Jump to content

User talk:222.252.32.116

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.252.32.116 (talk) at 07:53, 14 May 2016 (→Vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

May 2016

Please hold tagging pending comments from other admin. wiki users at the notice board [1].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: Why I have to? Just wait for their comments to decide whether they're OR or not. If they aren't, I'll remove it. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until when?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wait until then to decide whether the tag or the content should be removed. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What if their is no comments?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have to give further explanations (based on RS of course), or I will be forced to delete the contents. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have come to the point of you not been able to understand my explanations, no matter how many. Wait until after my explanations #10,..., #20, ...#100 ? I already said that I rest my case, which means I have given up dialoguing with you on this issue. You even pinned an OR tag on something that is obvious like (5 days>3 days).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is preferable to retag pending comments.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean: request for comments if a RS is OR, get an outcome, then not tag or tag. Not the other way around. You are the one who initiate the request for comments at the noticeboard page, then you should wait before tagging.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy reminder: watch out not to fall into 3RR.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my concerns again. It's not about which number of days is larger. I think you're the one who ignore the 3RR rule first by editing like that. You've reverted my tag thrice from 20:12 of yesterday until 06:04 of today (less than 24 hours).
  • I tagged it, not edited it. So there's no reason to wait for comments before tagging. You're just trying to get this forgotten so no one gonna know that you've conducted OR. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are very versed in the 3RR rule indeed.
  • I think you misuse the OR tag all along. It is strange that there are still no responses from anybody. Maybe it is because you have created a murky environment on this issue.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have addressed to your original research concerns pertaining to


You don't understand the meaning of "attributed" and "attributable" and apply indiscriminately the two different notions.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I find it difficult to dialogue with you due to your limitations in

  1. English: i.e. "eastern foot of the massif" and "east of the massif;
  2. American military terminology: i.e. "operational concept" (as in concept of operation), main action and secondary action, special modus operandi in joint operation (horizontal versus vertical chain of command);
  3. Wikipedia terminology: i.e. "attributed" and "attributable"; furthermore, you equate "attributed" to "verbatim quote" to single page only.

That is the reason why I only encounter edit warring solely with you, not with any body else.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You are using guerilla tactic in your editing amounting to vandalism.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page,

  1. illegitimately blanking pages, [2] here,[3] here, [4] here, [5] here, [6] here, [7] here, [8] here, [9] here, [10] here.
I've explained the reason there but you've just ignored it. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. inserting obvious nonsense into a page. [11] here,[12] here, [13] here, [14] here, [15] here, [16] here, [17] here.
Explain how it's nonsense? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses (113.190.172.153, 180.148.2.189, 113.190.165.78, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116)may also constitute vandalism.
Sorry but I don't even create them, it's just because I edit using too many devices. You must prove how it's abussive. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:222.252.32.116&oldid=720191137"