Are you having a difficult adolescence? Gsd2000 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great power. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you didn't heed the warning (I know you're well aware of the policy, since you've been blocked several times before) - I've reported your edit-warring at the 3RR noticeboard. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi. Based on this edit ([3]), I have blocked you indefinitely. This takes into account the fact that you have clearly not learned from your previous blocks. I am prepared to reduce this block to a finite time, such as a month, if you are prepared to apologise for such comments and promise to respect other editors in future. This month will give you the time to consider whether you would like to be a part of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, or not. You have the right to challenge this block with {{unblock}}. You can also email me if you have any questions, or post them here (I will be watching). Proto ► 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you blanked this page, I have protected this page to prevent you doing so again. Proto ► 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:EUmap2007.png

The file File:EUmap2007.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Location of England 2.png

The file File:Location of England 2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused low-res map

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Location Scotland.PNG

The file File:Location Scotland.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Location-NorthernIreland.png

The file File:Location-NorthernIreland.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]