213.205.194.98

December 2016

Hello, I'm Deli nk. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Municipal solid waste have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

January 2017

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to FXX have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

March 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Marcos Alonso Mendoza, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

May 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Graeme Le Saux. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

June 2018

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Billy Butlin, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jake Quickenden. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jith12 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

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

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jack Rodwell, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

December 2020

Your recent editing history at London Beer Flood 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:25, 16 December 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.

Tbhotch, I’m sorry, but are you serious? You leave a threat for only one side of a disagreement but not the person that is adding unsourced material into an FAC, then using an unreliable source and a source that doesn’t back up what they are claiming? And yet you come to kick the IP editor, not a registered editor. It’s not a great surprise, but they are also edit warring, and they are damaging the article when they do so. What gives, exactly? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You know more about this website than what you claim. Please, waste someone else's time with your pings and stop edit-warring. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh but you just reverted a fourth time. Yep. See you at EWN. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but what? I know more than I claim? Where have I claimed anything? You’ve not answered the question of what you have attempted to threaten me and not the vandal on the page, and that says a lot about your approach. 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you warn John? Did you report John? You know about WP:CITEVAR but you somehow don't know about the existence of WP:ANI or Talk:London Beer Flood. You never attempted something else than reverting until you were "threatened" to be reported. You are the sole person calling yourself a vandal; what you both are doing to that page is irrelevant to me, but when users start to spam my watchlist like that it's obvious that something is needed, and in this case, it is you the one that keeps reverting the others' additions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You think that because I don’t go running to one the complaints boards that means I am up to no good? Jeez.... that’s some dodgy logic there. And yes, I know about the talk page - I’ve discussed things there, but The other editor should also have gone there. He doesn’t get challenged of course, because that’s too much like hard work and it’s easier to threaten an IP. I’m not sure where I called myself a vandal (stopping incorrect information being added to a page is hardly vandalism, and I’m not sure how I have managed to “spam your watchlist”: that really isn’t something I know anything about. You should look a little more carefully at the situation than just assuming “Registered editor = good, IP = bad”. The registered editor is the one not following the rules of how to add sources or how to make sure Thames are reliable. And as this is a featured article, it needs better care than he is providing it. 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of the edits on the talk page are yours? I don't see any from this IP. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes: I am typing on a mobile, so it’s a dynamic assigning from my provider. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_Beer_Flood#Two_IPs_on_this_page where I’ve explained it before. Thanks for asking C.Fred, and not just jumping to a conclusion. 213.205.194.98 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and understanding that I didn't jump to conclusions to assume you are those IPs. However, I don't see any discussion about Meux & Co going into liquidation, just about the number of houses destroyed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify further. Up above, Tbhotch said “You know about WP:CITEVAR but you somehow don't know about the existence of WP:ANI or Talk:London Beer Flood”. That is a false accusation, and I pointed out that I do know about the talk page and have used it previously. I didn’t mean that I had used it in connection with this particular point. As the registered editor didn’t make any comments on the talk page, I didn’t either, although in hindsight it would have been better to have done that. Next time I have to revert an experienced editor about something quite straightforward, I’ll be sure to use the talk page to expand on the summary I had given in my edit summary. Thanks. 213.205.194.98 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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:213.205.194.98 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: ). Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2020 (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.

Justlettersandnumbers, it’s a shame that you’ve ignored the reasons for my reverting (adding unsourced information into a featured article then making up references to back up the edit warring). When that all fails, vandalising the article in a petulant manner is all OK, just as long as you are a registered editor. But when it’s an IP that makes sure the article isn’t vandalised they get blocked? It’s a silly world with silly rationales for bad decisions. 213.205.194.98 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Er, no, you misunderstand: no-one gives a toss about your reasons, all that matters is that you may not edit-war in this project (there are exemptions for BLP violations, copyvio and the like, but none of those applied here – you were just warring over content). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And for reverting vandalism, which was what the last reversion was. It don’t let the inconvenience of an IP knowing better than you and the registered editor get in the way of another notch on your blocking record. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

---