User talk:180.150.114.118

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 180.150.114.118, has made edits that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Nyook. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Trump travel ban, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nyook ✉ 12:05, 23 January 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.

Information icon Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Adelaide Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:38, 23 January 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.

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Adelaide Airport. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:09, 24 January 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.

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 Oxford Street, 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. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:46, 25 January 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.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dubai Mall. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should this source before you revert.

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/zip-line-thrills-at-dubai-mall-1.72071 180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You stop talking nonsense. I've made changes. And I showed you a source. Now you stop being disruptive.180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 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 see WP:3RR, WP:RS, WP:YOUTUBE, and I will shortly post some more links to guide you, if you wish to become a productive editor on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that your current attitude and behaviour will lead to a block. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude????? Hah. Tell yourself that. I also removed Youtube a while ago now. I noticed that another editor has removed you complaint too 180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as done at Oxford Street.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:26, 25 January 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.
The Dubai mall article was not vandalised. The information is in the sources. It would be nice if you learnt to read. This is the source:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/zip-line-thrills-at-dubai-mall-1.72071

180.150.114.118 (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by the the edit warring report you violated the 3 revert rule. This rule says that you cannot make more than 3 reverts of the same or different content to a page in 24 hours. You broke this and this was the main reason for your 1 week block. Bold editing is encouraged on Wikipedia, but continuing to reinstate the changes that were reverted is edit warring. You edit warred on pages such as The Dubai Mall and Adelaide Airport, by making multiple reverts. Also the xline does not go from The Dubai Mall, it goes from Dubai Marina Mall. I understand the confusion, however, edit warring is still not appropriate even if you think you are correct. Discussion on the talk page would have cleared up these issues before it got to edit warring. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. However, once again, The source says Dubai mall. I will put the source here again. Thanks. Cheers. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/zip-line-thrills-at-dubai-mall-1.72071

180.150.114.118 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy journalism. It links to this, and the citation you added to one of the articles also clearly said Dubai Marina Mall. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the following article says Dubai Mall and not Dubai Marina Mall.. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/zip-line-thrills-at-dubai-mall-1.72071 Thank you.180.150.114.118 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oxford Street. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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. You have been warned multiple times. Please don't start again, or you will end up blocked for longer for next time. Oxford Street does not run into Bayswater Road; it ends at Marble Arch. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It ends there and it becomes Bayswater road.180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.... and then it becomes Holland Park Avenue, then Shepherd's Bush Green, then splits to Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road .... how far do you want to go? Because just about anybody has an opinion on what's important for a route, we defer to what the best possible sources of information tell us, which in this case (in my view) are the London Encyclopedia and the Survey of London. Others may have views on what sources to use, but in a straight argument between something cited in those two works against something just added by a random editor "because it sounds right", the sourced material wins. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I did put a source. As for how far I want to go, lets stop at Bayswater Road because that is the 'immediate neighbour'.180.150.114.118 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:25, 2 February 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.
Try to learn the meaning of vandalism first. Then look at yourself. Ta. 180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laterthanyouthink: I have to agree with 180.150.114.118 here - if he can justify his edits, no matter how much you might disagree with the viewpoint or the motive, it isn't vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:29, 2 February 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.
So are you also going to block the other person? He is being disruptive too. Double standards!180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing this decision. It appears to be a senseless decision. I have verified the information and it is correct. I'd like the matter to be reviewed by other editors/admins. And not " Laterthanyouthink " or " NinjaRobotPirate". 180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW. It's not relevant whether or not your information is correct for the purpose of this block review, only whether or not you violated WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 13:49, 2 February 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.

So why aren't you blocking the other editor? His name is " Laterthanyouthink" and has broken the rule too180.150.114.118 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to your unblock request. WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Only your actions are relevant here. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Yamla. The appeal aside, how do I ask Wikipedia to block the above mentioned person? 180.150.114.118 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here's my take on it. As you can see from the contributions history, I have made the majority of contributions to Oxford Street, written the majority of the prose, and nominated the article for good article status. This included digging through various history books to look at its former role as a gallows site, the rise of retail outlets in the 19th century, various listed buildings, traffic problems, dodgy street trading ... the whole shebang. So you can see why I might take a dim view of somebody adding what I consider to be relevantly trivial and inconsequential detail to the grand scheme of things, and then arguing about it with insults. As you can see from the ownership of articles policy, while I can't (and won't) dictate how the article is improved further by executive fiat, reversion of good faith edits to preserve the existing quality of the article is permitted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do other articles on roads show other details then?180.150.114.118 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I'm not talking about other roads, I'm trying to explain what you need to understand to get unblocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie180.150.114.118 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 and IP person: Let me just clarify a few things. Firstly, I did not request the block - I issued warnings via Twinkle for disruptive editing only. I reverted twice, which does not break the 3RR rule, and gave good reasons for doing so. Previous to this user's earlier block, they were insistent and argumentative about their changes on a number of changes to other articles, despite my attempts to discuss and take it to the talk page. As soon as they were unblocked, they immediately reinstated their incorrect change to Dubai Mall, about a zip-line that exists at Dubai Marina Mall, not Dubai Mall - according to all sources, including the zip-line operators, except the one obviously incorrect source quoted by IP user (which I mentioned above some time ago). Then returned to insisting that Oxford Street links to Bayswater Road, which it doesn't. The fact that Marble Arch leads on to Bayswater Road is relatively trivial and not worthy of a mention in the lead (see WP:LEAD & WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). This user is not an experienced editor and appears unwilling to learn the rules and guidelines here (available in the Welcome panel which I posted at the top of their page). I was trying to help them to avoid a block and learn some of the rules. I see that Ritchie has now added some further detail in the second paragraph showing progression to Bayswater Road, which I hope will satisfy this user and be the end of the matter. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:180.150.114.118&oldid=1082455429"