User talk:202.52.36.55

September 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Asha Sarath has been reverted. Your edit here to Asha Sarath was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/AshaSharathofficialpage/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

February 2018
Hello, I'm NottNott. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Sanjay Leela Bhansali— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Nott Nott  00:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:50, 26 February 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.

December 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Huawei. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dude, first of all. You clearly have a hawkish bias towards china. Seeing the fixated history of your edits. And you are now trying to intimidate me for daring to correct the article and giving a source to back it ~ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/.

A backdoor is something that allows people on the outside, unauthorised access to a network. Vodafone had publicly explained it was not a backdoor.

I have done nothing immoral but to state the facts and you are the one who will be blocked if you do not be civil and let your bia intimidate editors to write the objective true facts. Wikipedia needs people like me and not people who intimidate editors who simply have given sources to back their edits. But you have beef only because you emotionally dislike the fact i stated Bloomberg misled people into believing huawei created backdoors in vodafone network when it was just telnet. They had no professional excuse to push that claim. 202.52.36.55 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * you wrote - "I will add the information from the new source in, but removing the bloomberg citation and radically altering the text to push a POV is simply not appropriate."

That seems arbitrary. All i did was quote Vodafone's statement. Explained why Bloomberg was wrong and a brief explanation of what the actual telnet is. And that the bloomberg report was too misleading and wrongfully excessive on its sensational claims. I think I handled the POV as fairly neutral as possible.

I wrote -

(In 2019, Bloomberg falsely claimed that on 30 April 2019, Vodafone had announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, while also announcing that the issues were resolved at the time. Vodafone however publicly stated Bloomberg claims were completely misleading and the 'backdoor' that Bloomberg had been referring to, was Telnet, which is a protocol commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions. "It would not have been accessible from the internet," stated the telco in a statement to The Register, adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy')

Yet you accuse me to push a pov. I accuse that you seem to hypocritically dominate and undo other editor's edits just to push your own pov that makes you feel comfy that it has a negstive spin on huawei. That is not acceptable mate. All gear has security flaws regardless of the flag it flies. Cisco has actual history of backdoors. The significant part of the story was not yhat huawei made a few minor mistakes. The REAL story was Bloomberg claiming ACTUAL backdoor and that is a serious claim which isn't even true nor backed. I made a very appropriate POV to write what i added in, based on the significance.

202.52.36.55 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello, I'm Andethyst. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Islam in Australia—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Andethyst  (talk)  00:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)