User talk:Marco010101

[no title]
Stop changing the 'climate of rome' page. Your data is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Rome. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please do not change the values in the climate table without providing a source. None of these values match what the official data says. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rome, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Matthew_hk  t  c  17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you source http://www.holiday-weather.com/rome/averages/ stated average in January was 8C, average high was 13, but your content was not based on what you cited. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

[no title]
Nice job in changing wrong climate data. Continue like this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, i put you name to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, thank you. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Climate of Rome - It is mediterranean!
Stop changing true data to false data in the Climate of Rome page. According to you, Rome experiences winters with high temperatures of approximately 11 degrees Celsius, which would be the case if Rome had an Atlantic Climate, but guess what: it doesn't! Also, you state that in summer daily temperatures revolve around maximum 30 degrees Celsius, which is untrue: it is much hotter than that. Go to Rome or simply search on Google "Rome weather averages" and you will see! Rome has a Mediterranean climate! I have lived in Rome for 7 years and apart to approximately 10 days, I have never put on gloves... winters are mild, springs and autumns are warm, and summers are hot. Please check your data! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is you creating hoax. You have NO SOURCE on your data. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not putting wrong data!
I repeat, HOW DOES ROME HAVE A HIGH OF 11 DEGREES CELSIUS IN WINTERS? It is mediterranean!! Plus, I have cited holiday weather AND world weather online! Furthermore, I have lived in Rome 7 years, did you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Where is the real source of your data or it just pop out from your head? Your link did not have your alleged data. Matthew_hk   t  c  18:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

And where is YOUR data? Plus, mine is professional AND certified data! Sorry if you live in a place where it is 11 degrees in January, but you don't have to blame Rome for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I may suspected the data https://web.archive.org/web/20170727013115/http://clima.meteoam.it/web_clima_sysman/Clino6190/CLINO239.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20170727013211/http://clima.meteoam.it/AtlanteClimatico/pdf/(239)Roma%20Ciampino.pdf cited previously was obtained from 1970 to 2000, which may not reflect the global warning and climatic change, but not a reason to put imaginary / hoax / unsourced data to wikipedia.  Matthew_hk   t  c  18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your data, unlike mine, is not official! Just an old PDF that anyone could have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, meteoam.it = Aeronautica Militare - Servizio Meteorologico, is a department of the military of the Italian Republic. How about your alleged data? Matthew_hk   t  c  18:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

October 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 User:Matthew hk, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Captain Sweden 18:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop vandalizing Matthew Hk's Userpage, sort it out civilly or find a mediator  -glove- (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * it was so civil i put the name on Administrator intervention against vandalism and civil enough to ask for the hoax data he created and reply his junk on false data claim of the military of Italy.  Matthew_hk   t  c  18:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -glove- (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You link provided was for Rome. We have google translate . (ran out of template as no vandal 5) Matthew_hk   t  c  18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ramacca shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Matthew_hk  t  c  18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Weathertrustchannel. Thank you. Matthew_hk  t  c  19:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistently adding sources to articles which is contradicted by sources, including by sources you yourself have provided and even contradicted by other edits that you yourself made, and for edit warring, continuing to do so after being informed of the edit warring policy. This is a fairly short block, made in the hope that you will take notice and change your editing practices. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As a result of further investigation I have discovered that you have done other vandalism in addition to fake climate data, and also that you have done other disruptive editing not from this account. I have therefore made the block indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)