User talk:185.35.164.107

Hello, 185.35.164.107. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You were blocked for this type of unconstructive behavior before. Stop it. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You have the wrong person here.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I placed a talk discussion to further talk on this matter on Potential Superpowers. I reverted back because there was no discussion on January 1st[1]. Since there was no discussion on these edits, I reverted back simply because

I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed with using talk. If you look here, there was no talk on these changes, so I added to talk to dicuss first. These edits should not be done with discussion and I see no discussion on it. I am protecting the article.

This is your only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Potential superpowers. Josh3580_talk/hist 20:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I placed a dicussion on talk here[2] I reverted because there was no discussion[[3]] since January 1, it was only on population. One editor moved content out and never used talk, sources were deleted and taken out without making a discussion about that content removed. Sources were removed without talk, that should be discussed first.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:185.35.164.107 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I placed a dicussion on talk here[4] I reverted because there was no discussion since January 1, it was only on population. One editor moved content out and never used talk. Sources were removed without talk, that should be discussed first.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Given there was no objection to the Jan 1 edit until now, it's up to you to further discuss on the talk page why your reversion improves the article and wait for other editors to weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here[5]. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here[6] spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really that is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?

If there's no discussion about an edit, either interested editors agree with the edit, don't care, or missed it. Every edit does not require discussion. However when multiple editors are reverting you, that is a definite sign your edit requires discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

When one editor notifies the other, look the article was changed and then goes back without single discussion. Talk doesn't doesn't get the attention at all, what do you do? You can't advertise on Wikipedia, so what do you do to get people to talk? Second if the editors handing out in part of a team to edit the same without discussion what do you do there is still no discussion?

If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here[7]. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here[8] spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really there is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?

If you look on talk now, who replied? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Potential_superpowers which I reverted the article one hour ago, why aren't people replying this to but they revert back? Look on the talk history and see here[9] There was no discussion from Jan 1 to Jan 11? Why but when I revert back, one editor comes in to revert back the same editor that changed it without using talk? Why? Who's stepping in when that changed the content? What am I doing wrong and makes them have power over the article?--185.35.164.107 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. I asked you to discuss on the talk page why your version is better but all you do is basically say, "look at the other guy!" If you can come up with cogent content-based arguments, and the other party then refuses to discuss, then look at WP:DR for options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Potential superpowers. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If/when you come back

Reiterating the above, you'll find you'll have greater success if you make specific content-based arguments as to why your version is better rather than just saying, "the other guy didn't use talk!" over and over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---