User talk:Mario Payne

Rickon Stark

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some 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. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to redirect which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickon Stark (2nd nomination) - Reverting against consensus is disruptive and can get you blocked!,

Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for pointing out the discussion. --Mario Payne (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why your first edit is to revert me ? ... Not sure what C.Fred thinks but I find it all rather bizarre .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to launch a Wiki-editing career and I opened my account a few days ago. For a few days I observed and watched Recent Changes and I couldn't help but think that the major removal from one article was a case of superblanking. Obviously it wasn't and it has been clear up proper. --Mario Payne (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rickon Stark shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C Fred, it is now resolved. See above. --Mario Payne (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mario Payne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Joss Ackland

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Joss Ackland, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Ryan

Meg Ryan did star in earlier films, her debut being Rich and Famous (1981 film). The year is in the article name. --Phil Copperman (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting because my contributions were being removed by "coded" editor skipping between accounts, so I stand by my actions although I am not now going to revert you as the information you have provided on the matter is accurate. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove other people's comments

I agree that this seems like a joke vote, but it's not a vote anyway, so it's likely admins will just ignore it. You shouldn't be removing comments from discussions, even if the comments seem like trolling. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Clovelly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mario Payne. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
Message added 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

De728631 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clovelly

I have, and had, no wish to get into an argument over such a trivial manner as the addition of a well known person to a village article, but it is considered bad manners to label another editor as a troll in an edit summary (or elsewhere) unless you have good evidence to the fact. You may want to look at my editing history over the last 10 years to see whether that is a likely epithet. It is also reasonable for a editor to use roll-back where an editor has already been advised that a particular edit is inappropriate and has been reverted and then restored again. This may be helpful guidance. There is an assumption that if the editor isn't responding to the message on the talk page, then they may not be here to improve Wikipedia. For the record, YouTube is not considered a reliable reference for facts on Wikipedia even though the fact may be well known. This issue was about the quality of the reference and not the substance of the fact. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't use that term again in that situation, and to confirm, you are not a troll. Sorry. --Mario Payne (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Can you please take an extra few seconds and see what you're reverting to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, can you explain? I am reverting contribs by confirmed sockpuppet. --Mario Payne (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sock accounts. Sometimes you are reverting to the "bad" sock version. [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Mmm. Well, there is no "good" sock version. --Mario Payne (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you're doing only half the reverts necessary which re-introduces bad edits. Another one. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm finished now. Please be aware that subject to WP:SOCKPUPPET regulations, ALL reverts are legit, naturally an editor is allowed to restore sockpuppet contributions, but upon doing so, they are on their own! Regards Neil. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. There were two sock accounts run by the same user - a a good hand and a bad hand. Some of your reverts of the good hand were reverting back in the disruptive edits of the bad hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I couldn't go back any further unless doing so "acceded" to the last sockpuppet's fun and games. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. As you are a fairly new editor are you aware that you can restore any prior version of the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No NeilN, I saw "current" marked against the sockpuppet, and I reverted, that was all. I am sorry if it did wrong. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of an article example you can compare different versions. If you click on a date, it will take you to the version on that date which you can save. There are easier ways to revert back to "older" old versions if you use something like Twinkle but that's the most basic way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll install twinkle. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a mistake. I am not a "sockpuppet account". What proof? --Mario Payne (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on editing patters, areas of edits, and technical data. You are welcome to post an unblock request below using the unblock template mentioned above and another CheckUser will review the evidence. Tiptoety ^talk 22:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]