Jump to content

User talk:70.190.111.213

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.190.111.213 (talk) at 01:45, 3 April 2015 (→‎Portal:Current events issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without an account, your IP address (70.190.111.213) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Tutelary (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Portal:Current events/2015 January 7  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Jim1138: The edit summary was "yesterday already noted", which seems a good enough reason for deleting an item from the daily news page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apology for the erroneous message and undoing your edit. Obviously, you did leave an edit summary and I missed it. Thanks, @John of Reading: for pointing this out! I'll see if I can fix my blunder.
Again, I apologize! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor removed the ebola news. Fortunately, I didn't revert it. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slvofjstce the sock

Hello, I'm Slvofjstce. I apologize if I've flouted any protocol, as I'm a new user. As a matter of fact, my desire to keep Wikipedia's current events portal neutral and credible is what moved me to create an account yesterday. I'm responsible for five or six of the edits on the Tel Aviv stabbing attack news piece from 22 Jan. (though I believe there at least two other users who have suggested similar edits for similar reasons): 01:03, 13:25, 17:02, 21:17, and 02:22 (23 Jan.).

I understand that Wikipedia's protocols encourage dialogue between editors rather than back-and-forth edit wars. I'm hoping we can civilly reach an understanding about a fair headline for the tragic attack.
The headline currently reads: "A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crosses into Israel for the express purpose to stab people attacking over a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street" (49 words).
My last suggested headline reads: "A Palestinian man from the West Bank stabs up to a dozen Israelis in Tel Aviv before being apprehended" (19 words). Both link to the same article.
I'm not the first to suggest more neutral, accurate, and concise ways of rendering the headline.
The man's name, the adverb "illegally," the detail of him crossing into Israel, and his "express purpose" (never actually revealed in the article) contribute nothing to a headline's goal of providing basic, neutral information the reader can then choose to read more on. The detail of him "continu[ing] to indiscriminately stab people in the street" I also feel is superfluous to the headline which, in both cases, has already revealed he stabbed up to a dozen Israelis (not "over": that's patently contradicted by the article).
All told, I feel my suggestion provides all the same essential information in a concise, neutral way that the current headline does not achieve.
I hope we can productively engage on this and come to a reasonable agreement. I hope you can get back to me by 06:00GMT.Slvofjstce (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped we could speak before now. I've just gone ahead and added my revision. I hope we can either let the issue rest, or reason things forward from here. Peace. Slvofjstce (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Portal:Current events/2015 January 21, you may be blocked from editing. Slvofjstce (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slvofjstce (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Slvofjstce = a sockpuppet vandal who showed up for just 8 days and then evaporated into whatever next new IP address he will sock under - look at his editing history if you doubt this ([1]) - and he placed this warning on my talk page - a sock placed it here and then evaporated - this is my IP address , how can i ever remove this bogus warning from my page - he on the other hand just evaported to whatever new sock he has created--70.190.111.213 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, 70! Looks like you're online. Would you be willing to discuss Slvofjstce's content dispute and/or the ANI investigation about it? I've taken a look through your contribs, and it looks like you're a great asset to WP; however, I think there are a few misunderstandings about the user conduct guidelines which need to be worked out. Best, FourViolas (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error

Sorry about that! But my error just now at Portal:Current events/2015 January 12 would not have happened if you'd used an edit summary. Also, when reviewing the list of recent Portal edits I haven't yet learned to recognise your IP address. I second the suggestion, further up this page, that you register with a named account. Then I could easily skip past your edits, knowing that they need no review. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars

My removal of the Oscars was not unwarranted, I listed perfectly good reasons for the removal and my rationale does meet wikipedia standards. For one, it isn't January 15 in Los Angeles Right now, two, it hasn't happened yet, and three, the the even itself is notable but it is unnecessary to list that it will happen, when it does happen then of course, add it. All you have to do is wait until the oscar announcements actually happen and then put them up, patience is a virtue, embrace it. - SantiLak (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
you a bot right? - or you are the vandal that is socking for the 76 ip anon which is it cause that page you say i am a disruptor for has a vandal who keeps adding something that multiple editors removed as failing notabi9lity - thus since your acct was just created (July 2014 = just 6 monuths) i am almost sure you are just the same guy and a sock!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Portal:Current events/2015 January 25. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


not exactly sure what you are saying - i had a typo where i left out the letter "n" and now you are threatening me with some type of action over a typo???--70.190.111.213 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also if i am not mistaken it is considered a violation of wiki rules to call someone a vandal - a typo most certainly does not rise to wilfull destruction of wiki thus the mirror seems now to fall on you--70.190.111.213 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with 70.190.111.213 here—the edit did look like a test in the blinkered view of Huggle (it replaced real words with "wis", which is the kind of thing new users often do when getting used to editing), but was nevertheless on the way to improving the entry. This WP:WikiGnome work is so helpful that I'd like to think 70.190.111.213 is the kind of good-faith editor who would be willing to discuss the ANI incident, in the interest of not being blocked from making good edits like this.
(Also, please WP:AAGF and don't violate WP:ATWV or WP:DBQ yourself.) FourViolas (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid question

