User talk:70.83.230.212

Edit warring

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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits to go90

Why did you revert my changes? You claim your preferred revision is "more accurate", but how so? You reintroduced wording that is one-sided and condescending, implying that the article's POV must paint the service as being a colossal failure or else it's not "accurate" in your opinion. In fact that's a common theme with your Verizon-related edits: that they have to be in that mocking tone. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 I suspect you haven't read the sources. They're far more critical of go90 than what I put in the article. I don't think I wrote it was a "colossal" failure. Was that a quote from a source? At any rate losing $1.2B, enduring multiple management shuffles, industry criticism, changing strategies, and in the worlds of the Verizon CEO - being overhyped - is not a success. It's not mocking. It's accurate and well supported by reliable sources. I'm a little curious as to why you're so much kinder to go90 than ANY of the reliable sources that covered it.

That's called sensationalism. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. We do not use contentious buzzwords, especially to push a specific narrative. In addition, my version is in a more firm chronological order, and more clear and concise. And I did read the articles thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

---