Jump to content

User talk:Alexb102072

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Alexb102072, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone lolwill show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

Please stop creating red-links with on the List of massacres by making capitalization edits. Most of the entries use a lower case "m". If you know that the word "massacre" should be capitalized, as part of the event's name, then please create a link like this: '''[[Long Island Rail Road massacre|Long Island Rail Road Massacre]]''' Thanks!--Knulclunk 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Charles M. McDermott, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2635. As a copyright violation, Charles M. McDermott appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Charles M. McDermott has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ku Klux Klan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

[edit]

The definition of fascism is out of keeping with existing norms in encyclopedias.

It is always defined as "rightwing."

It is also not a form of nationalism. Even the two citations justifying defining it as "nationalism" do not say that. They say it espouses nationalism. Very different from essentially being nationalism (and nothing else).

All existing encyclopedias define it as "rightwing political movement that was authoritarian, nationalist, xenophobic, etc."

The idea of nationalism can be retained but the essence of fascism is something else--a rightwing political movement that used state terror to impose rightwing values on a community.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Galloway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanctions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Islam
added a link pointing to Black Muslims
Jews
added a link pointing to Tadzhik

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolph Rummel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indifference and Incompetence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hutton Gibson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • County, Pennsylvania]] near [[Pittsburgh]]<ref>http://www.wtae.com/r/9610978/detail.html] [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_416937.html</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bertrand Russell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian Identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Goldie Hawn, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian Identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nordic people. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Alexb102072. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Adolf Hitler. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Genocides in history, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please read WP:OVERLINKING. Not only are you are adding wikilinks to obvious terms and words, some links (like euthanasia in the context of 'euthanasia camps' in the context) are misleading. Thanks for your attention. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of genocides by death toll, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits, but

[edit]

Would ask that you desist, until the

tag down down. See Edit summary for explanation. The wikilinks can go in later. If we get into edit conflicts, hours will be wasted, and likely, small edits like yours will be lost. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to The Holocaust, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sante Kimes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conspiracy and East Indian people. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fascism in Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

[edit]

[1] --NeilN talk to me 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

[edit]

Please stop WP:OVERLINKing and making unnecessary additions to September 11 attacks and other 9/11 articles. Your changes have been reverted. Please edit constructively. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at September 11 attacks. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bernie Sanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

[edit]

Hello. You appear to do a lot of small grammatical edits, but, frankly, you do not seem to be very good at it. I've already laboriously corrected your editing in one article, and I've checked your edits in several others which would be just as laborious to fix. I have two choices: I can spend the time to fix each individual edit, which would be boring and would be, as I said, laborious, or I can delete all of your edits to an article, since more of the changes you made are bad than are good.

My suggestion is that you stop making grammatical edits until you have a better grasp on what you're doing and can make changes which actually improve the writing in an article. If you do not do this, I will be forced to use the second method, and start deleting your edits in toto to keep your non-improvements in check.

Please consider this seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, instead of replying here and having a discussion with me, or taking what I said seriously, you have simply continued to make many small grammatical changes to articles which do not improve the flow of the text, mixed in with OK changes such as linking things or providing facts. As I told you, if you continue to do this, I will start deleting your edits en masse as generally not being improvements to the article. I have done so on Terrorism in the United States, so you can see what that will result in.
Please, stop making grammatical changes, you do not have the gift of knowing what is an improvement and what is not. You can continue, of course, to improve articles with new facts (sourced, if necessary}. Be careful when Wikilinking not to WP:OVERLINK -- in general, if a term is already Wikilinked, it does not need to be done again.
I hope not to have to put you on notice again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, you just kept on, making crappy edits, so I'm rolling back those I can easily do so. If you want to see your editing disappear, keep it up. If you don't restrict yourself as I've suggested above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Alexb102072. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at A Christmas Story, you may be blocked from editing. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. 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)

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. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Overlinking

[edit]

