121.98.204.148

November 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nakamichi have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nakamichi was changed by 121.98.204.148 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955615 on 2021-11-29T00:39:49+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Agapanthus

Hello I noticed this edit and wanted to suggest something: Archives are never redundant. Even when the url is presently live archives are useful in the future when they may linkrot. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. An edit you recently made to Battenberg cake seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Battenberg cake, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from Mako001

Hello, 121.98.204.148. You have new messages at Mako001's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Gikondo Prison, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Tropicalkitty (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gikondo Prison. 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. Tropicalkitty (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't comment in the article. Use the article's talk page to comment. Tropicalkitty (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why did you not check the edit history and fix the dodgy edit from another anon IP editpore???? 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Rosalind Creasy

Your recent editing history at Rosalind Creasy 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.

Additionally, you should read MOS:URL, which gives Wikipedia's Manual of Style for external link sections and explicitly says to use descriptive text, not domain names, for the links there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Fiji political party template colours

I see you've removed colours from the Fijian political party templates. The only comment you have made about this appears to be on Template:People's Alliance (Fiji), "need to be careful with colours". Can you be more specific about what the problem is? It is normal for party templates such as this to use the party's colours.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The colours can make it look like a gaudy palette! And why have colours? They are more often not used which makes it look better. And just because it is "normal" does not mean it is good and proper! See also Template talk:Heavy metal music#Bad colour.

If colours are going to be use in the footer navboxes it should be at a far higher level in page hierarchy. Maybe based on userspace, or topic (science, history, engineering, etc). 121.98.204.148 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you take this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, but it sounds like you need to have that argument even higher up. In the meantime, there's a consensus for colours in party templates.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. Done my time on WP. Too many idiots as editors for my liking. Oh, um, not you of course! LOL. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that image from Gauntlet track

I'd use the thank function, but it doesn't work for IP edits. So you get a comment from me instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't need to thank me. It was just a minor edit 121.98.204.148 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Metamaterial antenna. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

How else do I alert some of the idiot editor of their silly mistakes? 121.98.204.148 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. — Manticore 23:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also please review WP:ES. Enjoy your redading. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating on that a bit: you will find that fewer of your edits get reverted if you explain what you are doing in your edit summary. Removing material from an article in particular nearly always needs a comment to explain why. This is particularly true when you choose to edit under an IP address rather than a user account. An IP user deleting material without explanation is going to be reverted by default by most other editors. --Srleffler (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a rediculoous stance. No edit summary is NOT a reason to revert. You should look at the edit itself. And BTW I have given up using a user acount. too much drama. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Phufffffff....... LOL!! It is the useless editors that make me get all steamed up and pissed off! 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm Constant314. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Space cloth 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. Constant314 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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 stop edit warring. Make a case and gather a consensus on the talk page. Constant314 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Space cloth. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

The edit in question is clearly not vandalism. An edit doesn't become "vandalism" just because you disagree with it. The anon is edit warring, but is not a vandal.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep! It is a shame some editors or useless. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm Heavy Water. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Waco, Texas that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Additionally, there is no problem with using three refs to support an event's occurence. Thanks. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Upgrading warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Perhaps a tad late, but I wanted to point out that this edit's summary is absolutely unacceptable. There is never a reason you should feel the need to call someone a "fool" in an edit summary, much less with the regularity that you do. Any further name calling, accusations, or other uncivil behavior will result in an extended block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

En masse removal of stub templates

Hello. Is there any consensus to remove the electrical connector stub template en masse? Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You fugging\g fool! I was being WP:BOLD because there is no consensus needed for a glaringly obvious edits. FFS! THis why I don't bother logging on. Too many fugwit editors. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite the blatant violation of one of our five pillars, en masse removals are not the way to go about this. Go to Categories for Discussion if you think a template is not useful. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not say the category was useless. It was the the content that was wrong. Please THINK before editing. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If content is wrong, you discuss it somewhere or edit the content itself instead of removing it everywhere you find it. En masse removals and then personally attacking the person who reverts you is not the way to go about it. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 13:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You'll find this less of a slog and have more success if you stay civil with other editors, and explain what you are doing. Being rude to people just makes them oppose you. I glanced at a couple of your edits and happened to agree with them. In both cases, the article was too long to count as a stub. I removed one of the tags another editor had restored. If you had focused on individual articles that are too long to count as stubs and explained what you are doing without insulting people, nobody would have reverted you. A mass deletion campaign by an IP editor who is throwing out insults tends to draw reverts, on the other hand.--Srleffler (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You have described one of the many with WP. Editors should focus on what is good for WP and not blindly revert because of rudeness FFS! 103.21.175.72 (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Got to get rid of some of the usel;ess ediotprs somehow. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

He-he. Irony. I am useless at typing. LOL. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Given that you continue to personally attack others in a thinly veiled way after already being cautioned, it's likely that any further violations of WP:NPA will result in an extended block. See this edit summary. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 13:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: Another comment like this one will result in an ANI report. Additionally, please ensure that your logged-out editing is in line with the standards established here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Note: There is no need to shout. Please do not repeat this sort sort of edit summary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Stub tag

Just thought I’d let you know that I’ve added a stub tag you removed recently, because I feel it still applies. The definition of a stub is “an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion.” Which applies to the article. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Stub templates are overused.121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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 Blade of the Northern Lights: Hey, could you pop over and see if 43.249.196.191 is the same editor evading the block. Another New Zealand IP (albeit on the other side of the country) edited an article to remove a stub tag on an electronics article that the blocked IP had previously removed. They have a history of similar electronics stub tag removal ([1]) and stub removal generally ([2], [3]). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yep it was me. IP address don't mean anything. Just a different ISP. When is WP going to be fixed!!! 121.98.204.148 (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Block evasion can result in a ban. If you want to Wikipedia fixed, please identify your logged-in account. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Could you check on the duckish behavior from 103.21.175.72? Same subject area, same bad attitude, same general area in NZ. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, let me know if any more show up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for your prompt action! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: You'll never guess who's back at it—this time at the original, 121.98.204.148. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the many problems that the community is not fixing is the rediculous ease of editing. Consequently a lot of time is wasted in rectifying vandalism. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems

The community thinks that "this is how it is so this is how it should stay." This is a common human trait and it should not transfer to WP editing. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours 36 seconds for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

February 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think that edit summaries like this one indicate previous blocks have been insufficient to prevent this IP editor's bad behavior. I think a six month block would be appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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 what was disruptive about my editing? Apart from my loss of control and calling an edit an idiot. I am pretty sure that if I logged on all of those edits would have remained. There are a huge number of reasons why the WP community is holding back improvements of WP. That is why I gave up logged in editing. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If you can't maintain control, Wikipedia might not be for you. I'm sorry. If you wish to resume editing, please refrain from uncivil behavior once your block expires. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I seriously don't see how calling another editor an idiot in a dispute is supposed to improve wikipedia. If you were logged in you would have been indef'd a long time ago.

  If you have a dispute or think something should be different, start a discussion on the talk page and @ them. You dont have to be overly nice and engage in a bunch of pleasantries, just don't be rude. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Australian and New Zealand television frequencies, you may be blocked from editing. Happily888 (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Van\dalism. YOu got to be joking. The article needs to be split. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a valid policy-based reason to split. Additionally, you didn't follow the procedure at WP:PROSPLIT, so if there were actually a valid reason to split that you had, you might have been able to explain it in the proposal on the talk page you should have created first. Also, please don't WP:EW as you have done previously, if you continue edit warring you might be blocked again. Happily888 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

---