173.176.159.21

October 2019

Your recent editing history at Tim Pool shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. General Ization ^Talk 22:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Tim Pool

"I have to insist" is often an immediate prelude to an editor being blocked for edit warring. Your edits have now been reverted by multiple editors. Either discuss your objections to the content on the Talk page (before removing it), or run the risk of being blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 22:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong eurystic, other users did locked it in the way I was trying to change it. Locked until november 3d because the section some are trying to defend is blatantly in conflict with the BLP guidelines.

Legal threats

To repeat what I said at Talk:Tim Pool, do not imply legal threats. It is prohibited, and is not taken lightly. I am going to leave a template message after this, so you can read about this policy and why it's important. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lyier. I havent done legal treats, Just reminded you of what consist the BLP guidelines.

October 2019

Your recent edits to Talk:Tim Pool could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why should I help wikipedia while im finding it being a cesspool of defamation, invention and improvisation ?

Signing comments and RFC responses

I mentioned this on the talk page, but I want to make sure you don't miss it: it would be helpful if you would trim the extended quote of from WP:BLP in your comment here and then move the comment in to the survey section of the RFC. Keeping RFC comments organized makes it easier for whoever is closing the discussion to assess the consensus. Lastly, please sign your comments using four tildes (~) at the end of your posts. Nblund ^talk 16:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It would not be a problem if wikipedia was not used as a tabloid. However I dont want to help yellow papers and smear campaings.

Talk page guidelines

Please review WP:TPG and sign and indent your comments. Several editors have explained this to you. As that guideline states: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards." – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Final warning

It's not fair for other editors to keep making these corrections for you. Competence is required in order to edit here. If you continue failing to sign your user name and indent your comments, your talk page contributions are going to be summarily removed. You need to start making this nominal effort. Thanks in advance. El_C 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

173.176.159.21, this is not a negotiation. El_C 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is your last warning about conducting yourself in an intentionally incompetent manner to illustrate a point. The next time you do so, your comments are not only going to be removed, but you will also be blocked from editing. El_C 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

December 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tim Pool, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You seem to struggle to understand BLP guidelines my friend. Additions need consensus first to get onto biographies. Please consult the BLP guidelines. THX

Your recent editing history at Tim Pool shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
If you do not self-revert, a 3RRNB case will be opened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

nope. The edit war is done by the people not applying the BLP guidelines on bio. rule is clear. you need consensus for addition and anything contentious can be removed first. You guys have decided to invert the rules on specific bio pages that, funnily enough, seem to follow a specific political guideline. You know, trying to interfer in US or Canadian election is a crime. No one wants wikipedia going bankrupt because it cant pay the massive fine it will have to pay eventually for NOT. APPLYING. ITS. OWN. GUIDELINES. Also, not that there is a difference between a treat and a forecast. I cannot treaten wikipedia with legal actions because I cannot and dont want to be involved in any legal battle myself. However, if people like you keep pretending you are not doing what you are doing and if wikipedia keeps looking the other way around, it is obvious what is likely to happen next. Wikipedia need to apply its own guidelines so it can pay for its server and its employees. I want wikipedia to remain open, pay its server, pay its employee, so in all honesty I want wikipedia to apply its own guidelines. You guys are a bunch of hacks using wikipedia as a tabloid. Shame on you, you dirty, dirty smear merchants.

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:173.176.159.21 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

still not blocked ;)

March 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tim Pool, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You have already been blocked for disruptive editing on this article. Use the article's talk page if you have concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for personal attacks (after warning). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 19:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

---