User talk:Roldank

Queens neighborhood demographics
Hi. I've reverted some of your changes to demographics on Queens neighborhood articles. If they are correct. please add sources. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A train article
Who cares if you currently work or used to work at New York City Transit? It's not like you own any of the New York City Subway articles, do you? Nobody on this site has the right to claim ownership of anything. I've reverted your edits due to its flaws and I'm sure you know that. Back off. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I already reverted that image at the R46 (New York City Subway car) article. Check the page's history. I'm not going to put it back up, and neither will you. I reverted that image for a good reason. Get over it. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't get on my nerves, okay? This isn't your site. Nobody cares if you've worked for NYCT or whatever. It's just a damn image. That image you just posted has, yet again, been reverted. The image is a lot shaded in parts. Meanwhile, the Broad Channel image is quite clearer without any shaded parts. Get the hell over it already. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not gonna tell you this again. Stop it right now and move on. And to answer your question about the R46 R train image, well, take a damn shot of a newer one that's clearer and then replace it, if you're so picky about it. There's no other images of a better-looking picture of an R46 R train at this time, and I can't even seem to any. Also, who cares where the train starts from? Does the railroad direction even matter? So you're going out of your way to edit war all for an image? Wow, just wow. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Cut it out or I'll request a page protection and also for you to be blocked. I've already explain to you everything and yet you're being completely stubborn. Enough is enough. You're editing warring all for an image. Pity. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on A (New York City Subway service). 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.