I have noticed that Indrek has choosed to spam my talkpage./Urklistre (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Please be advised that your constant removal of referenced content in the 16:10 article constitutes an edit war. Kindly take the time to actually read the references, after which you should be able to see that there are no subjective comments in that section, only statements taken directly from the references. If you have a problem with the references themselves, then say so, preferrably in the talk page so an amicable consensus can be reached. Your current behaviour is unconstructive and, if continued, will be reported. Indrek (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "16:10". Thank you. --Indrek (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has resumed on the 16:10 talk page, as a third editor has chimed in, following my request at WP:3O. It would thus be appreciated if you could take the time to read the new discussion and respond with your point of view. Thanks. Indrek (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your conduct during a content dispute. The thread is User:Urklistre.The discussion is about the topic Talk:16:10. Thank you. —Indrek (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits ([1] and [2]) had to be reverted, because a) they misrepresent the sources (none of the cited sources name matching HD formats used in televisions as a primary reason), and b) they constitute a WP:COPYVIO (direct copy&paste from [3]). Per WP:BRD, please explain your edits (preferrably on the article's talk page), rather than just adding them back in without explanation.
On a related note, when you revert a change, kindly make sure you don't revert other, unrelated changes in the process. Case in point, your latest revert at 16:10 ([4]) also reverted two of my intermediate edits tagging incomplete sections of the article. See WP:REVERT (particularly WP:UNDO) for more information on how to selectively revert changes. Indrek (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain how exactly the removal of a whole paragraph of valid, sourced content (a lot of which you've written yourself) under the excuse of "speculations" is reasonable? Indrek (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Hi, I see you've once again removed a whole paragraph of valid content without any explanation whatsoever. "Disputed see talk" is not sufficient explanation, especially when there's no dispute whatsoever on the talk page; even before the archival, the only active thread was you agreeing with your sockpuppet. Also note that your edit is contradicting existing consensus for the inclusion of that paragraph, which is all the more reason for you to provide a clear explanation of why you think it should be removed. Should you fail to do that and persist in removing the content without explanation, I'll have to report it as a continuation of your previous disruptive behaviour, and you may well find yourself blocked again from editing Wikipedia, possibly permanently. Indrek (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your continued disruptive behaviour. The thread is User:Urklistre. Thank you. —Indrek (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16:10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tablet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)