User talk:150.101.100.140

Welcome!

Hello, 150.101.100.140, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Unschool 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rio Grande

Hey, regarding this edit of yours, I want to point out that you should generally give a reason for reverting another editor. You will note that, when I reverted you, back here, I left an edit summary with an explanation. My point, which I will repeat here, was that even if your statement is true, that isn't the place in the article for such a point in the article. It was a bit awkward there, but you can certainly place the information somewhere else, and it might work fine. Unschool 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the welcome. And thanks for the info. Cheers!150.101.100.140 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. Your recent edit to Franklin Mountains (Texas) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

July 2018

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Floodlight, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. That source is not appropriate. It is a promotional how-to from a manufacturer's site, and it does not support any of the claims in the sentence it is supposedly referencing. Meters (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Referencing and work formatting

Hi. I've noticed your series of edits to various Adelaide-based articles to add information concerning the tram extension. Thank you for your edits. However, I would like to direct you to WP:CITE listing the Wikipedia's citation policy. I would also recommend getting to know Template:Cite web, a template that enables users to easily include citation authors, origins of citations, and access dates for a more comprehensive citation listing in-article. Additionally, a more encyclopedic writing tone would be invaluable in your edits; for example, "the company responsible for construction has gone into voluntary administration" is far less ambiguous than "the company responsible for construction has a big problem now". Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree. You are adding little snippets of info or your own commentary with sources that sometimes don't actually support what you are adding. Meters (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I appreciate your time.150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RE your undo and summary [1]. I did read the source. That's why I undid you. You source does not say that there has been re-alignment of streets, and it does not say that that the work was in 2016 and 2017. You might want to read WP:BRD, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH. Meters (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, the articles were written in 2017 and 2016. I am going to find a suitable article.150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at East Terrace, Adelaide, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This is at least the sixth time you have used the same source to supposedly support claims that do not appear in that source (in East Terrace, Adelaide, Rundle Park, and Grenfell Street, Adelaide. Read the links on your talk page and stop doing this. Meters (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on East Terrace, Adelaide. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your new sources still do not support the claim that there are multiple streets in the area that have been realigned because of this project. Discuss this on the talk page or leave it alone Meters (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Rundle Park. Teh cites sources do not say that either park was to be closed permanently. "Cries" is not an encyclopedic term. The sources do not say that the protests resulted in saving the parks. Thy simply say that the design was modified to lessen the impact, and that a road which was to have been closed was retained. Meters (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rundle Park. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.
If you wan to mention the construction project in East Terrace, Adelaide, Rundle Park and Grenfell Street, Adelaide then source it properly. Do not continue to make claims that are not supported by the sources you use. Meters (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

If you add these improperly sourced claims again to any of these articles I will request that you be blocked. Meters (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

And your request failed. You thought you could overstep your bounds maybe? Sorry it did not work. The other administrators agree that my edits were not vandalism.150.101.100.140 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not start a battleground with other editors like this please. It's disruptive and yields absolutely no positive benefits or results. Please understand that when it comes to the policy of edit warring and over a content-related dispute or disagreement, it doesn't matter whose edits are "correct" or not vs the edits made by the others involved. The edits are disruptive because of the fact that users are choosing to resort to repeatedly reverting each others' edits in a back-and-fourth combative fashion instead of properly resolving their dispute by discussing it on the article's talk page. I highly recommend reviewing the policy page I linked you to before making any edits so that you have the chance to understand it. Wikipedia is not a place to engage in edit warring or battleground conduct, and all users are expected to comply with these policies. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I was only responding to Meters threats. The other administrator told Meters that my edits were not vandalism.150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Olden days tram

