User talk:71.246.98.233

March 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 16:51, 21 March 2018 (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.

I was trying to write this in the noticeboard, BUT YOU YOU NEVER GAVE ME THE CHANCE with your hasty decision and action (unfair and inconsistent),User talk:NeilN.


 * It's assumed too quickly that the one being reported for "edit warring" must actually have been guilty of edit-warring (poisoning the waters by the person running to a notice board like John here did, who was obviously, if consistently examined, doing edit-warring TOO if that's the case).   I did not violate 3RR at all. No red line was crossed by me, and John and others keep reverting with no valid rationale or Talk page discussion.   So they're edit-warring too, if that's the case.   And if I ran to the notice board here whining about what John is doing, and showing his constant unwarranted reverts and removal of a valid source (that has NOT been proven at all to be actually "unreliable" as mere assertions are not proof of anything), what would be the conclusion.


 * And it's funny how some have put the "stop edit warring or you'll be blocked" tag on MY talk page, but not on the John's page for doing the same thing, but in the opposite direciton...who keeps reverting and removing a valid source (for invalid made-up unproven reasons), which is not very consistent or fair...but shows obvious bias.


 * Do it to the other editors also who are rudely reverting and NOT bringing anything to to the article Talk page at all, if you notice, and who obviously are deleting an agreed-upon source (from some time back) for more "I DON'T LIKE" reasons and FRONT excuses like "advert"?? and are just merely asserting "unreliable" without really showing how or why.


 * Again, I violated NO 3RR anywhere, and never would.  So if I'm "edit warring" so is John, because he's doing the EXACT same thing I'm doing, but in the other direction.


 * This academic learning type website is NOT forbidden by Wikipedia. You obviously have a bias here, so little to no credibility.  I did not edit war here, and if I did, so have the others. They're doing the same thing I am, but in the opposite way.  Just cuz (maybe) you agree with their view does not make it any less "edit-warring" though, if that's the case...at least on this matter. Just being blunt here.  Be even-handed or just refrain from contacting me at all.   Can't have it both ways.   THEY are removing a source THAT WAS ESTABLISHED A LONG TIME AGO...for this uncited statement.  Look back at the record here.    Good day. 71.246.98.233 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4, revert 5. I will leave this request for the next administrator to review - but in the future, if you find yourself being reverted you should open a discussion on the talkpage. SQL Query me! 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And, as I already pointed out on this talk page when another user asked for the diffs or links to the supposed consensus to use the ref:It was discussed at Talk:Sphere, and the consensus was to not use the ref. Meters (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I KNOW that edit-warring can happen even without violating 3RR, so you don't have to recite that to me, but did you read carefully all I wrote? Meters and SQL.  No, you didn't. I was saying that IF I WAS EDIT-WARRING SO WAS JOHN ETC...for doing the SAME THING but in the other direction.  And therefore INCONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT...     And also, I was never given the chance to present my side and my case on the noticeboard...    But was abruptly blocked anyway.     Again, to repeat.....  I was merely talking about a CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS RED LINE...was never crossed by me, and everything else is just a matter of interpretation and eye of beholder, and also was done by the other editors also...like John himself, the one who ran and whined at the notice board. And also NOTHING WAS BROUGHT TO THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE...yet this happened anyway. Why wasn't I allowed to at least present my argument and side on the noticeboard page, and why is the arguable edit-warring done by John overlooked?    See what I mean?   HE REVERTS CONSTANTLY, WITH NO GOOD EXPLANATION....and no talk on article talk page, yet he gets off scott free, coming off smelling like a rose (cuz he was the complainer, and it's too hastily wrongly assumed that the one going to the noticeboard first must be the injured party or in the right, when it could be the opposite in some ways)....


 * Again, my point was NOT JUST that I didn't violate 3RR, but that IF I was actually "edit-warring" (which is interpretative if there's no clear thing that was violated), then SO WERE THE OTHER TWO EDITORS for doing the EXACT same thing I did, but in the other direction. And that would be obvious bias and hastiness. Not fair and not cool.  NOT EVEN-HANDED OR EQUITABLE...    So it's both that I did not break 3RR, which should mean something!!..as well as TWO TO TANGO, and others were also (clearly) "edit-warring" too in this matter, if that's the case.  Yet ZERO censure or blocking happened to them.   And to Meter, you say "no consensus"for that source, but it was finally left alone and agreed upon or conceded a while back. PLUS NO ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE has been presented ever that this learning.com site is so clearly "unreliable". Just asserted...   And it seems more for "ownership" and "I don't like" reasons than for anything valid or WP kosher or genuine. 71.246.98.233 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know that people can actually see what has been added to or removed from your page, right? Here's the diff where I added the comment that you claim I never added and here's the diff where you removed it and your edit warring warning hours later . I'm done with this waste of time. Any admin is going to look at the history before considering an unblock. Being untruthful is not going to help your case. Meters (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking bout, Meters?? What exactly did I say that was "untruthful"? When did I deny that you added a comment or something? You hallucinating or sloppily not getting what I'm saying?  WHERE DID I SAY THAT YOU DID NOT ADD SOMETHING THAT YOU ACTUALLY ADDED? I was talking about the ARTICLE TALK PAGE.  But what are you ranting about?   A user's talk page drive-by that you did? When did I ever deny that specifically?  You misunderstand if that's the case.   Who told you to barf on my page here anyway?   The point again is that EVEN IF THIS SOURCE IS SO "UNRELIABLE" (which it really isn't, but even if it was), the "edit-warring" was done by John ALSO.....with his constant reverting and removing of something that was CONCEDED AT LEAST a long time ago (even if not by everyone), and with John never going to the Talk page at all over this.   If I never clearly broke any clear unambiguous red line here, and still be deemed as "edit-warring", then why not John also for doing the same exact thing that I did, but in the opposite way with his own reverts, and assertions?  Just cuz you happen to agree with John's objection to this source does not necessarily mean that he wasn't edit-warring about it though.    71.246.98.233 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)