User talk:2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104

February 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lot (biblical person). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * 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.
 * User:Suriel1981 My edit was not disruptive, I am actively using the talk page to discuss the issue which you have not. I assume you are WP:NOTHERE As I have engaged you in discussion several times. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you stated on my talkpage that you intend to ignore me and force your preferred wording onto the article. I recommend stating the case for your point of view on the talkpage of the article and seeing what opinions other editors have. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I ignored you on your talk page because you had a WP:NOTHERE attitude. I immediately engaged anyone interested on the talk page, which you have not. There is no source in the article for "seduced" please do not add original research back to the article. Forcing an opinion would be to require the wording of either seduced or raped, with no alternative in between. I have not done so, you have. I don't want to engage in any battles, I want a good article. There is always a compromise and neutral solution as long as people are willing to engage on the talk page. If you don't want to engage, then let someone else pick up the argument. You are free to work, or not work, on any articles you choose. It is not productive to revert and then refuse to engage. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

article discussion
I was wondering if you'd be interested in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COINTELPRO#I_don't_think_Viola_Liuzzo's_photo_should_be_included_in_the_article_lead

Thanks. Raddude89 (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 00:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * User:NeilN Thank you for the heads-up, I am aware of the policy. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sarah Jeong are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:42, 6 August 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.


 * Really? That is a really minor infraction, if one at all. Using the WP:AVOIDVICTIM argument, is indeed pretty rich. Here is the text "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Victim of another's actions? On this page and at this level of contention you call my post out and under a heading where the OP specifically says to block newbies coming to the article? 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about the heading, but I standby the rest of what I said. The level of non-encyclopedic discussion on this page is pretty crazy. Have a good one. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Charles Krauthammer, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim1138. He is not a living person and even if he was, the trading of one WP:Euphemism for another would probably not be a WP:BLP violation, but again, he died in June. Wikipedia also has a fairly strict and concise view on the use of euphemisms, especially when they are used to complicate comprehension for the average reader, which this does. If you are confused by the use of Enhanced interrogation techniques read some of the history on that article. The first sentence says "is a euphemism .... for torture" and I have never edited that article. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello, I'm CodingCyclone. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Graeham Goble have been undone because they 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. Thanks. (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

CodingCyclone Read the article history, I am not a vandal nor do I make unconstructive edits. This article is full of puffery and self-promotion, No one needs to have consensus to be bold. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw, the article is not written from a neutral point of view, however, discussing things on the talk page and changing fluffy language is better than deleting entire sections. Also, I saw your revert description of me as "a vandal warrior trying to game edits". Please WP:AGF. :) Finally, I think with what seems like quite a few edits, and good knowledge of Wikipedia, you should create an account to hide your IP. Just a suggestion! CodingCyclone (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

CodingCycloneMay I note you also need to note WP:AGF since you put an unconstructive warning on my page when I obviously had a reason to trim the article and was not even the original editor who trimmed the article. Maybe you should slow down on clicking your reverts and warnings and take the time to read edits and improve WP rather than whatever it is you think you are helping with. Just a suggestion! Full disclosure, before I abandoned my useless account with thousands of edits, I used to machine gun reverts to get to a respectable number so i get you have to start somewhere. Reverting any deletion of text from anonymous IPs without looking into the reason for the edit is a rookie mistake and will eventually get you on Santa's naughty list. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD says that if a bold edit is reverted, you should seek consensus. 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 23:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)