Hi 150.101.100.140, most of us editing here on Wikipedia are complete history nerds and love old tram maps. What's getting your edits reverted is the way you're trying to force poor/vague wording into articles and making zero effort to engage constructively with other editors. Please either ask for help to make the content better quality - via the talk page or by editing constructively in the article space. The other thing is the #1 way to lose trust with other editors when adding content in good faith but that is not up to standard is to edit from an IP instead of named account. It would really help get this tram stuff up if you got a Wikipedia account. Donama (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"In the old days" is not a date, its a reminiscence. Write some text and then use a picture/map to illustrate it, don't try to put content only in the caption. Tram tracks need dates of laying, conversion to electricity and removal to be useful on the road articles, and a photo would probably be more helpful than a network plan. They're not useful on the suburb articles if it was just the end of the line. It could be useful if there was a depot/tram barn/tram horse paddock in the suburb/village, but again the picture should support the prose not replace it. I also encourage you to register on the site. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is an account so important? I don't understand this. Is there a charge for having an account?150.101.100.140 (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no charge for an account, you just need to register yourself. Part of Donama's point is that most vandalism and bad faith edits are done by anonymous IP editors, so regular Wikipedia editors may subconsciously start with a different attitude to edits by IP numbers. It may be unfortunate, but it is often true. One of the benefits of being registered allows you to have a watchlist of the articles that interest you to more easily notice if they have changed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Adelaide Convention Centre, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You undid a bunch of copyediting, as well as reinserting the trivia about an incident of domestic violence which was incidental to where it had occurred. I have reverted to the copyedited version. If you wish to reinsert the incident of violence, please discuss on the talk page why you think it is relevant. Scott Davis ^Talk 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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

July 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 05:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please help me modify it, do NOT be an armchair critic, thanks.150.101.100.140 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Nigos. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi Nigos. Can you explain which comment?150.101.100.140 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure significance has been sufficiently established. Please use the article talk page to try to gain consensus for your changes. The onus is on you as the one introducing the edit to do so. El_C 05:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The onus is on you. You keep removing a section of the article which is also sourced.150.101.100.140 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit in which you told El_C to "grow up" didn't sound civil. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I thought swear words ( the F word, C word ) are uncivil.150.101.100.140 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If they are used against another person, then they are uncivil.

Please explain your changes to this edit? Thanks Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

But that edit does not seem uncivil to me. That edit is also sourced. You also asked me to put something more and not just a picture.150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary for this edit is the one I was talking about. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it does not contain any swear words or racist/sexist language.150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Telling someone to "grow up" isn't that civil. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither is just reverting my edit, especially after I've written on the talk page of the Comoros article. He has removed it. So, in other words, I've attempted to take it to talk and now he's deleted it. You call that civil? 150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You were forced to take to the talk page since I protected the article. And on that talk page comment you merely asked that I be blocked but did not otherwise attempt to address the content of your edit. El_C 06:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

All that is an aside. The totality of your edits were simply not up to par, sorry. El_C 06:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, I was not forced. But nice try. Also, your behaviour was also not up it. Atleast Nigos took the time to explain and help me out.150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to launch an unblock appeal, if you feel my actions are not up to standards. El_C 07:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And I will, in due course:) 150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive edits. Also for non sequitur edits and issues pertaining to editorializing and a non-neutral tone. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Block 2

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making the very same disruptive edits you were blocked for previously. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 07:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are the ones making disruptive edits. I've put sources and most of the content is facts. You keep removing them, therefore you are disruptive editor. 150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, you are more than free to launch an unblock appeal. El_C 07:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And I will, in due course:) 150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuing to add non sequitur synthesis is not a feasible approach. El_C 07:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually most of it is not original research and there are sources (where relevant). Thanks.150.101.100.140 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit is, at best, a non sequitur. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. El_C 07:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for making the very same disruptive edits you were blocked for previously, again. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no. If you look carefully, you will find that the reverts were not really the same. I made some changes and put in sources. Please read again before you make accusations. Thank you.150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You're still making the very same "received a lot of hate in the media recently," etc. type of edits which are too poorly-written for an encyclopedia, sorry. El_C 06:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I was not disruptive. Why did you block me? Thanks. 150.101.100.140 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you were disruptive, making a ton of edits that were unexplained and unverified--or unencyclopedic ("deranged"). Leave edit summaries to explain your edits, and please do better than saying "research it". Drmies (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Apart from the 'deranged' edit, I am not being disruptive. The other edits are self explanatory.150.101.100.140 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rundle Street, Adelaide. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---