User talk:49.180.129.245

October 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Bolivia—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 23 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.


 * tHANKS FOR THE REVERT. First of all, that was NOT INTENTIONAL. I was in the process of correcting my own mistakes but you beat me to it. I tried TO FIX GRAMMATICAL ERRORS AND THEN CLICKED PUBLISH - BUT the wiki page came out buggy and published my edits WRONGFULLY AND INACCURATELY. i DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BUT IT WAS NOT on purpose.

Can you tell me WHY THIS HAPPENS? yOU EDIT THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK PUBLISH, and the resulting edits are VERY DIFFERENT.I don't want to point fingers but part of me thinks i;m being framed as I find it hard to believe that wiki editing has such juvenlie bugs in which you make edits, and it comes out not the same. But this is a first for me but it wasA NOT MY FAULT AT ALL. 49.180.129.245 (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to write using regular English grammar and style. See WP:COMPETENCE and WP:MOS. Materialscientist (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ironically I did. I used Grammarly and fixed a lot of the errors in wiki page. There were grammatical errors from other people and USED GRAMMARLY to automatically fix the errors and clicked publish. But the wiki page for some reason published my edits COMPLETELY WRONG and i suspect someone is messing with my edits since how can this be possible?>???? Believe me, I am peeeved off as i did not dleiebrately do anything wrong but just use grammarly to correct and then clicked publish and yet somehow my edit got hijacked by bugs49.180.129.245 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From my experience I would say that software messed up your correction, and this happened at your side. If you used visual editing Wikipedia interface, then I would suggest direct editing instead. Materialscientist (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Materialscientist Well you're the one here vandalizing the most in seemingly bad faith by hiding all the real info That I had put in earlier with good faith editing and proper sourcing. You only had to revert the last edit which was a bad error. That's all. Please revert to the second last edit of or I will take this to arbitration as my edits are solid and we both know it, and prove to me that this is not some arbitrary pretext to prevent people talking about info you maybe dislike. You jumped on  completely arbitrary  and unintentional made chance to delete all my edits and thAT is wrong and don't think I will stand for that.49.180.129.245 (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Materialscientist, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am reacting to an editor who deleted not just my bad edits but also ALL OF MY GOOD EDITS. I explained to him about that yet he is the one who is in the wrong for deleting every single edit I have done. I apologise if my reactions seems harrassive as that is not my intention but I merely informed him that he did not just delete my ACCIDENTAL bad edits but also all of my good edits and I feel that is just wrong and arbitrary. I want his decision to delete all my edits to be properly discussed on talk page as I am not the one deleting and censoring other people's edits that do not deserve to be deleted. I am okay to discuss but protest when wrongful actions are done to silence and delete info that should never have been deleted in the first place. 49.180.129.245 (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But for you to revert back to your own last good edit was a matter of seconds – why did you feel a need to post repeated angry messages over a period of about two hours, here and elsewhere? If another editor makes a mistake, assume that it was done in good faith, fix it (especially when you know exactly what needs fixing), post a calmly worded note on their user talk page, and that's the end of it.  Another thing: if at all possible, please avoid using Grammarly when you edit Wikipedia. Apart from the fact that it occasionally causes the kind of total word salad that you experienced, it is a very blunt tool which often marks correct usage as incorrect. I don't know exactly how the software works, myself, but allowing Grammarly to fix errors automatically means that you will always have to check your edit very carefully afterwards and restore all the things Grammarly got wrong, and that takes a lot of time (apart from the fact that even an expert language user can easily miss individual errors). --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Bonadea.. I guess I was disappointed to see all my edits undone. But back then, I honestly didn't really have a clue how to revert his edits as I don't know all the functions here. I don't even think that function is even available to me as I searched for that button but can't find it. I only really later figured that I could instead copy and paste everything from a past revision but before that. I thought I had to painstakingly add all the info and sources all over again. Just because one guy wrongfully mistaken me for a vandal and deemed all my edits as bad and deleted everything.

