User talk:Hopelesswiki

Hi Hopelesswiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

Canberra-class landing helicopter dock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Advertiser

University of Liverpool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. An edit that you recently made to Beaune Altarpiece seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ——SN54129 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 30 Rockefeller Plaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please stop making pointless changes to white space and changing valid citation param names, as you did at

I have undone edits of yours to an additional eleven articles from the past day alone, all of which have the same problems as indicated above, in addition to pointless capitalization. I know exactly who you are, and if you don’t stop now, you risk being indefinitely blocked as a

WP:SOCK and banned from editing under any IP or userid. Mathglot (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Ruhollah Khomeini 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you complained at my talk page, I thought you deserved a fuller explanation of why these edits of yours are not okay. There’s a long list, so to save having to type it all out again, you can find it here: User talk:129.94.8.198#Disruptive pattern of edits. The fact that you edit war to enforce your preference only makes it worse. Feel free to ask questions if there is anything you do not understand. Mathglot (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1]. Thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a report at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopelesswiki, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

czar 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]