User talk:70.44.154.16

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address,, removed content from the page Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 without giving an explanation. Please always provide an informative edit summary when removing content from pages. If is a shared IP address and you did not do this, you may wish to consider [ getting a username] to avoid confusion with other editors and further irrelevant notices.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Tips on starting your first article
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Here are some other hints and tips:
 * I recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but  [ creating an account]  is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
 * When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes . This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neil Gorsuch. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 1 February 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.
 * I disagree, I feel my edit was very constructive and added to the biography of the future SCOTUS. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Threatening the President of the United States page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764617626 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764617626%7CThreatening the President of the United States%5D%5D Ask for help])

February 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Threatening the President of the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WOAH WOAH WOAH, What?!? I simply added an edit including a threat made against Trump. What disruptive edits? Can you please explain? 70.44.154.16 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You removed the entire "History" section with your edit, removing 5,504 characters of sourced content – about one-eighth of the article. It sure looked like vandalism, and with the other notices on your talk page, it seemed like typical IP vandal behaviour. Mojoworker (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an honest mistake caused by a simple reference error, you could tell by the message from the ReferenceBot previous to this. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
 Adog 104  Talk to me 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
for this edit. The more we can maintain balance by omission early on, the more of a track record we will to omit it have later on. Buster Seven   Talk  21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, thank you for your acknowledgment. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read this carefully
Doug Weller talk 08:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on handshakes
Hey just a heads up, someone removed your comment from the AFD here, I left a message on their page when I saw it but they have not responded. You might want to check into adding it again. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for replacing the photos of Trump in the state elections with his official White House portrait. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please, stop removing the information about Russian trolls and their involvement in the U.S. national anthem protests debate. I provided credible sources that cannot be called into question. Thank you. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you challenged it. You just blanked the section using 'consensus' as a pretext. U.S. Congressman based his conclusions on data he had been provided with during this hearing. He isn't just an ordinary guy who might assume something based on his personal feelings or beliefs. If you don't like the name of the section, you can change it (to 'Reactions', for example). Cskamoscow100 (talk) 0:14, 10 December 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.
 * You need consensus in order to make this controversial section, when you don't it can easily be challenged. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 70.44.154.16. —Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How you can even tolerate his behavior is beyond me. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You were both edit warring. Another admin was perhaps close to blocking you because of some earlier warnings on your talk page about blanking content. In the future, I would advise you to don't use "no consensus" in your edit summary. State the reason why you think the content does not belong, like you later wrote "since its only by a single U.S. Congressman I find myself a little skeptical".  Follow dispute resolution instead of back and forth reverting. I'm going to close the ANI with no action on either side. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How many damn times do I have to explain that was a mistake. How does he get off with making multiple mistakes cause he was a new user but for me its a different story. Christ sake. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW That was one time too, so I can get fucking persecuted for one section-blanking months ago that was a mistake yet an entire investigation is centered around ME when I wasn't even properly informed of it nor given enough time to respond (AN HOUR). Best I better expect unfair and one-sided admins blocking me in the future. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody got blocked here, so both of you "got off", if that's how you want to look at it. Of course there are some trigger-happy admins, so I was just giving you a heads up.—Bagumba (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  21:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC) In contrast, your comment that I removed was a baseless, ad hominem insult, qualifying it as a personal attack. First, his comment there was not "nonsense", as I said. Second, even if it were nonsense, that would be far from "the only thing [he's] good at". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:48, 11 January 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.
 * That clown is running wild on that page forcing his slanted worldview on others, he's currently accused two editors now of incompetence if he can do that I don't see why I can't state the obvious. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His style is more blunt than mine and EvergreenFir's, but his criticism was accurate and that's what matters at Wikipedia. You showed a serious lack of policy knowledge (editing competence) to weigh in on a weighty question like that one, especially in such a confrontational manner. Even forgiving that, you ignored the policy information (BLPCRIME) linked immediately prior to your opening comment there, effectively saying "fuck policy". Most experienced Wikipedia editors respond negatively to "fuck policy", or they shouldn't be Wikipedia editors. The combination of your incompetence and your aggressiveness just begged for a response like his. Zigzig20s did the same thing eariler, and got a similar response.
 * Reread what you purged again, its clear you failed to understand what I was conveying. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just spent two minutes re-reading it over and over, and I guess I'm too stoopid to see your point. If you're referring to the Fitting you redirect to them part, I fail to see how that changes what I said above. It's fairly routine to point to editors who support your position, so I'm not clear what you meant by "redirect". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)