Re: your question. I was blocked for reverting a few edits by an anti-Semitic far-left European propagandist who calls himself "Zero0000." He is essentially a single-purpose account whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to demonize Israel, but because he is an administrator he can get away with pretty much anything. I also try to revert edits by other anti-Semites like User:Nishidani, User:RolandR, User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Huldra, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Sean.hoyland, User:Carolmooredc, and several other Israelophobic European/Muslim propagandists. For this reason, the corrupt anti-Semitic Wikipedia administration (which is also anti-Israel) has declared me "enemy of the state": troll, vandal, disruptive sock, and any other nonsensical Wikipedia terminology they can come up with, with no proof for any of these accusations, of course. And they also love to slander me by making false accusations of "they are racist, often contain libelous or derogatory statements as well as other obscenities." They delete all my edits purposefully so people can't see they are lying through their teeth about me, or they are actually retarded and believe accusing anti-Semites of anti-Semitism is racist and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.253.84 (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not that i believe you but i will remember your statements which is all you can expect.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is JarlaxleArtemis. He's graduated from being a Dungeons and Dragons and Harry Potter fanatic to being an alleged pro-Israel activist (actually, he's just picked a cause-of-the-day which allows him to indulge his true passion of posting anonymous hate messages and death threats to anyone who disagrees with him. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i will remember your statements which is all you can expect--70.190.111.213 (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NawlinWiki: Just to clarify, you mean that 124.123.253.84 is a JA sock, not 70.190.111.213? If so, should I tag his talk page with {{IPsock|JarlaxleArtemis}}? FourViolas (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol--70.190.111.213 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean that 124.123.253.84 is Jarlaxle. Not much point tagging, though - it's an open proxy, which is pretty much exclusively what Jarlaxle uses these days. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal talk:Current events/2015 January 29

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —George8211 / T 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing multiple edits

I see that you just made 20 consecutive "undo" edits at Terry Carter. This clutters the page history. Please take a look at Help:Reverting#Manual_reverting for a better way to re-instate an earlier version of a page. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring at Terry Carter and Portal:Current events/2015 January 29. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


best to have addressed this at some point - this block was rediculously uncalled for - a lazy ADMIN who did not look over the history of what occured essessially blocked me for adding a story which was well supported by citation at the time - a UPI citation (Terry Carter#Death confusion Suge Knight kills 'close friend' Terry Carter in hit-and-run) - but was later retracted - as soon as i knew there had been a retraction i also wished to remove the false content - it is as if the ADMIN somehow thinks that i can tell the future that the supporting citation would later be retracted - I will state clearly I have no prescient powers at crystal ball reading!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of a new day

Ah, Dawn. I see you have been trying to add content and I appreciate that, as does everyone. However, the style of the content you have been trying to push – the one which you have reverted me twice for – does not belong in the article. I have checked the source and verified everything you added but it is a blatant copy/paste with only superficial modifications, not a thorough and comprehensive paraphrase and copyedit (which I did). So for the interest of the readers, @Drbogdan: (who happened to agree with me) and the community in general, leave my contributions as they are, they look better than your initial additions. Parcly Taxel 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have paraphrased and properly cited any direct quotation--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Parcly Taxel is saying you violated copyright. This can get a lot of people into a lot of trouble. Cut it out. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/2015 February 23 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.
diffs: Feb 23 #1 Jan 27 #1 Feb 23 #2 Feb 23 #3 Jan 27 #2 FourViolas (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


and again a sock enters my page - now i wonder if you are just that same sock again as before - now just using Shhhhwwww!! as one of your many endless rotating IPs--70.190.111.213 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and you know what i am sure you are just the same sock - how do i know this time? - the three revert should have been evenly applied to the other guy who just dug up an article from January to change - but did you apply a three revert to their talk page? - no you did not - why? - cause you are just the same person socking!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Once again, I must request that you open a WP:SPI if you believe you have evidence of sockpuppetry. It must be stressful for you to believe that some enemy editor is abusing multiple accounts against you, and a SPI would prove you don't have to worry about that. In the meantime, please respect the WP:EW and WP:NOTVAND policies. FourViolas (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a courtesy note: I don't think the WP:Notability policy says quite what you think it does. It details when it is and is not permissible for Wikipedia to have an article on a particular subject (subject must have in-depth coverage in an independent RS); it says nothing about when articles related to current events should be included in the Current Events portal. More-relevant guidelines may be found at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works. FourViolas (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for dealing with vandals

