User talk:101.189.88.33

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

January 2019[edit]

Do not add unsourced peaks per WP:V. You will be reverted. Thank you. Ss112 06:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Did you have to revert my edits without making the necessary changes? You reverted my edits and then made the same edit I made, the only difference is that you added a source. I saw you did the same thing to another user a while back. There was no need to revert my edit like that. All you had to do was add a source or tell me, if you wanted to, that my edit had no source and that it needs one. Thank you. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, they really do and they should if you can't be bothered to find a source to back up what you're adding. "The only difference is that you added a source". Uh, yes. If you didn't know already, the basis of Wikipedia is verifiability with sources. Click on that blue link right there and read it. Don't edit if you can't provide a source for what you're adding. Or rather, you can, but you will be (and should be) reverted by most other editors if you don't provide a source, hence why I reverted you. So yes, there was a need to do it because you didn't source your edit. You can argue about it all you like, but you're in the wrong. I presume you're not a newbie here considering you know how to tag users, so you should already know all of what I've just said (and should know better). Thank you, goodbye. Ss112 07:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Petty, petty, petty. It's clear my "incorrect edits" personally affected you that you had to literally click "undo", revert it to your version and then make the same edit again with a source. How petty is that? It's not the first time I've seen you behave like this. I'm not going to argue about this, I only wanted to point out how petty your behaviour was. Anyway, next time I shall remember to add a source. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Oh, you poor inexperienced editor—thinking everybody clicks "undo" like you don't know what rollback is. "Not the first time", hey? Are you block evading? Please do tell me the other accounts you've used so I can report you then. I repeat: Don't make unsourced edits and you won't be reverted. Call it petty if you like, but I'll revert you every time I see you make an unsourced edit because you should be reverted for adding unsourced content. If you don't like it, then don't edit. But I wouldn't be calling anybody "petty" when every one of your replies here has been exactly that. Also, if you don't want to argue, then maybe you should stop replying. You must feel awfully slighted to have to reply here to a warning to not add unsourced content. Sounds pretty damn petty to me, just like your edit summary. I'm sure I can expect another ping in a few minutes despite your wanting to "not argue". I recognise your terrible attitude now. Do go on your merry way, and be sure not to add any unsourced information now, lest I need to report you for adding unsourced content :) Ss112 08:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: What is your problem? You said, "goodbye" yet you're still here replying because it's clear you've been offended. Let it go for goodness sake. The fact that you can't let this go, despite being a registered editor only shows the type of mentality you possess. Why would I not reply? You're spamming my talk page with your replies. What don't you understand? There was no need to click "undo", hence the reason why I called you petty. Just get out of my talk page, you petty person. :) (101.189.88.33 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Lmao, you're still going. How much longer you going to keep this up? So much for not wanting to argue—it's clear you love arguing because you are petty. Yet again, you are showing what a hypocrite you are by calling me all the exact same characteristics you're demonstrating by continuing to reply. Pretty sure the one complaining at my initial warning and revert and crying about it is the one who's been "offended". I don't see what I have to be offended by—you're a nobody IP editor and your attempts at comebacks are hilarious. My saying "goodbye" was an attempt to get you to shut up, not an honest farewell, but it's clear you think you're going to get the last word in despite having no presence on this site whatsoever because you change IP addresses every time you edit. I don't even know why you bother editing then, to be quite honest. And no, I don't have to "vacate" your talk page. You are on a shared IP address, it's not your talk page at all. Learn what you're talking about before claiming something you think is true, it makes you look even worse than you already do :) Ss112 09:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more adjectives or descriptions you want to throw at me in your tantrum? "Petty", "offended", "the kind of mentality you possess"...truly, it's entertaining watching you come back to try to prove you're somehow superior or in the right despite hiding behind anonymity like an Internet troll does. Ss112 09:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Wow, that didn't take long. You just revealed to me that you will stoop so low to post replies that feature borderline personal attacks. Comebacks? No, I told you get out of my talk page. Since when was that a comeback? Pick up a dictionary if you don't know what "comeback" means. It doesn't matter if it's a shared IP address because at this current moment I'm using it. Well it's clear to me now, not every registered user on Wikipedia behaves like a respectful registered user. You could have stopped after I posted my comment that ended with "Anyway, next time I shall remember to add a source" but you didn't. Whatever you said to me means nothing because I'm not the registered user here on Wikipedia. You clearly have a mentality where you have to continue to argue until you feel like you won. Pathetic. Also, I'm not block evading. Is that what you claim every time you come across someone you disagree with? Don't you have editing to do than to engage in an argument that you clearly find "petty"? Yes, I'm trolling you and you took the bait. Look who's laughing now. :) (101.189.88.33 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Your replies constitute comebacks, genius. Honestly. You talk about me "stooping so low" then make a hilariously pathetic admission that you're "trolling" me. In that ridiculous message you at turns try to moralise then finish up by saying you're "trolling"—that's ridiculously inconsistent and nonsensical, and reads like you think I offered you an opportunity to one-up me because I called you a troll and you took it. You're a pretty inept troll then. I think we've deduced that you just have a pathological need for attention and a very sad, sad life. Goodbye self-admitted "troll", reporting you now. Ss112 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I knew you'd do that. You can't let this go because you're clearly offended. So offended that you have to report me because that's the only thing that you can do. You really can't deal with this that you have to find a way to stop me. You know? None of this would have happened if you just behaved like a proper editor and refrained from engaging. Trolling isn't what I normally do, this was an exception. Honestly after I finished my comment with "Anyway, next time I shall remember to add a source" I thought you would genuinely leave. That clearly was not the case. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@Ss112: Maybe next time don't engage in discussions like this. If you really weren't interested then you would have stopped a long time ago. Now I'm off to do some real editing. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@Ss112: Can you stop stalking me? Have a careful look at my edits before claiming that they are unsourced. Why are you continuing to harass me after I said I'm done with this discussion? Let it go. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • @ 101.189.88.33 & Ss112 stop it. I have actually read most of this back and forth, which wasted several minutes of my life. Do not add anything that is not obviously uncontroversial w/o a reference. Do not stalk one another. Do not interact with each other unless you absolutely must. If you think something posted by the other needs reverting, ask for a 2nd opinion unless it's obviously disruptive. Try to assume good faith in one another. I am not seeing any evidence that suggests NOTHERE. I am seeing evidence of less than constructive behavior in this discussion... from both of you. Now stop sniping at each other and go find an article to improve (preferably not the same page). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (101.189.88.33) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. 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.

Again, welcome! NØ 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:101.189.88.33&oldid=1052840474"