User talk:~2026-45400-4: Difference between revisions

Line 43: Line 43:

== January 2026 ==

<div class=”user-block” style=”padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(–border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px”>[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style=”margin-left:45px”>You have been ”'[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]”’ from editing for a period of ”’48 hours”’ for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].</div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!– Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. –><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!– Template:uw-ewblock –>

<div class=”user-block” style=”padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(–border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px”>[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style=”margin-left:45px”>You have been ”'[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]”’ from editing for a period of ”’1 week”’ for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!– Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. –><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”’Ponyo”'</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”bons mots”</span>]]</sup> 19:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!– Template:uw-disruptblock –>

*I imagine this will be the last timed block, and any future disruption will lead to an [[WP:INDEF|indefite block]]. Your battleground behaviour needs to stop and you need to completely reassess your approach to dispute resolution on this project.– [[User:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”’Ponyo”'</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”bons mots”</span>]]</sup> 19:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I’m Reywas92. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Reywas92^Talk 16:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Reywas92, I eliminated paragraphs that missed a source and were written by the director of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, you have undone and reinstated them against Wikipedia most basic rules. As a matter of fact, your action seems biased, afterall why are you allowing an obvious editorial to be locked and not corrected?

Let me get this straight, I removed paragraphs that missed sources and were written by the company itself, you came around and reinstated them pushing for my ban. ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Reywas92^Talk 16:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you proposed deleting an article after another editor removed the tag. Please note that an article can only be PRODed once, and the tag can be removed by anyone for any reason. If you still think it should be deleted, I or someone else can nominate it for deletion on your behalf. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT the one that reverted the content back, I’m the one that removed the paragraphs that had no source and were written by the director of the company itself. I don’t see you on the talk page of the two other editors. ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have an opinion on the content. I only dropped by to let you know that an article can only be proposed for deletion once. I didn’t leave a message on the talk pages of the other editors because they’re not the ones who tried to restore a {{prod}} tag. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’ve noticed that you have repeatedly reinstated the PROD template to Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Please do note however, that PROD, as described by the policy linked, is one time only: you must not reinstate the the template if it has been removed for any reason, even if you disagree with it. Please feel free to discuss this on the article’s talk page if you have any further concerns about notability. If you want this article to be deleted still, your next option is WP:AFD, where you will have to initiate a discussion with the Wikipedia community to reach a consensus whether to keep or delete the article. (From a quick check right now, I do actually believe the article is in fact notable enough. Feel free to discuss this at the talk page though.)

In addition I would also like to make you aware of WP:3RR which you’ve now violated by repeatedly reinstating the PROD template. Please refrain from reinstating this any further, and instead, discuss any notability concerns over at the talk page. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot remove the PROD without a reason, so you come here complaining that I have tried to reinstate PROD BUT you don’t go on the other 2 editors to ask them why they undid my PROD without a reason. You Cannot undo a PROD without providing a reason. ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect.

If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article’s creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If an editor’s intent is unclear, an objection should be assumed.
— Wikipedia:Proposed deletion § Objecting

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you must provide a reason to remove a deletion tag , the deletion tag was removed in bad faith but you decided to ban me instead of discussing this on the other users talk page ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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:~2026-45400-4 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: ). Thank you. Reywas92^Talk 16:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have literally restored paragraphs that had no source, we written by the company itself (subject of the wiki page) and restored paragraphs that had the page subject’s website as the only source. The Director of the company wrote in the talk page that he was looking for ways to modify their website so to change the wikipedia page. I believe you’re biased and affiliated with RGGI as well. ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can’t find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was changed by ~2026-45400-4 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.895054 on 2026-01-21T17:38:51+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment