User talk:Tr56tr

Welcome--Tr56tr (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying comments

Please see WP:REDACT, which this edit seems to violate.

Please don't try to fix it now, that will only make the page even harder to follow. Just something to bear in mind for the future. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reports at WP:AIV

I suggest you post this issue at WP:ANI. The only way your going to get this particular problem under control is with a range block. Unfortunately they are not my strong suit. Take this to ANI and ask for a range block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed permanent semi protection on the targeted page. That should slow things down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Tr56tr (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to notify you that NeilN slapped a range block on them last night. So hopefully this is resolved for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of Tibet into the Mongol

"Incorporation of Tibet into the Mongol" is grammatically incorrect. I think the title you want is ""Incorporation of Tibet into the Mongol Empire". However, since other users have objected to your undiscussed move, I suggest that you initiate a move request next time. -Zanhe (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

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 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. Esiymbro (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about the Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China

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.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RP

Seemingly you are abusing that template, I don't even have an account! --106.185.25.41 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Esiymbro (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop, please, with those reverts from that range. I do not see what is wrong with this here. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see your point. You point at something you wrote up yourself, something linking IPs to accounts, but I know for a fact that you are not a checkuser. And while we're at it--if I leave a note here, please don't respond on my own talk page and removing my original note. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only know that you just deleted my message directly, so I also deleted your message. Because this IP range is abused, it is easier to track him after canceling his editing, to avoid his continued abuse.--Tr56tr (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you caused an edit conflict, and you should have responded here, where I left you a message. Why would you make me jump around from one talk page to another? But I still don't see any proof of abuse, nor did I see in some of these edits what the problem was. You saying some range is abused doesn't mean it is. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the evidence is not enough, then I will continue to collect. I know that I didn't catch the wrong person, but if I want to convince you to believe me, the evidence may not be enough.--Tr56tr (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]