Hello. You recently added several links in the article Alt-right to terms like "Europe", "United States", and "Muslims". This is overlinking. Articles with an over abundance of blue links (or red links) actually hinders readability. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, especially What generally should not be linked and What generally should be linked. Commonly understood terms, major geographic features, and other terms not contextually relevant to the article should generally not be linked. An article with too much blue is hard on the eyes, and largely a waste of time. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty!: You can save your energy. This editor never responds to comments on their talk page, and they never change their editing. They constantly overlink, and do little "grammatical" changes that, for the most part, do not improve the grammar. They've been told these things, and they ignore the advice they're given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexb102072, I notice the concerns about overlinking placed on your talk page. I just reverted a particularly egregious example in Racism ([2])in which you wikilinked terms within file names. That you would do such a thing after more than 10,000 edits raises questions—do you pay attention to the context and content of the material you edit? Please do this plus check previews plus leave edit summaries. Neonorange (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken I had a look through the history here. ANI per nothere? The edits, while mundane are resulting in a net negative impact and are necessitating cleanup over a long period of time. Besides the negative impact on the articles, that's man hours spent housekeeping, which which could have gone into article improvement. It seems like an edit ban on articlespace might also encourage the editor to take a look at some of the feed back left on the talk page. Edaham (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexb102072: Your continued overlinking, use of bad grammar, high school-quality writing and other non-improvements to numerous articles has necessitated my rolling back your edits. I was taking the time to examine every edit individually, but the fact that the majority of your edits contain these faults indicated that I was wasting my time.
Also, you have yet to respond to any comment or complaint left on your talk page, and this is becoming a problem. Wikipedia works on collaboration between editors, and an editor who refuses to talk with other members of the community cannot collaborate. Unless you begin to respond to complaints, it may be necessary to bring your behavior to the community's attention at the admin noticeboards to determine if you should be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Edaham:, @Neonorange:, @Animalparty:, @Gareth Griffith-Jones:, @David J Johnson:, @Iryna Harpy:, @Nick-D:, @Mlpearc:, @Mryan1451:, @Knulclunk: – All of you have at one time or another left complaints or comments here to which Alexb102072 has not responded. (In fact, there is no evidence that Alexb102072 has ever posted to this talk page even once. [3]) Do any of you have thoughts about what, if anything, needs to happen here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, an article ban of approximately (or just over) the length of time this user usually spends between editing sessions, might deter the user from article space and give him or her more time to focus on and deal with the back log of messages on this talk page. I see this less as suggesting a punative action and more as a forthright method of alerting the user to this feedback on his or her edits/contributions. Edaham (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Edaham's comments above. As this user has never responded to any messages on their Talk page, I think that a block of over their length of time between "edits" should be applied. They are wasting a lot of editors time and are not prepared to engage and collaborate with the community with their silly changes. Perhaps then they might wake-up to the rest of the community. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Edaham:, @Neonorange:, @Animalparty:, @Gareth Griffith-Jones:, @David J Johnson:, @Iryna Harpy:, @Nick-D:, @Mlpearc:, @Mryan1451:, @Knulclunk: – I'm willing to file a report at AN/I, but over the years I've learned that it can be perilous to do so without some backing in place, so I'd love to get at least one more of the above pinged editors on board with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken, I will support a discussion at AN/I. However, I do not understand the suggestions above for an article ban. This user's work style, as shown by the litany of complaints on this talk page: failure to work in a collaborative fashion coupled with, on average, low quality edits. There needs to be earlier intervention in cases like this so that editors like Alexb102072 could make 2500 edits that help build an encyclopedia rather than 10,000 edits that mostly degrade articles. Neonorange(Phil) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Neonorange, an article ban is not the answer. A complete ban for an extended period to stop these totally unnecessary edits and a refusal to work in collaboration with editors, is what is required. David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in. A ban is overdue. Disembodied Soul (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just going by my experiences at AN/I, I believe the best first step is to ask for an admin to get Alexb's attention in some way, either with a strong warning or with a short attention-getting block. If Alexb responds, then we're on track and can (hopefully) talk with him about changing the way he edits. If he does not respond, then we can take the next step, which I would think is asking for an indef block for WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE -- but that's down the line, let's take this step by step. And @Alexb102072: you can short-circuit this process anytime you want to simply by responding to this thread and discussing the issues that other editors have with your editing. I urge you to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Just a quick glance at Alexb102072's editing history reminded me of the issues surrounding this user's contributions. I can't ascertain whether it's a case of WP:NOTHERE, or just WP:COMPETENCE, but I agree that it can only be addressed by means of a total ban, not just a topic ban. Please step in now, Alexb102072, as you've been urged or this is not going to end well for you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@All: I was disagreeing with an article ban as not helpful—and also with a site ban. There was not effective early intervention with this editor. And thus early steps must be taken. The road forward depends mainly on Alexb102072—on the other hand, this should not drag out indefinitely. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of information Alexb102072 has made eight unnecessary changes to articles on today's date. I think we can safely assume that they are taking no notice of this discussion or editors views or warnings. David J Johnson (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, it's appreciated that you're making a concerted effort to establish communications with the user but, as noted by David J Johnson, s/he is continuing their editing behaviour while disregarding what is now a lengthy thread on their own talk. The user isn't targeting any particular area of Wikipedia as the selection of articles is certainly random. I don't believe they understand that they are being WP:DE, but believes they're doing the right thing. It's definitely a COMPETENCE problem. No one is suggesting a total ban as some form of punitive measure. If they don't understand that they're not editing constructively by now, it isn't going to miraculously change. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Sorry for the late response, I have not been on for a few days. I support an indef block to gain users attention, if they do respond we can go from there. (FormallyMlpearc), - FlightTime (open channel) 12:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy, Mlpearc, this editor is obviously ignoring our attempts, but Wikipedia should have a policy of early intervention. It's just liberalism—failing to hold editors to minmum standards—and our failure to intervene early to bring problematic editors into collaboratio—before that editor is ten thousand edits down the wrong road. And now we are stuck. I support a short block, not an indefinite block. The length of the block should be increased until the editor communicates. If that does't succeed—and the problematic editing behavior doesn't improve—well, not here applies.
First step: as Beyond My Ken stated, call for an admin to do the necessary.
Neonorange (Phil) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not receiving the pings for this discussion, as I am not this user anymore. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I will update it for any upcoming pings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were a further eleven "contributions" from this person today. Further proof that they are ignoring editors concerns. Surely it is time for admin action against them, rather than this constant discussion and no action? Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the notification below, I have opened a discussion on AN/I along the lines that were discussed above. Let's see where that takes us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

