InternetSpartan
September 2015 edit
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Diffs: [1][2][3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Serial reversions edit
Hi, the bulk of your recent edits have comprised serial reversions. Please stop this. You need to properly explain each and every one of your reversions and provide a rationale so that other editors understand what you're doing. Failure to do so will be considered vandalism. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Cyphoidbomb. I'm terribly sorry if my editing has concerned you or anyone else. Although I have made some bad edits in the past, that's not my intention whatsoever now. Per WP:MoS, I can't seem to find a passage that explains how to revert to revisions or multi-revert. In the case of edits you have mentioned I reverted without explanation, those were a lot of edits that constituted vandalism. I completely understand your perspective to add a summary when saving changes, but at the time I felt it would be tedious and repetitive to keep saying one or two words like "unsourced" or "revert vandalism", seeing as the Masterchef pages get more than 10 edits a day on average. If you could point me to the relevant page that explains how to multi-revert or revert to revision, that would be great. Thanks. :) InternetSpartan (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)InternetSpartan
- If you want to revert to an earlier version of an article without having to undo a dozen edits individually, the first thing I would recommend, considering your recent problems getting started, is to post a query on the article's talk page to ask for help or to post a request for help at the Wikipedia Help Desk. Barring that, one way to do it is to click on the version of the article that was in good shape before the problematic edits and revert to that. Since I'm not quite sure what you were going for, let's say that you thought that there were problems at MasterChef (U.S. season 6). Looking in the edit history I see:
(cur | prev) 15:43, September 8, 2015 Changa24 (talk | contribs | block) . . (116,123 bytes) (-1,454) . . (→Elimination Table) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 12:05, September 8, 2015 Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,577 bytes) (+187) . . (Reverted to revision 680065592 by 75.165.80.203 (talk): Last known stable version. Unexplained serial reversions by InternetSpartan. Disruptive. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 10:54, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,390 bytes) (+469) . . (Undid revision 680089708 by 108.55.75.198 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:53, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (116,921 bytes) (+38) . . (Undid revision 680089913 by 108.55.75.198 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:13, September 8, 2015 108.55.75.198 (talk | block) . . (116,883 bytes) (-38) . . (→Elimination Table) (undo) (cur | prev) 10:12, September 8, 2015 108.55.75.198 (talk | block) . . (116,921 bytes) (-469) . . (→Elimination Table) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:55, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,390 bytes) (-17) . . (Undid revision 680060123 by 180.251.176.34 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:55, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,407 bytes) (-1) . . (Undid revision 680060193 by 180.251.176.34 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:55, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,408 bytes) (+15) . . (Undid revision 680060332 by 203.215.117.161 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:54, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,393 bytes) (+2) . . (Undid revision 680060374 by 203.215.117.161 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:53, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,391 bytes) (-20) . . (Undid revision 680060743 by 203.215.117.161 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:53, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,411 bytes) (+2) . . (Undid revision 680064627 by 75.165.80.203 (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:52, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,409 bytes) (+7) . . (Undid revision 680064897 by 75.165.80.203 (talk) Unsourced) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:52, September 8, 2015 InternetSpartan (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,402 bytes) (-175) . . (Undid revision 680065592 by 75.165.80.203 (talk) Unsourced) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 07:01, September 8, 2015 75.165.80.203 (talk | block) . . (117,577 bytes) (+175) . . (→Elimination Table) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:56, September 8, 2015 75.165.80.203 (talk | block) . . (117,402 bytes) (-7) . . (→Top 22) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:53, September 8, 2015 75.165.80.203 (talk | block) . . (117,409 bytes) (-2) . . (→Elimination Table) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:20, September 8, 2015 203.215.117.161 (talk | block) . . (117,411 bytes) (+20) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:17, September 8, 2015 203.215.117.161 (talk | block) . . (117,391 bytes) (-2) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:17, September 8, 2015 203.215.117.161 (talk | block) . . (117,393 bytes) (-15) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:15, September 8, 2015 180.251.176.34 (talk | block) . . (117,408 bytes) (+1) . . (→Top 22) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 06:15, September 8, 2015 180.251.176.34 (talk | block) . . (117,407 bytes) (+17) . . (→Top 22) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) (cur | prev) 05:12, September 8, 2015 074061a (talk | contribs | block) . . (117,390 bytes) (+26) . . (→Episodes) (undo | thank)
- Assuming you thought that the 05:12, September 8, 2015 version of the article by 074061a was the last known good version, you would click the link on 05:12, September 8, 2015. When that page loaded, you'd click EDIT at the top right of your screen. You'll see a notification that you are editing an old revision of the page. You would type a coherent edit summary that explains why you are reverting all of those edits, and then you'd click Show Preview to make sure that your edits were sound. If so, then you would save. Note that you are responsible for every edit you make, so if you're doing a bulk revert like that, you very well could be dumping a lot of constructive edits, which means you could be pissing off a lot of constructive editors. In that case, you should either manually remove the offending content piece by piece (tedious, but it must be done), or be sure to manually reinstate the constructive content (tedious as well). You would be well advised to leave a detailed explanation on the article's talk page to explain what you did. This isn't entry-level editing, this is advanced crap. If you're not comfortable with this, particularly with the coherent and thorough explanations aspect then you're better off asking for help at the help desk where experienced editors will be happy to assist. Note that in either event you'll have to explain why the content is problematic, which means you'll need to provide sources and such to prove your case. Any problems you create you will be responsible for. Good luck, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey there InternetSpartan. I've also noticed a couple of your edits and have reverted them. Plot descriptions should be kept short—MOS:PLOT says "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." This was the version of The End (novel) that you reverted to: in this version, there are 1500 words (about 9000 characters) in the plot summary, compared to only a couple of hundred words in the entirety of the rest of the article. The current version of the article is only about a third of that length, and it is still too long! WP:NOVELPLOT says "Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work". I agree with this guideline wholeheartedly: any more text than that will put off a reader, and they'll just ignore the section. Less is more. You might like to look at The Bad Beginning for a plot section I (re-)wrote, that I think is about the right length.
