User talk:108.30.105.141

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to National Instant Criminal Background Check System have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Materialscientist (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) IP, the message above doesn’t say anything about WP:vandalism. Don’t mislead talk-page stalkers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[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.

It appears this edit was being disputed and i was asking the experienced user why he reverted as vandalism. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Yankee Stadium have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[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.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kingdome. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[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.

Your recent editing history at Kingdome 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.
Your edit is inappropriate, and you are edit warring to try to force it. Stop, or you will be blocked. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[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.

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:108.30.105.141 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: ). Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rock Man; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[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.

@Rosguill: the edit in question is a link to a video regarding the suject of the article. It sucks when people remove links on the grounds of "spam" but hardly ever take the time to check the link and make sure it's authentic. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Choujinki Metalder 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.
We've been down this path before. Stop adding pointers to your favorite youtube videos. My assumption is this is a video you have monetized and you are trying to push it. Either way, Wikipedia articles do not need pointers to youtube videos of episodes. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Choujinki Metalder. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.  
Your edit here to Choujinki Metalder was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu20KaxlV94&list=PLM4PR6FQBRGQMFGTaQol119Uy5FsqWpKh&index=8&t=0s) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

• Choujinki Metalder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello 108.30.105.141. You have been reported at the vandalism noticeboard for constantly restoring a Youtube link at Choujinki Metalder. You can't keep doing this or you will be blocked. It appears that our Xlinkbot has been programmed to remove such links, and this bot is designed to enforce policy. If you disagree with the policy, file a request at WP:ELN and see if you can get a favorable answer. Or ask any experienced editor, such as User:FilmandTVFan28. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you were previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:108.30.105.141 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Declined) in December 2019. Though I'm unsure if I would have blocked in that case, if you want to retain a good reputation you need to wait for agreement in disputed cases. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thanks for understanding. I have no interest in vandalising pages, nor would I think for a minute a link to a video would constitute vandalism unless I was posting a link to a video of something that had nothing to do with the article in question. It wasn't just the automated editor, but Tarl N. removing it without explanation. I felt like I needed to stand my own ground and I kept putting it back. I opened a discussion on the talk page so that it can be discussed, but this person decided to play hardball to edit war. Just my 2 cents. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the XLinkBot (more than once) is pretty much an example of disruption. To avoid a block, I suggest that you undo your removal of the {{bots}} template. Since User:Tarl N. is enforcing policy your charge he is edit warring is incorrect. You can still appeal at a noticeboard like WP:ELN but I wouldn't bet on a favorable result. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PamD. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to HM Revenue and Customs have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. PamD 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[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.

• Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to 2019 Atlantic hurricane season, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pierre cb (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Tropical Storm Edward requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Talk page to a non existent storm created by and Vandal IP

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pierre cb (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]