User talk:98.113.64.235

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:1481:C127:718:F382:4815 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. re edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Letter_bomb&diff=865912328&oldid=865835164 and others on Letter bomb page
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * That text is identical to what is in the main Letter Bomb article, in which it says that the bombs were directed to "prominent critics of the Donald Trump administration" not "persons associated with Liberal politics", which is not in the sources. Please refrain from your unconstructive edits, particularly on this talk page. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To explain my warning, you appear to be adding content in violation of WP:POV, on the mail bomb page and other pages. In this instance, "in an effort to silence political dissidents in the United States" is the point of view. No one knows why the bomber sent the bombs. It could be to silence them or kill them. It could be just to scare people into shutting up or it could be to scare people into supporting the Donald Trump or you will be killed. It's not in any citations or references. We just don't know. As far as my warning goes, Wikipedia guidelines requires appropriate warnings, which is why I came to your talk page and followed Wikipedia guidelines, as others have. Working on the assumption you are a new editor and not someone bypassing an account or a previous block, I also included a helpful welcome template since your edits started Oct 23, 2018. If you feel my warning was inappropriate you are free to appeal to an admin. If you feel my revert was in error, which cite are you referring to? In the end, guidelines require other editors to come to a user talk page and insert certain templates, which is what I did in this instant. Other editors, including myself, are available for assistance of new users. If you feel you need assistance, seem to be getting reverts and don't know why or need any other help, feel free to insert  and someone will come and help figure things out with you. Good day and happy editing. P37307 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I accepted your removal of the arguably speculative, albeit natural, inference. Still, the remainder of that edit was good. Nothing wrong with collaboration. Thank you for your welcome. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the first part of your edit ended up being restored. I should have put more explanation for my reasoning in my warning. I apologize for that. I will share with you that when I first started editing years ago I got disheartened at some of the feedback and warnings I got and I stopped editing altogether but then I came back and figured out a little of the guidelines and been editing ever since. I still get zinged by editors who have been here longer than I but my skin is much thicker now to the zings. What I started doing was on my second revert I would then go to whatever talk page I was working on and put my reasoning and also a note to look at the talk page in the "edit summary" box. I had to do that on the Talk:Letter bomb page regarding the term MagaBomber when the event first started. Oh, one other thing, breaking news pages... they get very contentious and territorial. Many edit wars occur during a breaking event and frequent page changes, esp with IP users instead of account holders. My advice, take advantage of every page's talk page. Don't be shy to go to a users talk page and mention something, either. Thanks again, Keep Editing! P37307 (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United States Electoral College. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 27 October 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.
 * 13 references have been added by other editors. I agree with this editor, who I wish would covert it's IP login to a user account ;), in this instance that the controversial mention should be in the lead summary. Maybe it could be condensed a bit and expanded elsewheres in the page. Also, he/she gave her reasoning in the talk page so this controversy should be taken there for a consensus instead of a POV warning. P37307 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Condensed is fine, but it must be NPOV. This editor's proposed material is clearly one-sided. SMP0328. (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did you put this here, rather than in the discussion? Moreover, why did you ignore all of my points explaining my edits? (And my tone is quite formal.) To be substantive: if you have some great arguments to add on behalf of the college, please add them. I've tried my best to present these in a neutral fashion. It is not my fault that the arguments in favor are so weak that merely juxtaposing them with the arguments against seems to be "unbalanced." Nevertheless, that certainly doesn't mean that it is "balanced" to pretend no controversy exists, especially when it comprises 2 full sections of the article which comprise NEARLY HALF OF THE ARTICLE. Are you seriously suggestign that content which takes up about half of the article by weight deserves a mere 1-line mention (or no mention at all)in the lead? What could your argument for that possibbly be?98.113.64.235 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Legal affairs of Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing.  Se by  15  41  07:31, 3 March 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Protests against Donald Trump. Scorbunny (talk) 02:23, 4 March 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.

September 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:16, 26 September 2019 (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.