User talk:211.197.11.16

September 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ZLEA _T\^C 12:44, 1 September 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.

Sock puppetry case open

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OrbitalEnd48401. Thank you. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You funny one. I have no account along the fact that the chances of the orbit being Korean is low after reading his page. Good luck proving I him. I prove I am not. You have my address shown which come back to my house. Word Sockpuppet make me laugh I translated and it come back as puppet show 서울인형극회. You accuse me of that which make me laugh. I go back to Korean version of wiki as clearly they more accepting then you. I done nothing wrong. 211.197.11.16 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Yergin

Hey! I was wondering why you removed the entire section on Daniel Yergin's opinions on peak oil? The sources don't seem to be primary, and while they are opinion, that is the point of the section. For now I'll restore the article to your first edit. Ovinus (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus Real. I deleted this because I didn't believe opinion was supposed to be in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, especially opinions over a decade old. Some sources are primary... this person authored op-ed pieces on those publications such as WSJ. Also, this material just felt like unnecessary gossip. I am sourcing the below guidelines as to why I removed the section:

WP:NOTOPINION + WP:BLPGOSSIP

I also felt that mention to his beliefs were already embedded throughout the article which is my understanding of an unbiased article... not having an entire dedicated section to one area of focus.

I request that this section be removed for those reasons, but if that is not possible I will take a stab at cleaning it up to meet the guidelines for the Encyclopedia listed above in a better way. I also am placing my last round of edits back in as those edits were tru style cleanup that was undone.

Thanks for asking and checking in 211.197.11.16 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood, and looking further at the sources for criticism of his ideas, all are from blogs, which aren't WP:RS. As a compromise, I've restored parts of just the first paragraph of the section. I think we should probably mention his essay in the WSJ given it seems to be relatively widely known, though. Thank you for being persistent, and happy editing! Ovinus (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in condensing it and for the discussion here! What you did seems to be a lot more concise and neutral so I'm happy with it. Just adjusting the section to be chronological by date but that's all from me 211.197.11.16 (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Disneyland social club, you may be blocked from editing. intforce (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2021 (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.

Article issues

@Ferret: @NinjaRobotPirate: Revan actually does have multiple issues, is written from a fan's point of view rather than a neutral point of view, needs a whole lot more additional citations for verification, and describes pretty much everything about the character in a primarily in-universe style. There is no concept of a character creation section, its reception and merchandise sections are barebones and from mostly non-notable websites, and if these issues are not addressed and the page is pretty much rewritten from scratch, it should be proposed for deletion. At the very least this template should be present so someone other than me or you can address the issues on the talk page, or just go straight to improving the article. 211.197.11.16 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You're a banned user and your edits will be reverted when found. We do not delete articles because of cleanup issues regardless. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: I do not know what you mean by saying that; have you read the article yourself? Actually read it? It's terrible! 211.197.11.16 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Either way, it's not your problem, as you are community banned due to repeated and persistent sockpuppetry. Find a new hobby. Maybe Fandom? -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

---