User talk:51.171.113.150

Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC) PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your host, 51-171-113-150-dynamic.agg2.kny.prp-wtd.eircom.net (51.171.113.150), is registered to Eircom Limited and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Hello!

This is a talk page for this IP address. 51.171.113.150 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Candace Against the Universe#Credits for cut scenes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Candace Against the Universe#Credits for cut scenes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Lights Out (2016 film) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Lights Out (2016 film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/b9o0b4/discussion_was_shazam_not_set_to_feature_a/ek6usiv/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
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) 20:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Nathan2055^talk - contribs 20:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:27, 25 July 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 currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Gotham episodes; 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. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:57, 25 July 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 stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty), you may be blocked from editing. Leijurv (talk) 17:38, 25 July 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.

Your recent editing history 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. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:36, 26 July 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 add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Jurassic Park characters. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing, including persistent edit-warring on various articles, continuing despite several warnings. 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 ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyra Belacqua

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lyra Belacqua; 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.

A quick Google search will show that Lyra Belacqua is, and has been since 1995, the name used by WP:RS, the only exception appears to be fansites. It does not matter tuppence that a different name begins to be used in one of the books, just as it would not matter if Lyra changed her name within the books - the reviews etc are already written and they represent the COMMONNAME in RS. If Lyra's name changes, or if she has a relationship with someone, those are both apt subjects for textual exposition within the plot etc articles. But changing names or infobox without such textual exposition is informing no-one of anything. It is simply a 'fansity' 'in-universe' logic.Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continuing the edit-warring behaviour that led to the previous block.

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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

51.171.113.150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting unblock as said edit was not a repeat of an edit war. When I was adding the Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous series to List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series, I had accidentally deleted the sections for Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor, which were then restored by Apokryltaros, who also left a message reading "Are you aware assuming skeletons are (from) cloned animals is WP:SYNTH, among other things?" Upon seeing the message, I then clarified that the addition of mentioning the appearance of the Alamosaurus skeleton in Jurassic World (which their message was referencing) was because its remains appear in a scene in that film in which two children come across the old Jurassic Park visitor's centre, long-since abandoned. No edit war intended; my edits remain valid. 51.171.113.150 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since your last block for edit-warring you have continued to edit-war, as for example at Lyra Belacqua. The purpose of the original, fairly short, block, was to make it clear to you that edit-warring is not acceptable, in the hope that you would stop. That failed to work, so a longer block is now being tried, in the hope that this time the message will get through. You will not be unblocked unless you make it clear that you understand what the block was for, and that you won't do the same again. Far from making that clear, you make it clear that you don't understand what the block was for. Your unblock request consists largely of incoherent remarks on various irrelevant matters that don't seem to have anything to do with edit-warring (or if they do then you haven't made it clear what the connection is). Eventually you made the comments "No edit war intended; my edits remain valid". Those comments are at last about edit-warring, but they completely miss the point, because (a) what matters is not what you intended to do, but what you did, and (b) Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.