User talk:99.50.80.96

February 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Adam Schiff. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 22:26, 15 February 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.
 * That's not my "point of view." That's reporting from a reliable source. Calling someone else's contributions to Wikipedia "vandalism" is a personal attack and you may be sanctioned for doing this. 99.50.80.96 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome but I've been here for a looooooong time. I just never created an account. I'm not edit warring, either. I undid someone's false accusation of vandalism ONCE. Go bother someone else with false accusations please.99.50.80.96 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You blocked me without telling me or giving a reason anywhere? This can't be appropriate administrator protocol. And now that you erased my remarks to, his reply is out of context. 99.50.80.96 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony logged the block of your IP address as a CheckUser block. This type of block is used in cases of sockpuppetry or block evasion. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not comment on the reason behind a specific CheckUser block of an IP, and for similar reasons do not give a block notice when making them. This is relatively common practice. You see the reason for your block when you attempt to edit, so you know why I placed it. You are free to request another CU review my block or request that the Arbitration Committee review it. I would request that they email me before considering lifting it, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)