About this:

WP:Vandalism#For beginners has the basics. Good principles are to keep WP:Cool, refrain from personal attacks (they just give the vandal a weapon to use against you), and use the vandalism templates to make sure you aren't saying anything inappropriate. Standard practice in this case would be something like this:

  • Revert with edit summary "unsourced change" or "contradicted by source"
  • Drop {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or (because they just had a block expire for similar behavior) {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} on their talk page.
  • If they come back, be careful about edit warring. Use the article talk page ask if they have a source for their change. (This also proves that you're trying to work things out.) Try not to worry about how many people might see the "wrong version"; it's not the end of the world, and it's not worth making yourself upset.

If they keep up this kind of thing and people keep warning them, it's easy for admins to see when a block is needed. If they behave badly after a level-4 warning, you can file a report at WP:AIV. FourViolas (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you' re right

yes, it was a double murder-suicide. my mistake. But I would change to "shoots dead", because you can also "shoot and wound" someone (and that makes a huge difference, especially to the victims) Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski[reply]

March 2015

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Alain Bernard, you may be blocked from editing. Little Professor (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


i have made no disruptive edits - originally the web page devoted to the accident listed him as dead - as soon as that got removed i also removed his death from his page--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and on the other hand he was part of the cast that got killed - by removing that you are the vandal--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2015 in the United States with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


final warning??? i have been battling bias agenda addtions on wiki for 5 years - what i cannot understand is why multiple ADMINs have not come down in my defence against these AGENDA adding editors whose only purpose is to push their personal agenda's as if it were some useful part of telling history as part of an entity that is an encyclopedia - each day i waste endless hours on these vandals and thus get little time to add new useful content myself - what a true waste of productivity - the item that you mention just concerns the latest sock puppet vandal User:Cubby666 - look at his editing history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Cubby666) this latest sockpuppet version began just 18 months ago on wiki and each and every one of his edits is just to add AGENDA bias pushing - most certainly he is just a permenantly blocked vandal who has created endless new IP addresses and accounts --70.190.111.213 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions

I don't plan to post to your talk page again, since your non-responsiveness implies you may not want me to. However, I think you need to be aware of the ArbCom-approved policy about accusing other users of serious wrongdoing without going to the relevant forums and providing evidence. Your repeated accusations of sockpuppetry ([2] [3][4] [5] [6]) seem to be in violation of this policy, as you never backed up your allegations with WP:SPI discussions despite my suggestions ([7] [8]).

I suggest you take a hard look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS nos. 4, 5, and 6 and decide if you need to change anything about your interactions with other editors. (Per #6, for example, it's hardly evidence in your favor that Slvofjstce gave up on WP after you stonewalled the AN/I discussion they started about you.) I wish you all the best for a long, peaceful, and good-faith WP career. FourViolas (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protest notability

You recently removed an item from the Current Events page about the anti-nuclear energy protests in Taiwan, citing the percentage of people involved in the event as not meeting notability. link to removal of Taiwan protests item

You cited a percentage of 0.2% of the total population of Taiwan as being too low to be notable. In perspective, 0.2% of the US population is approximately 650,000 people. You don't think that an organized protest of that size - largely in the nation's capital, as is happening in Taiwan - would be of significance?

Second, if 0.2% is too small to warrant inclusion on the CE page, the question naturally becomes: what percentage of a nation's population must participate in a public protest in order to be notable? As a frame of reference, you may wish to keep in mind the impact of recent protests across the world. Example, Blaise Compaoré stepped down from his 27-year rule as President of Burkina Faso last October following protests from what news reports said were "tens of thousands" of people in his country, which has a total population of just under 17.5 million.

