User talk:Clipdesk

June 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did several times at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DCmacnut <> 20:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Portales, New Mexico. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DCmacnut <> 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Albuquerque, New Mexico, you may be blocked from editing. DCmacnut <> 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Albuquerque, New Mexico, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

You are adding statistics without sources, which violates our verifiability policy. IT's not vandalism, but it is within policy to revert unsourced additions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first to revert your edits. By themselves, the individual edits would not necessarily be vandalism if properly sourced and neutral. The multiple unsourced edits required mass reversion tools which are often reserved fore more obvious cases of vandalism. Perhaps the warnings could have been presented better, but the pattern of continuing to add unconstructive edits after being warned against doing so, including deleting a warning from your talk page, that raised my eybrows. My spider sense is a little more active since I recently came across a case of "stealth vandalism" of several Iowa articles, where multiple tiny changes were made to disrupt the article but still flying under the radar. I have no beef with your or the edits per se, as long as they are verifiable and neutral.DCmacnut <> 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Comment.[reply]

ok, I dont have sources, but saying Portales is not like a west TX town is wrong, anyone that has been to Portales knows that it is more related culturally and visually to West TX than it is anywhere else in New Mexico. I am from Portales so I should know,all my family still live there. I never saw people bike to work also,the only people I saw on bikes were kids and a few of the mentally ill people who cant drive.

And downtown ABQ is far from a hub of urban life, ABQ's downtown is dead, central ave. is busy in the day with traffic,homeless and people who work downtown and at night its busy with club/party poeple, I currently live there, its dead, no one goes to downtown unless they wanna get drunk.

but next time I will update with sources, but seriously, you kinda give a false impression of the areas with a couple of the posts.

In addition, you're removing perfectly legitimate, neutral information from the Portales article without any real rationale and trying to insert OR about it being like a West Texas town, which is not only unsupported by references but not correct. And I've been to Albuquerque many many times, eaten in many restaurants there, drank in many bars there, enjoyed a night of improv comedy... saying there is no nightlife whatsoever is simply wrong. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COS and WP:V. The threshold is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you "know" or your opinion. I "know" a lot about North Dakota history from family sources, but I can't add it unless it's backed up by a neutral reliable source. I agree that much of the ABQ article could use some improvement, but you can't add statements willy-nilly. Good luck. DCmacnut <> 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]