User talk:2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D

Microscope
That page was unlocked for an hour and a half before you returned to contentiously edit with a summary that indicates you're looking for a fight rather than a discussion and a compromise. This will not convince other to maintain your efforts to improve the article.  City O f  Silver  15:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I was marked as a quack for trying to remove an unsourced word, not discussed further in the article, from its lead, what's new? One more editor piling on! You! Way to improve Wikipedia yourself. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Microscope 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.  City O f  Silver  16:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OMG, you're purposefully maliciously provoking me to keep made up information in a science article on Wikipedia. I'm stunned. I thought it was just carelessness. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said at WP:RFPP since you badly need to stop posting there: everything I've done has been a reaction to your entirely inappropriate, policy-violating behavior. Nothing I've done has been a reaction to your changes to the article's content. Make your case at Talk:Microscope, don't edit the page, and stop lying about what I believe or what I'm trying to get you to do.  City O f  Silver  16:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has turned creepy. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. But it's fair of me to get creeped out by you. You just posted a lie at RFPP about me, calling my effective work towards a compromise, an effort that convinced you to stop editing that page while also keeping admins from blocking you or semiprotecting, "coercion."  City O f  Silver  16:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What? I don't even understand what you are saying. But I see your actions are not about being here to improve an encyclopedia. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My instinct tells me your edits are on solid ground. Thus, I don't want you to be prevented from making them. You obviously want to make them too but for some reason, you chose not to discuss. Instead, you edit warred, attacked others, lied, and posted a dishonest unprotection request at RFPP. I used my reverts to show you why that approach wasn't working. If you hadn't stopped, either you'd have gotten blocked or you'd have gotten locked out of that article. I worked to keep you in the discussion and it looks like I succeeded.  City O f  Silver  16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. You're just bullying me to control the misinformation in the article. You're not here to edit. You admitted it. The unsourced misinformation remains on the encyclopedia. You win. Move on. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh just chill out. "Misinformation"? Seriously? Your point seems to be that an ultramicroscope isn't a currently significant kind of microscope, and therefore shouldn't be listed in the lead paragraph. That's a matter of article balance which is currently being addressed, and it will probably be removed from that list. You have been editing extremely tendentiously at Talk:Microscope, and antagonising everybody. You accuse User:CityOfSilver of trying to keep "made-up information" in the encyclopedia, while it's really a discussion about what kind of microscope deserves to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. As a completely uninvolved party, I find your complaint that you're being "bullied" completely ridiculous. Make a username, take WP:AGF and WP:TEA to heart, and treat your fellow editors like colleagues instead of enemies, and everything will go much more smoothly for you. --Slashme (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 
 * "And before anybody asks the IP editor to ease up on these sorts of things, I agree letter-for-letter that my behavior was bullying. If you're concerned that I was doing that to a person who has this website's best interests in mind, look at their treatment of at least three different admins at RFPP. So weird. CityOfSilver 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)"
 * It's always nice to tell someone they're not being bullied as a means to support the bully, but CityOfSilver admitted snd bragged about it in a couple of places and claims bullying trains editors to be Wikipedia like. Sadly, I'm still barking. Wonder why? Read some of Robert's edit history, too. Meanwhile, elsewhere on Wikipedia I've written 6 new articles, including two on missing famous scientists. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:77 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As to Robert, he doesn't understand technical sources, so there's no need to continue to discuss anything with him, and it seems that reliable sources are not called for or wanted in the area of microscopy, which explains how the article is so bad and in need of editing to begin with. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:77 (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a cheeky term for when someone ignores timestamps and resurrects ancient discussions that nobody cares about any more. What's that called?  City O f  Silver  03:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Good work, keep at it, and get an ID already
Good job so far on taking the initiative to improve Wikipedia. I was alerted by the RFC on Talk:Microscope and it honestly looks about as under control as it gets for a Wikipedia "edit war" dispute. It looks like your IP address is not quite fixed, however, so it would make things a lot easier for everyone, including you, to register an account with Wikipedia. There's no name or personal info needed -- just a username and password so that you can verify you're the same user when you edit/talk/vote from a different location. If you're concerned about that or any other issues regarding getting a WP account or becoming more involved, you can always post at the Teahouse where you'll almost certainly get a response within the hour.

Don't let your current dispute discourage you. Part of the reason you were reverted so quickly was that you were an anonymous editor to begin with, so you were given no benefit of the doubt. This can definitely be discouraging -- it sometimes even happens to me! But 99% of the time your edits will be received constructively (well, depending on how hot the issue is, and whether that heat is anthropogenic or due to natural cycles of the sun). If you want to get involved in such disputes you can; if not, you can make your point in one paragraph on the Talk Page and move on, and often someone browsing will pick up on it and take up the issue again -- there's no time limit on such things. Regardless, you seemed to appreciate the rules pretty quickly and use it diplomatically, so don't be ashamed if you might eventually feel you get some sadistic joy in being a mediating voice in article disputes.

To summarize:
 * 1) You can obviously help a lot, so don't let some Talk Page drama put you off;
 * 2) Congrats on your intro to WP being an edit dispute -- we've all been there;
 * 3) Make an account already, and after you do, post a link to it on this page.

Also, below is an obligatory Welcome Template:

Nah, it's not good work at all, it's completely lame. No one is here to edit an encyclopedia, everyone is playing games or having a 50,000 word conversation with themselves on Wikipedia policy. It's not that great of a club, not the type to belong to. I'm only interested in improving the article, not in hanging out. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:54 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Microscope. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! SamuelRiv (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to 2017 MTV Video Music Awards— 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. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:47, 25 July 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.

June 2019
Hello, I'm Wham2001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tony Snell (basketball) 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 help desk. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (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.

January 2021
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

February 2021
Hello, I'm William Avery. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Dolly Parton 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. William Avery (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (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.