User talk:MrsCaptcha

<<TYPE BELOW>>

Salsa

Hi. "To drop salsa on one's chimney"... Is that a saying? What does it mean? I am asking seriously as I'm not a native speaker of English. Thanks in advance for the reply. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to my talkpage. Please leave me a message if you would like to point out something important to my notice. But no automated messages, please. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Oh dear, I have been away since a while and just saw this. When is the next opportunity to vote now open? MrsCaptcha (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsCaptcha. This edit by you added comments to the talk page of the article

I have a good reason to report you for harassment now as well, FKC. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the article's talk page with nonsense. It won't win you friends. I was quite within my rights to remove your comment, and even if other editors don't agree me on this, they will understand why I did it. Regarding your comment in that removed post about suing me, see

talk) 04:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

So you clearly don't understand sarcasm, and you also think I have nothing better to do other than suing an anonymous nickname on Wikipedia. That itself speaks volumes. Please stop wasting my time. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting my time by posting irrelevant nonsense and babble on article talk pages. I'll accept your explanation that you weren't serious about suing me, but do remember

talk) 04:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Calling people's comments nonsense is offensive. Please be civil. Your own conduct and behaviour is reflecting and being exposed here. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't offensive, it was pointing out reality. Your comments were irrelevant babble, with no relation to improving the article - hence nonsense. Now, do you have any further interest in discussing the content of

talk) 04:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You were the one who began the argument. I was trying to discuss improvements in the article in the first place, and you took the discussion on to an ugly turn. I even apologised to you if my edit summary had sounded rude to you. It was my general misanthropic tone, but you took it to an ugly turn. Not fair. We can work on this in a civil way if you choose to cooperate as well. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I repeat: attacking people's comments as "irrelevant babble" and "nonsense" is not in accordance to Wikipedia's civil policy. Nor is it to try to mimic a user's comments elsewhere, thinking they are not going to get you. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have known perfectly well that you were being rude in your edit summary.

talk) 04:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. You could have responded with another edit summary there, and I would have clarified, which I will in my coming edit summaries. I'm willing to put this aside if you are willing to put away taking every thing so personally. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsCaptcha. 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

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]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sushant Singh Rajput. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

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. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though there is some bias at play here. I do not think there is anything disruptive about my edits whatsoever. All the edits included citations from the news, and that is how editing is to be done on Wikipedia. MrsCaptcha (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Personal attack on whom? Please enlighten me. MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsCaptcha. Please engage on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, the changes you want to make have already been discussed on the talk page to the point that there is a FAQ there. These are also not recent news but an ongoing sequence of events since his death months ago. I will not revert your edit anymore, although I am quite sure someone else will once they notice it. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I did read the talkpage discussion but the consensus does not appear to be in line with the edit policies. The news being a month old does not merit that it be deleted or not included in the article, if not more. I will post on the talkpage. Thank you for stating that you will not revert my edits any more. MrsCaptcha (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sushant Singh Rajput; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sushant Singh Rajput. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Threats by User:MrsCaptcha. Thank you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sushant Singh Rajput and Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput) for making threats towards other editors to have a chilling effect.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This type of comment is unacceptable. If you have grievances with the article or its content, you can address them without making threats to create a chilling effect on the article or the talk page. This is a collaborative environment where we all must be civil with each other. I have blocked you from that article and its talk page until you are able to contribute without making such comments. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

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 ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you made at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput is completely unacceptable, and it deeply concerns me that your followups on User talk:Blablubbs don't demonstrate any understanding of why. I have blocked you indefinitely, because such an attitude is not conducive to editing anywhere on the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block Your behavior is beyond the Pale. Watching people? Really? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the block. That message was absolutely unacceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:03, 20 October 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/MrsCaptcha, 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.

— Newslinger talk 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]