Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, daoutside.hanford.gov (198.232.211.130), is registered to Lockheed Martin Services and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In the event of vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
In the event of vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled. If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for your agency or facility's administration to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time and abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation.
Some government IP addresses are considered sensitive. If blocking this IP address, determine if Wikipedia:SIP applies; if so, follow directions.
Officials and network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle on the Columbia, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 198.232.211.130. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Battle on the Columbia.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle on the Columbia}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
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.
Edit war warning
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Your multiple edit reverts on 21 March to Supremacy Clause fits the definition of edit-warring. Please stop this behavior. Drdpw (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop your aggressive editing of Supremacy clause. If you do not agree with other people's edits, discuss your concerns on the article's talk page first. Do not change the good faith edits of others simply because you disagree. Drdpw (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not reverting, I am editing as allowed. You are the one reverting my edits and not citing one of the reasons for a revert as required by Wikipedia. I would kindly ask you to not revert my edits without a valid basis. I believe my edits are technically correct but I am open to you communicating to me if you wish to share your thoughts with me. 198.232.211.130 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do appear to be reverting other peoples edits and not following the correct procedures for solving disputes. Per WP:BRD your changes have been reverted and instead of discussing them on the talk page of the relevant article, you are restoring your own viewpoint with no discussion other than a dismissal of others opinions. noq (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you would start a notice of an edit war when I was the one who restored your edit. Other than that, you and I have had no interaction that I am aware of? Is there something specific you want to discuss with me? 198.232.211.130 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Your edit added back the material that you keep adding despite the objection of numerous editors. You reverted my edit. You ignored the formal warning issued by another editor to stop this behavior. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert any edit of yours. I have been ganged-up on by others for adding original material, this is true, but why you and not they would report me to Admin. seems contrived. I would suggest you wait until you and I have an actual controversy. As to the others they have only reverted my legitimate edits, why I do not know because they offer no reasons, which at a minimum would seem rather rude...wouldn't you agree? 198.232.211.130 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user at IP 198.232.211.130: If you continue edit warring, you will be blocked from editing. And, stop falsely stating that you are not edit warring. You've already made seven reverts today in the article on the Supremacy Clause. That is edit warring. And stop contradicting other editors who are pointing out that you are edit warring.
The burden is on you to justify your edits by discussing on the talk page for the relevant article, and by persuading other editors that you are right. The burden is on YOU, not on everyone else.
Your statement about the state of the law on the Tenth Amendment is actually more or less correct. However, being right about that is not enough. Please review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you should also read the page on WP:BRD. You've been bold and made a change, but it was reverted. You now need to discuss the change on the article talk page and get consensus. Continuing to revert as you are will end up with you blocked and/or the pages semi-protected which prevents IP and new accounts from editing that page. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you don't really care about anything other than your own view. It's quite obvious you'll continue to stick your fingers in your ear and ignore what everyone else is saying. Given that, I'll just wait until you're blocked and the articles protected. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I see behavior in Wikipedia like the behavior of IP 198.232.211.130, I am reminded of an old saying of mine regarding litigation: you can have the law on your side, the facts on your side, a good lawyer on your side, an able, honest and competent judge, and a fair and impartial jury -- and yet you can still lose your case. Being "right" about one particular point is not enough. Famspear (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I am anxious to dialogue to improve the information presented in the article. But you both (and others) dog-in-the-manger attitude and actions are not professional, not in harmony with Wikipedia policy and in my opinion quite rude. Who throws to the trash the honest and sincere work of another and does not even bother to state why? As for "honest and competent judge, and a fair and impartial jury" I can assure you that you have afforded me none. I have made no claim to being right but I do claim to following the rules to the best of my knowledge. Please respect my edits and please take the time to address concerns in the TALK page as directed by Wikipedia policy rather then defaming my efforts. I will work with you in an honest and respectful manner and hope that you can reciprocate. Should I be banned by Wikipedia for malicious acts against me, rather than protection from such acts, then I will know it is not an organization that I would want to be a part of anyway. Kind regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk • contribs)
Ahh, such lovely balderdash. Your actions show the insincerity of your words. Number of edits by IP to the talk page - 0. Number of other editors supporting the IP - 0. Ravensfire (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user at IP address: No, you are not "anxious to dialogue." You have yet to even interact with other editors on the talk page for the article.
Your statement that you will work with others "in an honest and respectful manner" etc., is not credible. You have to actually work with others in that way. And no, no one has engaged in any malicious acts against you.
Repeatedly reverting other editors' reversions of YOUR posts -- and failing to discuss your reverts on the talk page for the related article -- are examples of edit warring. When you claim that you are not edit warring, you only reduce your credibility.
Wikipedia operates on the concept of consensus. It is a violation of Wikipedia rules for you to repeatedly re-insert edits that you like and then demand that other editors "respect your edits" while you fail to use the talk page for the article to try to persuade other editors of your position. That's what we mean by obtaining consensus. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
March 2016
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Would that be the talk page where everyone except some fringe theory spouting anon says that it is NOT currently a commodity currency?--Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone using this IP address, 198.232.211.130, removed content without giving an explanation. Please always provide an informative edit summary when removing content from pages. If 198.232.211.130 is a shared IP address and you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors and further irrelevant notices.
I recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.
