User talk:69.131.5.149

April 2023

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kingdom of Strathclyde, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2023 (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.

Hi 69.131.5.149! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Kingdom of Strathclyde several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Kingdom of Strathclyde, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Strathclyde 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; read about 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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:69.131.5.149 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: ). Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you review content of disputed edits before you block people or do you just side with the established wiki site thugs? Or are your decisions based on who violated the rules first? While I have your attention please explain how these personas can delete peoples edits after edits for so called unsourced information when the entire mass of every article written on Wikipedia is not directly sourced? There should be a reference number after every sentence directing the reader to where the information is coming from. Now to the issue at hand, one of the aforementioned thugs stated that his issue with my edit was that is was “superfluous”. Which means that he agrees with the historical accuracy of the addition of the single word. What does the inclusion of this word do? It gives the reader a broader depth of understanding of the situation then what was previously written. Lastly with reference to labeling these site watchers thugs, it’s what they are. These so called page watch dogs will revert any edit not made by one their associates. In conclusion I ardently object to being blocked and my edit being reverted. Again I ask do you look at the content or simply who broke what rule? And what about those who instigate these situations time and time again. Take a look at the Wikipedia page history in question, or any page for that matter. 69.131.5.149 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2023 (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 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.