User talk:69.159.70.55

January 2024
Hello, I'm Zinnober9. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Manton S. Eddy 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Zinnober9 - Sir - Please be so kind as to fully explain why those two items in red were altered back to black as BG DONALD STROH does not have an actual Wiki page - ??? -
 * Is that not what is supposed to be more correct / accurate - ??? -
 * There is no need to use the ' sandbox ' when one enters a correct or proper change to any item which is known accurate history -
 * Changing these ' errors ' from red back to black is what people have done in many instances, hundreds if totaled, over time -
 * The vast majority of you Wiki ' editors ' appear to know just about nothing, or very little to be more exact, about military matters and / or sports history so should really not just be deleting so many things out of hand without an explanation back to those making entries you disagree with first for clarification -
 * People doing so with these entries / corrections / adjustments / additions are only trying to be helpful where it is more than insulting to do what so many of you do in removing same -
 * Thank You.
 * (( NOTE - see this - https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Donald_A._Stroh )) 69.159.70.55 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies. While I don't care one way or the other if he is wikilinked or not, I did mind the breakage of the File's WP:EIS syntax, and the | within Stroh's link that was for the display title, changed the File to think there were two file captions, triggering a Bogus File Options syntax error.
 * Additionally I will note that Red linked articles generally do not need to be fixed/delinked as few red links here and there are fine, and are a major driving force that provokes people to create articles for those red subjects. We also were nowhere near the criteria for MOS:REDLINKS to delink any, so the change wasn't really necessary. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wendy Barrie. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Zinnober9 - Please see above full response as per this additional item as well and advise what was wrong - Thank You. 69.159.70.55 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I objected to the change of sourced birth place without providing evidence that supported the change. Specifically when her birth place was already sourced on the article as being London. While I do see places online like IMDB claiming she was born in British Hong Kong, IMDB and the like are not Reliable Sources, and, while the sourced document I can't get to load at the moment, I was seeing reliable sourcing such as this article of The Canberra Times stating she was born in London and moved to British Hong Kong as an infant. Unless more substantial documents were to be found that stated her birth place was in British Hong Kong, or placed her parents in British Hong Kong around the time of her birth, we need to stick with what the sources state. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * YOU NEED TO DO EVEN MORE PROPER SOLID RESEARCH -
 * WE KNEW AND WORKED WITH WENDY BARRIE SO CAN GUARANTEE WIKIPEDIA SHE WAS BORN IN HONG KONG SO DO THE RIGHT THING TO CHANGE IT BACK TO LOOK MORE PROFESSIONAL- !!! -
 * ALL THESE YEARS LATER IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND ANY REFERENCE FOR ALMOST ANY PERSON CHECKED AND ESPECIALLY MUCH OF THESE BIRTH SITUATIONS -
 * WIKIPEDIA IS MUCH TOO PICKY IN ALL OF THIS - REALLY DUMB, ACTUALLY - !!! -
 * FRANKLY THERE WOULD NOT BE MORE THAN A HANDFUL EVEN FINDING HER PAGE YEARLY SO IT IS PRETTY MUCH JUST A CHANGE FOR MAKING A CHANGE -
 * HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL AS TO WHAT YOU STATE ABOUT WP:EIS FILE - ??? - ON STROH HAVING ADJUSTED / ADDED / CORRECTED MANY PHOTOS OVER TIME NONE OF WHICH WERE EVER ' REVERTED ' - ??? -
 * WITH RESPECT  TO GENERAL STROH, SAME  AS  ABOVE WOULD APPLY AS HE WAS A ' LESSER LIGHT ' -
 * IT IS JUST THAT AS A MILITARY HISTORIAN WE KNEW HIM SO MADE CHANGE / CORRECTION FOR RECOGNITION FACTOR ALONE -
 * THUSLY, THIS WILL BE END OF BOTH SUBJECTS - THANK YOU AND GOOD BYE. 69.159.70.55 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * THUSLY, THIS WILL BE END OF BOTH SUBJECTS - THANK YOU AND GOOD BYE. 69.159.70.55 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did with this edit to Alaric Jackson. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Edward Dmytryk. Awilh37 Talk 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * '''Awilh37 - ??? - Please be so kind as to explain as to exactly what you found to be wrong with the change which read better than what was previously listed unless you were original entrant - ???
 * Had entered other things in some areas about Edward Dmytryk over time as he is a fellow Canadian of note.
 * Must admit am becoming tired of so many of you " so called editors " reverting every other thing entered in recent days being rather odd after these thousands of corrections / additions / changes entered over time with never anything being reverted / questioned / commented on = ??? - Surely you have something much more important to do than nitpick so much in these things when am only trying to to make certain entries read better - Thank You.''' 69.159.70.55 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Notifying @Awilh37 Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 16:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Zinnober9 - So secretive you all are as if you were the be all and end all - Frankly, someone at Wikipedia needs to stand up and act somewhat like a human being instead of all you little robot like people acting like individual Gods and doing what you do with all this terribly stupid reverting rubbish - Do none of you realize you are driving more people away from entering, correcting, adjusting anything than in contributing - Ask around and do try to smarten up !!! - You need to realize you can do as you wish and it will not be anything to worry about at this end as there are more important things than you lot to think about - Lastly, if you all had been in the Marine Corps with us in Vietnam you would have been bagged and tagged on same day of arrival. Thank You. 69.159.70.55 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the specific thread to see:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2024 (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.