User talk:108.178.113.114

June 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2017 (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.

Your recent editing history at Alec Baldwin 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization  Talk   21:03, 13 June 2017 (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.

December 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2017 (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.


 * I see you have a history of edit warring yourself. That makes sense to me, as it's usually the 'pointing finger' that is the guilty party.  As you are well aware, I adjusted the original line of text at this article to account for the fact -- which you ignore and reverted, despite the accompanying citations -- that the sediment of some water supplies remains contaminated with Plutonium.  So your accusation is wrong based on the clear facts.  You're being hypocritical...and making false claims.  --108.178.113.114 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

USS Scorpion (SSN-589)
If you are going to make alterations to USS Scorpion (SSN-589), please make your edits in one action. A mass of changes all within a few minutes of each other are confusing and bad practice. It appears that you have done this before on other articles. Surely you can keep and make your changes in one action? Perhaps it is also time for you to register an account, rather than hiding behind a IP. David J Johnson (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that your 'rule'...or wikipedia's? Please try assuming good faith -- it's clear the concept troubles you. --108.178.113.114 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Epiousios. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. – Gilliam (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (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.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. --108.178.113.114 (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review the Manual of style before adding that information again. Your addition brings the article out of compliance with the MOS. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"highly practical"
I would indeed like sources, per WP:V. If you find reviews saying that, you can attribute that certain reviewers have said that. I don't believe non-opinion sources when describing the book use that phrase, and even if they do, whether this sort of advice is "practical" is inherently opinion that needs to be attributed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As you wish. It would have been just as easy for you to Google for the same results. This is trivial, and a waste of both of our times, but so it is on Wikipedia these days.

July 2018
Your recent editing history at 12 Rules for Life 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 31 July 2018 (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.

And you have time for this...how? I don't. It was a very straightforward change, and one supported by the author's very career profession. I was asked for a citation (despite the silliness of the request)...and provided one. So *this*...is nonsense. All yours. Over...and out. Good luck with that. 108.178.113.114 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)