User talk:119.173.81.176/Archive 1

 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

=RE:BMW Article=

I have left a response to your query on my talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Feel free to edit. I need all the help I can get! What ever your sexual orientation, I feel the urge to kiss your feet for a simple act of kindness ;-) JoyDiamond (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had problems formatting certain things in the past and instead of following the (confusing) instructions, I just looked at how other people did it - I go by this rule for most things to do with computers, learning by example is the easiest way. Thanks for the offer to kiss my feet, but I'm sure I don't deserve such an honour. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

119.173.81.176 Your suggestion to consult other editors is well received and in another situation, perfectly accurate. However, at this time, there are several editors involved to no avail. Some are as frustrated as I am. Feel free to join the fray. Your suggestions are highly welcomed. Ok, I won't kiss your feet, I would offer you a box of See's candy but am boycotting them because of their support of Prop 8 in California. In Appreciation JoyDiamond (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint
Please see the result of the 3RR case which ended with warnings to both parties. If the sources are in conflict, discuss the matter on Talk before reverting again. One option for you to consider is to cite both sources. There could be some nuances to the definition of 'standard equipment.' EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikistalking
A. The editing warring, I posted had nothing to do with you & I would love to point out all the "incidents" you've had, with the extremely few "contributions" you have made. B. EdJohnston posted on my talk, therefore I would naturally go to their talk page if I have something to voice, which I did obviously. C. Your so called "olive branch" is not a peaceful gesture but an insult. And I'm really starting to get sick of your arrogance, especially since you hide behind your pitiful IP. There was no consensus on the STI issue, discussions take time on Wikipedia & you have jump the jumped the boat too early. So please stay out of my way & DiaF. I really don't care if I'm blatantly not being civil, because I'm really sick of you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if you disagree with my edits, but please don't attack me on my talk page. I'm sorry but I have reported this, I don't think these kind of insults are acceptable or warranted over a simple content dispute. You may message me on this page at any time regarding anything, but the next time you insult me, I will remove the message. We are both intelligent adults, I'm sure we can discuss any content disputes in a mature and polite manner and come to an agreement. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained in my edit summary exactly why I removed that information - if you are going to template me - then at least read the template and make sure it is suitable. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's say's VALID reason! Wikipedia has neutral POV and deleting the safety issues without reaching a consensus and the fact that you are removing the safety issues which is causing a bias. So again it says VALID reason and you haven't given one.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bias is a valid reason. US Bias is a valid reason. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to All-terrain vehicle. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Trusilver 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You need consensus for that change and you haven't done it on the talk page and this is also your last warning. You can't remove vast amount of info from an article without consensus.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing warnings per discussion on my talk page. Trusilver 09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I revert vandalism
I have no attention or opinion on what you are reverting. All I do is revert vandalism here. What you are doing is vandalism. As I said before you have not reached consensus to delete the whole section. Once you do you can delete it. There has not been one discussion on that issue on the talk page.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, they are much better ways to get neutrality than just deleting a huge section of the article. How about writing something about the other side of the debate.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

There has been a discussion, look again.

This is a content dispute.

You seem new to wikipedia, you have been editing for less than two weeks - try to learn a little more about wikipedia before you jump in and accuse people of vandalism. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My account may be new, but I've been reverting vandals as an IP user for longer than you. The reason I created an account was to get rollback to make this easier and because my IP changes every two weeks. Where does is the discussion to remove a whole section from the article. I'll like to see it. Yes there is a discussion on the neutrality of the content, but no one has said "lets delete half the article. You should read the quote on vandalism you gave me because that's exactly what you are doing. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were designed to removed US bias from the article, that is not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" it is a content dispute. If you are going to revert vandalism, perhaps you should read the article before reverting - sometimes there are legit reasons for removing a large section - copyvio, BLP issues, etc. At the moment your reverts are putting back obvious US bias to the article and making the article worse. If you are trying to help wikipedia, then you have failed badly - thanks to this edit the article is biased and seems like a highly POV article which is more concerned with complaining about ATVs and only in America than anything else.119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are coming across as someone who seems to be only wanting one side of a debate on the article (which I saw when I first reverted it). This also comes across when I don't see you User ID at all on the history of the article or talk. Again try adding the stuff like the events of ATV and how they gather so many people and events from around the world. This is the best way to go at this without looking like a vandal.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be rude, but it isn't my job to ensure that an editor does not think I am a vandal - neither of us are making huge articles on wikipedia, I generally remove mistakes, change grammar, remove uncited sections, POV, Bias, non-notable events - and you go looking for vandals - if you can't see the US bias in an article that devotes about 50% of the article to "safety issues in the US" then I am shocked. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the article does show the a lot of the negative, but let me remind you it's all well sourced (most of it). So you are removing sourced info. It's hard to remove well sourced info and not look like a vandal doing it. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends if editors take the time to look at the article in question, look at the edit summary, look at the actual content removed - OR - if they just see an IP removing a section and jump in and revert without checking anything. If someone took the time, they would see US centric bias, undue weight and POV - and they would realise that it was not the standard IP vandal who just puts obscene language on an article. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

= ATVs =

Sorry. I failed to notice the section you introduced. Please note that the edit you made I reverted was an extremely complex one, that´s the reason I suggest you to made simpler "step by step" edits, specially if you want to delete sourced data.

I also suggest you to create an account. It takes just a minute to create one and that would provide you with more "presence" here. This is a great place to share knowledge and to learn new things. Please do not be discouraged by a rather "stormy" entrance here. Cheers.


 * I am not discouraged, I have been editing with an IP for a while now and have become used to the way people distrust IP editors due to the large amount of vandalism IP editors are responsible for. I might make an account at sometime, but not today - at sometime I am sure I will get round to it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"rvv" on Groping
Your edit did have a summary justifying it. But as well as removing a fact that had been tagged as needing a reference you took out material well referenced elsewhere in the article. Removing a photograph of a phenomenon claiming the phenomenon is "unreferenced" is a bit much!!! I have moved one of the references from further down the article up to the paragraph you deleted. The right of editors to insist on references is to prevent controversial material being added unless it can be established as fact, it is not a right to hack out any section of text that happens not to have a citation embedded in it. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked for opinions about your edit pattern


Sorry for the inconvenience, but IMHO some of your edits are not good for the project. Randroide (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Could_an_administrator_please_review_this_edit_pattern_from_an_I.P..3F. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Following the usual modus operandi I answered you at User_talk:Randroide. Cheers and have a good day. Randroide (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WHOIS template
I have restored the IP template. Per WP:BLANKING, you may remove anything from your talk page EXCEPT for shared IP and whois templates, or block notices while you are blocked. Please don't remove it again. If you don't want anyone to know your IP, please consider registering an account, which conceals this information entirely. Regardless, the whois template has to remain per policy. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the policy is clear. I will discuss at AN/I. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the policy is very clear. Shared IP templates may not be removed, I don't have a shared IP, I have a fixed IP. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is the "Shared IP" template. It may not be removed. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not remove the notice again. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not warn you again. If you continue this behaviour you will likely be blocked. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)