User talk:Thescarid

I noted a few inconsistencies that I started to change, but I was wondering if it is really necessary any comments

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Parrotfish page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Izno (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid getting blocked

Please get consensus at talk before reverting again at Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. The discussion is not finished there. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Posts

Hi, I seem to be having difficulty signing my posts and it appears that posts that I have not made appear to be attributed to me. I read the pages associated with signatures etc. but my use of the tildes doesn'tseem to be working properly. Can someone advise ? What is the best way, 4 tildes, 5 tildes. Let me know if you think you can advise gracias

I only accept nice communications on my talk page

I reiterate

Discussion at ANI

I dropped a note to the administrators and I went a step further. Thanks for your help

Elmidae and RN1970

Thank you for your apologies. All is forgiven.

Honest apologies are always acceptable here. I just need to make sure you understand, though, that even if you are convinced that you are obviously in the right, and that other editors (who disagree with your contributions) are just as obviously in the wrong, this does not justify edit warring. There are some extremely narrow exceptions for cases involving obvious vandalism and the like, but aside from that, if you have a disagreement with other editors, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and engage in calm discussion of the issues in question with a view to achieving a consensus. Additionally, we need to focus on what is said in reliable sources; avoid original research (including our own interpretations of what sources seem to be saying); and if reliable sources disagree on a point, seek to present a neutral point of view that acknowledges the conflict between sources. In this particular situation, if there exist reliable mainstream sources that contradict what you want to say, it is OK to acknowledge such sources and include a neutral discussion of the controversy. But if a consensus of reliable mainstream sources agree on a detail, then that is what the article needs to say. These broad principles are applicable, not only here, but in all other Wikipedia articles as well.14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~

March 2018

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

request to be unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

there are multiple users at this IP address

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. Yamla (talk) 15:30, 13 March 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.