[edit]

Please see WP:ENGAGE, WP:DISCUSSFAIL, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TEAMWORK. All these are about the importance of communication on this community-driven project. It seems that some of your contributions appear useful (minor copy-editing). Others appear less so, like the repeated overlinking (WP:OVERLINK). Unfortunately, technical blocks may become necessary when problematic edits persist without communication. We will have no choice but to ask for administrator assistance at WP:ANI if you cannot be reached and fail to reply. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 12:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the AN/I noticeboard

[edit]

@Alexb102072: In connection with the discussion held above on this page, I have opened a discussion on the AN/I noticeboard about your editing, and, especially, about your failure to communicate with other editors. You will find that discussion here. It is important that you go there and respond to the problems other editors are having with your editing, and with your failure to communicate. If you do not do so, it is very possible that you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia, possibly indefinitely. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, so, again, I urge you as strongly as possible to go to that thread and respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexb..., it is entirely possible that you will be blocked, for shorter or longer, for your utter failure to communicate with other editors about concerns with your edits. Your Wikipedia career is in the balance and you would do well to respond. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here if you wish to be unblocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and communication is required when your fellow editors repeatedly raise concerns about your editing to you. We need to know if you're seeing these concerns and if so, why you're ignoring them. --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexb102072&oldid=1139857028"