Third, it's a bit fallacious to calculate the percentage of the number of protestors against a country's total population to begin with, since total population includes children, extremely elderly, and those who are otherwise impaired from participating in a public protest of this nature. Does it make sense to assess a movement's popularity by basing it against a data sample which it could never be 100% of?Farolif (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where to begin? all rubbish ...
  • using a peronal testamonial of a third world african location as a comparision to Tawain one of the most techological industrial is a laughable useless arguement = personal testamonials dont prove anything thus your citation of some OTHER situation is worthless (WP:OTHERSTUFF)
  • you have also said something COULD happen = WP:CRYSTAL
  • third you say that only some of the populace could show up - what percentage would show up if a government raised its taxes to 1 million dollars a second per citizen - yep thats right almost all of them or say 94% - if the problem were bad enough the base number that would show up could be very high - BUT lets say for agruement that the maximum that could show up is only 50% this leads to an available percent now of just double = 0.4% instead of 0.2% = laughable you are trying to make such an arguement--70.190.111.213 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

adressed there--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at 2015 in the United States 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.

dude can you please read the ani discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-user_-_disruptive_editing_on_Current_Events--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and dude I dont own anything! but unlike you I spend hours each and every day on the article you have just shown up to edit with ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE IN PREVIOUSLY EDITING - THUS YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS NOTBALE IN THAT ARTICLE--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current events removals

Good day. I see you are currently involved in an ANI discussion, so I'll keep this short. I think your contributions are usually positive. You're spending a lot of your time and energy on Wikipedia, and this is clearly a project that matters to you.

You are however very insistent on the removal of entries from the Current Events portal, especially in relation to protests. You also mention a variety of policies in your edit summaries, some of which do not always apply. In particular, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY assume that the edit was made in bad faith. As for WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CRYSTAL, the Current Events portal has traditionally been more relaxed compared to articles or ITN. Entries that are well sourced and non trivial are usually accepted.

Would it be possible for you to allow some of these entries to stay, or at least discuss before removing them?

Thanks, and keep up the good work :) Isa (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events/2015 March 23

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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.Dan Koehl (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am doing my best to pair the item down--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please: 1. politely invite the other part to discuss at the talk page. 2. Once there. try to resolve the edit war, and find a neutral way to describe the issue. Good luck! Dan Koehl (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

The revert was on a blocked user who changes IPs per wp:deny. WP:Sock puppetry policy: "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust." I don't mind you restoring the edit. You might find the IP's link additions rather arbitrary. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alot of the "Michigan kid"'s (as the admin Arthur calls him) edits dont help but the one in question did in my opinion--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the revert was wp:deny. Whether or not it helps... I do welcome and thank you for your restoration. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out number

From what I learned in class, spelling out a number of no more than two words, like twenty-six or ninety-nine or one hundred, is okay. --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

somewhere in wiki there is a usage that gives the exact answer, I was hoping you would refute me with that wiki link - now all we have is your concept versus mine and neither is useful as a final answer--70.190.111.213 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NUMERAL and WP:NUMNOTES--70.190.111.213 (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015, continued

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Regional effects of global warming, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no idea what you are talking about this was originally done by an ADMIN i was only doing the same--70.190.111.213 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regional_effects_of_global_warming&diff=573109709&oldid=573098669

--70.190.111.213 (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future when you undo/revert edits by the sock in question (or any) sock, please use [[WP:Block evasion]] or some such explanation in the edit summary to help avoid such problems. Thanks for your efforts, Vsmith (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Stop icon This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Portal:Current events/2015 March 31. Moosehadley 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea what you are talking about - i have explained that edit - the blocked editor made what appears to me to be a constructive addition - was this warning sent from some kind of automated bot?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events issues

I have to say, when you were hauled before ANI a while back I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt as some of your edits looked solid to me. But your recent behavior an the Current event portal, where you are insisting on your own version of an entry over a superior version of it from another editor (not me) has brought me around to the other viewpoint. You definitely don't seem to want work with others. If that doesn't change, I can't imagine this is going to work out well for you. --IJBall (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have no fking idea what the hell you are talking about - the version i see is almost exactly your version - you think that you could be patient and just wait till i finished?!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for proving my point. Your original concern was that the California water rationing entry belongs in the April 1 entry. Fair enough. But rather than move the entry from April 2 to April 1, you went back to your version, which wasn't as good as the April 2 version (including stripping out the subheading). If this were the only example of this, it wouldn't be a big deal. But this appears to be the consistent pattern to your editing at the Current events Portal, going back to before the ANI filing against you. It would appear that that development did not produce any self-assessment of your editing habits, as your current Talk page messages attest to. Consider this my last comment from me on this... But my original point remains: by not working cooperatively with others, being hostile, and taking a WP:OWN approach – and, clearly, I'm not the only editor who feels this way about your contributions – this is not likely to work out well. --IJBall (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do you have some kind of mental defect? what part of my previous statement "you think that you could be patient and just wait till i finished" is so hard for you to understand?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.190.111.213&oldid=654713036"