User talk:97.98.86.66

July 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 9×25mm Dillon has been reverted. Your edit here to 9×25mm Dillon was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VXhkQkSz4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

July 2017
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Natalia Veselnitskaya. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 15 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.

Hello, I'm WikiVirusC. Your recent edit to the page Natalia Veselnitskaya appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. I have made a comment on the talk page here, feel free to address the comments and add in the proper information after discussion.  WikiVirus  C  (talk) 22:23, 15 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.

Fusion GPS-related content
You have now tried to insert the same material into yet another article: Rinat Akhmetshin; diff with an edit summary describing your edit: "POV wording, distortion of sources, and Daily Caller not a reliable source. Stop.". You might want to slow down, or stop editing these articles for a while :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I followed the suggestions by WikiVirusC. I did not simply revert to my previous flawed text.
 * 2. I also toned it down in my last edit to this article (the 1st edit after VirusC made those suggstions.), and challenged (using logic & facts) his OPINION (which he gave no rationale to support...) that it's a WP:RS (They have only 1 complaint of poor ed fact-checking in 7 yars, as [[Daily Caller] says; compare to CNN whose even published stories sourced from 4chan teenagers who tricked CNN, and several other times they needed to fire people (Brazile, the last 3 CNN guys in the Scaramucci case, and more... so are w supposed to ban CNN? I'd sure say their track-record for FACT-CHECKING (no matter your POV...) is worse than Daily Caller's;

HOWEVER:
 * 3. We have varied POV in this section:

"email-to-donald-trump-jr-could-be-a-smoking-gun-as-russia-connections-deepen," Natasha Bertrand, etc... ...including that *I* used leftwing sources. So I'd suggest I'm not the one w/the most imbalanced POV.
 * News since yesterday, FACTS, show TWO sides to this story.
 * And of course it's a POLITICAL story, so lots of people have opnions. Or want to omit inconvenient facts. We can take this to Arb if you wish, so we can get "more than just a few people who happened to be here on a Saturday" -- because I'm confident my LAST revisions are MORE neutral compared to what was there previously -- and an   because this story is moving fast -- I don't propose that the facts we know today are the be all/end all.
 * The media --left AND Right, as my selection of sources showed -- and politicians have found her ties to Fusion GPS relevant to her Trump meeting. Why relvant? ''Fusion is THE corp who happened to provide those precise stories SOURCED FROM 4CHAN TEENS, which 4chan later confessed was only to see who'd be BIASED enough to run such kooky stories fabricated by themselves: e.g. story of Trump paying prozzies to urinate on his head, SO YES, IT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF EVERYONE ASSOCIATED w/Fusion GPS, JUST AS WP:RS TELLS US TO QUESTION ALL AUTHORS PUBLIISHED BY AN EDITOR NOT KNOWN FOR FACT-CHECKING. She was a nobody and wouldn't be in the news today, with her ties -- and Akhmetshin also has ties to Fusion -- to the anti-Trump corp, Fusion, being questioned in every major paper, left and right and centrist, except TWO people tied to this corp proven so biasd that they've lied in the past (4chan took advantage of their Confirmation Bias), and why have any article on these 2 meeting Trump at all, if it's to tell a one-sided argument Logical Fallacy? That won't engender trust in WP.
 * Come to think, when JIMMY WALES gave good sources calling Mark Dice a "media critic," and activist-editors said, "Nope, truth is determined by cnsensus on WP, refusing to even TRY proving JIMMY WALES HIMSELF," do you think that style -- YOUR style -- is good for QP's future? "We'll gang up on you, and NOT EVEN GIVE REASONS (as VirusC was 1st to critique me, and I saw his rationale)?  You don't need to tell the other side of the story exactly how I told it, but to kep thes articls as a one-sided argument FALLACY (violation) OF LOGIC is even worse.'''  So, please, edit selectively (or REASON with me, as VirusC did, instead of wholesale-deleting.  I'm just TRYING to stay with what sources wrote (ok, in 4 cases, what I inferred from THEIR tone, sorry), and I met Virus C's CONSTRUCTIVE critiques on those approx 4 items... If you don't want to make CONSTRUCTIVE critiques, or add your own info that you think presents another side (and 3 of 4 of you Wiipedians have NOT evn attmpted to do so rationally, like VirusC did, to mae me see the errors), that's not my problem; that's your problem when an Arb Committee asks you for REASON+FACTS.
 * Please try to be a bit more constructive, instead of delting-wholesale; WikiVirusC was; username "Neutrality" wasn't constructive like WikiVirusC (nor was "Neutrality" uh... "neutral" for the REASONS I just gave.
 * 4. Lastly... I merely didn't keep the POV one-sided argument that this section was, before I got here. (which granted, the FACTS AT THE TIME (just 2 days ago), somewhat merited a one-sideed argument.) I tried to balance that pre-existing POV; maybe I went too far on 3-4 points, and VirusC helped me correct those.


