Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, s01069050ca487453.ok.shawcable.net (174.4.26.61), is part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses and is registered to Shaw Communications, Lodge Pole Lake Forest service Rd, Logan Lake, BC V0K 1W0, Canada. It may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
Applying an indefinite block to this IP is not appropriate, unless it is a soft block, because the IP address will later be reallocated to a different, unrelated, and unsuspecting user, thereby impairing access to Wikipedia in an inappropriate fashion. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.
The best approach is to determine the CIDR IP numerical address range and make a higher-level decision to soft-block the entire range. http://www.arin.net/ (for approximately North America) and related sites can help to identify that range. Caution is advised when applying a range block as other Wikipedians, both registered and otherwise, may be affected.
In the event of vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports can be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
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.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Learning. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to change the long-standing introductory sentence in the lead. That can be very contentious. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to discuss the proposed change on the article's talk page after you are undone the first time. You have now made the edit three times, without attempting to discuss it. Either take it t o the article's talk page and attempt to get consensus for the change, or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check your facts before issuing notices. Esp. why the revert and based on what? - basically attribution error. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.26.61 (talk • contribs) 06:16, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
I did look at the content, and I agreed with the undo, as I said in my edit summary. You were edit warring. Even if I had not agreed with the undo, you were still edit warring. Once you are undone it is up to you to take the issue to the talk page for discussion, regardless of whether you think you edit was valid. I see you were later warned for edit warring on another article. Read the links provided and stop doing this. Meters (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. ««« SOMEGADGETGEEK »»» (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gadet Geek, however, this is not an edit war based on the content between editors. This is simply blind reverts without any thoughts and without good faith (cant blame it due to heightened vandalism that is present) that has reached to a ripe situation for blocking.174.4.26.61 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Wadjda, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Conflict management. You were undone by user:JackintheBox. Per WP:BRD you need to take this to the talkpage so that other editors can reach consensus as to whether your change is appropriate. You have had more than one edit warring warning recently so you should know this already. Meters (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the claim that this is a shared IP I suspect that the same user is responsible for the various edits that have resulted in warnings, The subject material is often related, the edit warring to restore desired versions without any talk page discussion is in common, and the three weeks of user talk page denials of any wrongdoing all have a very similar style. Meters (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are unrelated users active on this IP I suggest that they follow the advice that has repeatedly been left on this talk page: If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.Meters (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly do not stir the pot unnecessarily, thread attributions thoughtfully, if you are to invest your time. An unreplied or unchanged edit is a sign of silent consensus. Do not misinterpret it with evidences from your routine wiki duties. If it aint vandalism, try to move on. If it is really a matter of content, those who have the differences will solve it through existing wiki frameworks of collaborative editing. Happy editing.
Kindly do not reply and disturb with incessant messaging. Only if its important, do it. Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.26.61 (talk • contribs) 01:27, June 6, 2018 (UTC)
(e.c)Please sign your talkpage posts.
By stating that this is a shared IP are you claiming that you did not make the edits that this IP was warned for? If you are then my comments are germane. If you are not, then by collapsing the warnings and making that comment you appear to be attempting to avoid responsibility for your edits by suggesting that others made them. Meters (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you reverted is sourced and other ones are simple revert of early vandalism. The current templating or the claim does not sit well with the evidence, and also look into talk page rules and regulations where it says not to delete others edit as it fits with whims.174.4.26.61 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
Hello 174.4.26.61, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Consumerism have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me, I accidentally copied the original one from my docs. I intended to copy the reworded version. However, I deleted it and am not interested in the topic anymore. Thank you for your reminder. Regards.174.4.26.61 (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 174.4.26.61, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Consumerism have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me this error. I think I have copied my reference text instead of my edited one. However, I deleted the doc and my interest regarding the topic is no more there. Regards.
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).
Edit warring, is based on wrong assumptions. The other one who was edit warring at the time were doing it by their own whims instead of following common policies or common sense in this case, like saying repeatedly that a film is not released. What I can gather is that it was disruptive of them. Facts could be cross-checked. Whoever, requested the block should be checked out in the future regarding their other requests. Because this is a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. 174.4.26.61 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2018 (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.
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Anomie (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
I would suggest that you add information to articles such as Strain theory (sociology) rather than continuing to put information on the disambiguation page. Since DAB pages are formatted for quick scanning, anything beyond a sentence fragment is likely to be removed. Leschnei (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