And I did not revert his mistakes only "seconds" afterwards. I had allowed Materialscientists 1 whole hour before I FINALLY gave up on him and went on and fixed his mistakes of practically deleting a lot of info, when nobody else was reverting his destructive edits. Why couldn't he have reverted back one edit - why ALL OF MY EDITS? there seems to be no valid reasoning behind such excessive actions.

Also this isn't hardly even the first time I bumped heads with Material scientists and disputed against him around 2 years ago. I was an anonymous IP user in sydney and added real info with real sources to an article that was also political. Then without any reasoning, I receive a message shortly from him saying that my IP address has been banned and accused me of making edits that I did not even make. It seems arbitrary and unfair.

But here I took the time to reach out to him in his own talk page today, but he did not at all revert his mistakes after almost an hour of us discussing it here on this page, and me having informed him that my one-off bad edit was just a minor misunderstanding. And he did not have to delete ALL my other edits as that was wrongful. And also Grammarly did not make any mistakes. As materialscientist had explained, from his experience - sometimes unintentional errors do occur when using the visual editing Wikipedia interface. I assumed that was probably the case on what happened there. 49.180.129.245 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well of course there is. :) I have my own complaints that I initially decided not to pursue but considering the very people in that very admin board. I have something to say about that. Can I join the admin noticeboard since I realized ironically Crmoorhead is already over there and I had genuinely considered reporting him for edit-warring. Yet he accuses me of it. That is rich. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985025463

Not like I am afraid since I know what this is. Tn terms of edit-warring, Crmoorhead is actually the person who has been deleting real information from the bolivia page and making up biased reasoning. He is the one that needs to be banned given his past actions. If you look at his contributions, he has an obvious vendetta against Morales and been deleting info that is positive about morales or supports the fact that OAS has not been wrongful on him. Look at his edits and then look at mine. Nobody can deny that he wais the ONLY one in the wrong for deleting such info and I am the ONLY editor to stand up to vandals on that page but I also understand bolivia is a political topic where people are not partial. And wants to silence others.

But Look at the info he deletes. The info is solid and has solid sources. Yet he deletes them using flawed reasons but I undelete it. So judge for yourself if such info is warranted to be deleted or not.

He is only deleting because he hates that info and most of his edits have been removing positive info about Morales and that's why he should be banned. Not me since I'm the one protecting the page from people wanting to hide information and delete it pettily.

His - (deleting info with fake or non-genuine reasoning) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985021134 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985018054 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985014684

mine - (undeleting his edits using solid sources and reminding him to go to the talk page and discuss if he wants to talk it out)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985019968 + https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985024701 + https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985024701 + https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985023721 + https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985025230

Any "impartial" observer can CHECK THE links above and know that I am the one who has been correcting edits of bad faith and opposing people deleting info that is well backed by sources. He tried to make up phony reasons but I was the one reminding him that the info is backed by solid sources and telling him to take it to the talk page if he disagrees. I was about to report him for edit warring but decided it was not worth the energy. But of course, there will always be people wanting to delete info and not be happy for me to correct them.

And I'm not afraid since the majority of my edits were in good faith and the person in that admin message board - Crmoorhead -Is the very person who should be banned for excessive bad faith editing and vandalism if you do check the bolivia page of the past 24 hours. If anything, I am the only honest editor not willing to let bad faith editors delete REAL info from Bolivia page but I also understand that there are people like Crmoorhead who really wants to remove me since he knows that the facts are on my side and editors like me keeps the page honest.

Also, I like to formally report Crmoorhead for his own vast vandalism on bolivia's page and using false reasoning that looks proper but are just untrue if people were to really study it, and he is effectively deleting large amounts of info from the bolivia page that he simply dislikes. And that isn't right. Unlike him, I have not deleted any information from that page that is well backed by sources but rescued them. He realizes that he can't delete my edits as they are backed by strong sources so he makes an arbitrary case against me despite he is the one who should be banned for deleting info and my real crime was to oppose him on that. I'm not naive about his motivations and welcome a fair and thorough investigation to the both of us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985016572 49.180.129.245 (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)