Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, wifi-nat01.adl2.internode.on.net (150.101.89.147), is registered to iiNet Limited - Adelaide CBD, Australia and may be shared by multiple users using public terminals or a Wi-Fi hotspot, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock or Template:School block. Public terminals and Wi-Fi hotspots may have set expiry times (usually in 30- or 60-minute intervals); consider this in deciding a block duration. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation; network administrators may be able to disable access to the network by offenders.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
If you edit without an account, your IP address (150.101.89.147) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dada Maheshvarananda has been reverted. Your edit here to Dada Maheshvarananda 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 (http://proutaftercapitalism.blogspot.com) 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 blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). 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) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
April 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Northern line. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The "crimes" happening on the lines is WP:UNDUE. You certainly can add those crimes (if notable enough) to their respective station, but certainly not the line as those crimes are not affecting the whole line.SunDawn (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Following your last reply; "I must say, you also do not get to revert it just because you feel like it.", I feel I should try to clarify some things; I did not revert "just because I felt like it". As I stated, and linked in my summary, I simply took the article back to "QUO" (as in, status quo ante bellum or the stable version before the disruption. QUO is a widely accepted practice on WP. This is also the version the article should be at while this matter is deliberated, as per WP:BRD, which is another widely accepted practice. It's fairly simple, you made a
Bold edit, it was
Reverted, and now it gets
Discussed, if necessary. The act of "B"old, "R"evert, "R"evert, "R"evert, "R"evert, etc., etc., is considered disruptive, and it's the reason we have a policy against edit warring. I clearly notified you of the policy, while trying to initiate a dialog with you, but you went and violated the policy anyway, and have shown little interest in discussion.
At this point, I would encourage you to self-revert your last edit, take some time to read the information that was provided to you, then return to the article talk page and make a sincere effort to have a collegial discussion.
You have yet to show how this content, as a pop culture entry, aids the reader in understanding the article's subject. For example, the first entry, the show "Justified" is about a modern day US Marshal. Though fictionalized, it gives readers an understanding of what Marshals do, as opposed to say... local law enforcement, or the DEA, Secret Service, etc. Your entry basically says: "some Marshals get on a plane with some bad guys and they all get shot and killed."
As the editor seeking to add the content, the ONUS is on you to ensure the content is adequately sourced and if req'd (and yes, it's req'd here), you need to ensure there is a consensus in support of your addition (which is difficult as no one else has appeared on the talk page to join the discussion).
Following that, if we can't agree that the content is relevant and beneficial to the reader, if we don't agree that there are sufficient refs in place, and there is not a consensus in support of your edit, then you should consider the dispute resolution process.
These are all guidelines and/or standard practices that I have already notified you of, yet you have not followed any of them. All you have done is posted some snarky comments and violated the rules on edit warring. I've told you how you can fix the violations before there is any potential admin action (such as a block) and I'm still trying to work with you to on this. If you make an effort (on the article talk page), I'm sure we can resolve this. Have a nice day - wolf06:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Marshals Service. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Marshals Service. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.As you are well aware, the content that you've added has not met consensus on **the talk page**. An occasional sentence does not qualify as a meaningful conversion. Do not edit on United States Marshals Service for _any reason_ until reaching clear consensus on this issue. I will likely be reverting to keep other editors away from WP:3RR. You'll note none of this discusses the content, which is irrelevant at this point.tedder (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First and final warning, if I catch you Edit warring or engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS again, I will file a report against you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Afroditeiraq (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Griffin (disambiguation). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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 ~~~~}}.
