User talk:

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sm8900: :)
Thank you for proposition, but to be exactly non-registered is a phylosophy. Sad your project is such way low on services for exactly anonymous users. (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2022[edit]

 – (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Godville 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. Izno (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
@Izno: So that's how you discuss and waiting. I had to guess you just lie ))) (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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: reported by User:Politanvm (Result: ). Thank you. Politanvm talk 06:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Editing from this range has been disabled (blocked) in response to abuse. A range may be shared by many users and innocent users may be affected; if you believe that you are not the person this block is intended for, please follow the instructions below:

If you have an account: Please log in to edit. In rare cases, in response to serious abuse, logged-in editing may also be disabled. If you still cannot edit, place {{unblock}} on your talk page and make reference to this message. You may wish to ping the blocking administrator or email them via the "email this user" function.

If you do not have an account: Registered users are still able to edit. Please create an account.

Administrators: Please consult the blocking administrator before altering or lifting this block, and consider consulting with a CheckUser before granting an IP block exemption to an editor using this range. Note that large or hard (logged-in editing blocked) rangeblocks are usually only made in response to serious abuse, and the blocking admin may have information about this block which is essential to reviewing any unblock request.

Comments: Repeated removals of email addresses from articles despite other editors' objections. Can be unblocked as soon as user agrees to stop doing that. For the avoidance of ambiguity, this is a "for cause" block, i.e. applies to the individual responsible for these edits regardless of what account/IP they use.

I don't know what to say, 85. I think you're trying to make Wikipedia better. I don't like blocking people who are trying to make Wikipedia better. But you've had half a dozen experienced editors or more tell you that your editing is disruptive, and have persisted. If you're willing to agree to stop removing email addressess (absent a consensus for your removals at a suitable venue), I am happy to unblock, and would have no objection to any other admin unblocking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin:I know what to say - your dream came true and you blocked me. By range, which, in fact, was excessive, but it didn't stop you ) Deleting email is clearly follows to WP:NOT and you clearly know it ) As I described it in details to you also. As of "editor's opinions" you mentioned, I repeat:
  1. WP:CONLEVELConsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
  2. WP:NOTThis page documents an English Wikipedia policy.
  3. WP:POLICIES:Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow.
  4. WP:POLICY#Derivation:Wikipedia is a self-governing project run by its community. Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.
  5. Read starting from point 1.
which means their content-related opinion means nothing for activity if it(both opinion and activity)'s not following and/or violates WP:NOT, which is Wikipedia policy.
I bet These "complainers" (probably even you) just time to time receive payment for such illegal advertising or recomendations in support of it, and they feel I will get to such way advertised content that they really care very soon or already did.
Your block comment is same way messy, as if you think deleting emails by me is disruptive editing, why don't you revert it all immediately?? ))) What stops you if that's really had place massively?
Please don't pretend to be a good samaritan. You just did what you wanted starting from 4 days ago. See you in a month. You and others have time to earn some money on advertising at Wikipedia until then (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're still on this range in a month, I or another admin will re-block it at that time. This is, effectively, an indefinite block, time-limited only because of the way IP addresses work. I don't know why you've picked this absurd hill to die on, when you appear to be the only editor on Wikipedia who interprets NOT this way, but so long as you are up on this hill, and refuse to even start a policy discussion in the correct place, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin:Be my guest, violate Wikipedia policies further while I'll still follow it. To not miss a moment you can extend block time to year already. Why not? As who cares what you are doing and is it clearly following Wikipedia policies), isn't it? ) You are so funny trying to be serious writing all of your ridiculous excuses and threats to punish me for following Wikipedia policies uncompromisingly. Great job! ) Btw, no administrator except you blocked, so you are wrong everyone are like you like to violate policies and punish editors for strictly following it ))) About discussion - you just lie as discussion, where was provided many examples by numerous editors of DELETING EMAILS from articles with description why they did it, was quite long and you and you took part in it. Forgot it? ))) Please stop pretending you care about following Wikipedia policies. That looks unnatural. (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! With that attitude, an indef is appropriate. Your problem is that you're not collaborating with others. You're edit-warring, attacking with nasty personal attacks and bad faith accusations, and not providing adequate explanations for your edits. EVEN IF YOU ARE 100% RIGHT, that attitude means you don't belong here. I am currently fixing some of the mess you've left behind. The first and last names were right there, but you didn't make the easy fix. You just deleted email addresses and left redlink warnings for improperly formatted citations. If you're going to fix a ref, then do it properly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]