User talk:Owner Ming

Owner Ming, you are invited to the Teahouse
im not even sure if this is the right way to respond. Why does everyone think im soneone called Ownerming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
You are using the Daithicarr account as a sockpuppet to insert NPOV violating material into the article 2014 Crimean Crisis while evading detection. A discussion on the talk page of that article criticized your editing behaviour. Using sockpuppets to evade detection is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Immediately adhere to Wikipedia policy by using one account and cease using multiple accounts at once.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Im not, I suspect you dont like my edit, reverted back to the original heavily biased one sided account and then accused me of being some other user to justify your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The evidence is clear:   . You used Getting Started as a tag in each of these edits to justify your changes. You are a sockpupeet violating Wikipedia policy, users have a right to remove your edits. If another user provides criticism and upholds NPOV involving the same material, I and others will listen to them. You have violated your editing privileges here.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see a change i made to an article and then how i changed it again to correct a spelling mistake. I cant see how that is evidence that I am another user or sockpuppet. Frankly I think you are trying to bully me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithicarr (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apology
I did not know that the Getting started tab was automatic. I apologize for the accusation of sockpuppetry.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2014 Crimean crisis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Continued edit warring on the 2014 Crimean crisis article despite prior warnings
Cease your disruptive editing and edit warring on the 2014 Crimean crisis article immediately. You keep introducing blatantly POV terms and removing edits of multiple editors, even if those edits satisfied WP:NPOV. A notification to the administrators' notice board will be sent if you do not cease immediately. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 2014 Crimean crisis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

...
If the admins see this, I guess edit warring's another reason to delete that page and maybe block him? But im not an admin. and Im not going to force people. -Generic BobJoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic BobJoe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)