User talk:MeMike123

June 2019

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on Wikipedia

Please cease your edit war at List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. Continually edit-warring will only result in your account being blocked on Wikipedia. We do not appreciate that kind of behaviour here. If you have a disagreement with another editor, please discuss it with them on the talk page of the article in question.

Incidentally your arguments for removing the prediction are not justified. Whether or not they are scientists or just trying to sell copies of their books is completely irrelevant. Most people making predictions are just trying to make a profit. One of the criteria for including a prediction on this list is that the predictions has coverage in reliable sources, which is very much the case here. It doesn't matter who they are or why they are making the prediction, all that matters is media coverage.

However, I also believe the prediction should be removed from the article, though the reason I am opposed to including this information is completely different from yours. I've explained my reasons on the talk page, where you should join in on the conversation. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page: "The climate change predictions are certainly a lot more convincing than the religious predictions but they don't set exact dates. This report says the world "could end by 2015" if current trends continue. Firstly that's obviously not a firm date. Secondly its giving us practical solutions to avoid this catastrophe from eventuating. Or in other words, it's only a date by which they world MIGHT end IF we don't take measures to prevent it. It doesn't fit in well with the other predictions."

If we removed every prediction made by an idiot who just wanted to make money, we'd have to remove about 90% of the predictions, and then we wouldn't have an article. So just for future reference, it doesn't matter if they are real scientists, whether they are wrong, whether they are stupid or whether they are trying to sell books. The only reason I am against this 'prediction' is because it isn't actually a firm prediction. It's just saying something MIGHT happen IF we don't change things. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now I get it. Thnx. Yes indeed there are a lot of weird people on this planet. But if we all remove them. Then you can indeed better remove the entire page. MeMike123 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 1 more question. Do you mean 2015 or 2050? MeMike123 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, that was a typo, I meant to say 2050. Also just for future reference you don't need to make a new section header every time you reply to something. Keep an entire conversation under the one header, like this. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events was changed by MeMike123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88772 on 2019-06-10T00:45:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]