Perhaps more important than the edits themselves was the fact that you didn't leave an edit summary. If something is obvious vandalism, it's not necessary to explain why, but this is clearly not one of those cases. Not all removals of text are vandalism, especially not when they have accurate edit summaries. Edits you undid on The Penultimate Peril and The End (novel) had edit summaries, and good faith copyediting (rather than indiscriminate removal of content) is never vandalism. Thank you. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! edit
- Hi InternetSpartan! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 12:14, Thursday, October 1, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Problem not resolved edit
Regarding your edit here, though it was kind of you to provide an explanation in the edit summary, you seem to not understand the problem, which is that you have not provided any context in the article prose for this addition. It's confusing to me because I'm unfamiliar with the series, so it will be confusing to other readers who are unfamiliar with the series. Our target audience is people unfamiliar with the series. Perhaps something like: "The villains of the Kids Next Door, led by Benedict Uno, join forces..." might be best, because frankly, it seems that the "AKA Father" aspect is not particularly useful. Alternatively, if both pieces of information are important, then we need connective prose akin to: "Benedict Uno, disguised as a shadowy figure the children refer to as Father, does XYZ to resurrect Grandfather." I don't know what the right phrasing is, but wedging more information into a sentence without any connective tissue ain't the encyclopedic way to go. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Anne Frank edit
The Anne Frank article isn't the place to promulgate conspiracy theories. Stick to reliable sources, don't push your own point of view, and you'll do well. Fail to do that, and you'll be blocked from editing. Yes, this is a warning. Rklawton (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Rklawton (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)If you are going to revert to assert your opinion without participating on the talk page and continue to do so even after being warned, then you are editing disruptively. Your block will automatically expire in 36 hours. If you persist in disruptive editing, I will extend the block. Conversely, if you show a willingness to discuss your edits and provide reliable sources to justify them, then any admin is welcome to shorten this block. In short, collaborate in the editing process or be gone. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Racism in Israel does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please be aware that WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition prohibits editors who have fewer than 500 edits, such as you, from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of the merit of your edits, they may be reverted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Since you don't yet have 500 edits, you aren't allowed to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Admins can enforce this restriction. There is a notice at Talk:Racism in Israel. You can still use the talk page to draw attention to any problems that you see. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm JaconaFrere. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Anne Frank has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jacona (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Blocked again edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Rklawton (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)April 2016 edit
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Taki's Magazine have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Cole is not a notable person, and we do not list non-notable people as contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Time for you to be blocked again for your pov editing edit
Since I've engaged in discussion with you and reverted you I won't block you, but don't be surprised if someone else does. Your agenda is pretty blatant. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Unblock Request edit
InternetSpartan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is absurd. I legitimately believe Wikipedia is out to attack me based on it's own bias. No, I don't have an agenda, and I'm far beyond aware of what's anti-semitic and what isn't. It's already been pointed out how work like that of Arthur Butz is not anti-semitic or racist because there is no written contempt for Jews and there are no racial slurs written. Germar Rudolf as kindly taken the time out of his life to explain this on Wikipedia. He has written an entire article on his personal site to further address this. The work of deniers/revisionists has always been an academic project, not a hate agenda. A documentary titled Defamation clearly demonstrates this. There are legitimate instances of racism, and hate mongering, like the works of David Duke and the poem that David Irving wrote for his daughter. I've already explained my position on Anne Frank. I gave literal common sense examples that validate my case, and I was threatened by a fellow editor afterwards. Is WP really this intolerant of opposing sides? InternetSpartan (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)InternetSpartan
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Mike V • Talk 00:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
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.