 * I haven't been edit-warring; I'm asking for constructive criticism, and took efforts to meet VirusC's because I agreed with most of what he said. He hasn't complained since then, and you've yet to STATE YOUR CASE.

97.98.86.66 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, P.S. blocking Ip's doesn't work; you never heard of VPN, or even dynamic addresses, or the "HAVEQUICK" to jump freq's (radio) or IP's (da ennrwebs)? :-) I'm a hakkr.  I'm THE haxr -- Russia didn't do it, but you're still chasing your tails, ahahahahahaha.  I'm behind FOUR government VPN's (mine isn't on the "free VPN lists" to block) then 2 proxies, and my self-coded HAVEQUICK.  Just talk like a HUMAN BEING before deleting ...or edit away w/o talking to me, I'll edit (giving LOGIC) if I thought you went too far -- that's how it's SUPPOSED to work in WP's guidelines.


 * Ping   Darmokand (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:20, 16 July 2017 (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.

December 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Trap music. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Anthony Bourdain have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Anthony Bourdain was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMhKzXik9c&t=78s) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

August 2018
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Open Society Foundations. 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. Prolog (talk) 11:41, 8 August 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.

April 2019
Hello, I'm JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis 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. JimVC3 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2019 (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.

April 2019
Hello, I'm JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis 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. JimVC3 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2019 (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.

Please note precisely what you opine as being "unconstructive" about adding a {{cn]} ? I found it rather unconstructive for you to remove a instead of providing a citation -- in accord with WP guidelines. (especially as the article is in a shambles, marked above the Lede as needing essentially a "total re-write," and my edits attempted to fix many self-contradictions within the article. It was even more unconstructive as you did not leave any Constructive Criticism, (similarly, you replied on yur own personal Talk page to someone who left you a note that he found your edit "unconstructive" by asking him to clarify why he reverted your edit.) and you left just a vague note for me that I think that was unconstructive. Pray tell, what is "unconstructive" about trying to get a source for an uncited claim -- a claim that CONTRADICTS (as I noted in the "CN" below) CITED parts of the article itself & contradicts several more editors ( 'consnsus' who agre w/me) who noted in the Talk page the same thing(s) that I noted in the following "CN"?

"cn|need modern sources saying it's: #1 a "theory" not a hypothesis, #2, that it's one, not multiple theories/hypotheses (as "multiple" appears to be the consensus in the Talk page), and #3 that the theories/hypotheses (unless you have sources meeting WP:V/WP:RS/etc editing guidelines which say that only 1 such theory/hypothsis exists...) are ALL "fringe" according to experts."

Thanks if you can tell me how my edit violated WP's WP:V, etc, rules, because I do believe that YOU violate WP rules by removing a "CN" instead of providing a source (or at least stating an Articulable Reason why no citation would be needed, when others have tagged that article & pleas show me people on the Talk page who disagreed that this IS "multiple" hypothses, and "hypotheses," not "theories," or etc) -- but perhaps you merely acted hastily & didn't read the article or Talk page to see the CONTEXT of why several editors in th Talk page agree w/me that it is not one theory, nor even a theory (as the title itself was even originally "pole reversal theory," but others who came before me agreed...it is not a "theory," it's a hypothesis -- and SEVERAL hypotheses, some of which (from professional, published science journals, or from a professor who worked with Albert Einstein, as Einstein wrote the Foreword to the professor's Pole Reversal hypothesis book...) had more merit than other hypothesies (from occultists/psychics/other amateurs). 97.98.86.66 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My initial revert was made in conjunction with a previous revert that occurred on March 31. At that time, an editor asked for further discussion on the Talk page.  Not seeing any, I reverted the edit from April 1.  However, I did miss the fact that much of the editing was done concerning a "cn" and may indeed have been too hasty.  Please note that writing phrases or words in all caps on talk pages in WP is avoided as it is taken as yelling or shouting at someone.  Thanks.  JimVC3 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Joseph Mifsud for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Pilaz (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)