- I don't choose to create an account.
- I know what an edit summary is, and I usually do include one. Please don’t ignore it. You can ask me for clarification.
- I don’t vandalize. Removing text can be constructive. Think about the edit for more than half a second, please.
- Wikipedia is not a database of passing pop-culture "mentions" of one thing or another. Pop culture examples without a citation or explanation of their significance beyond "it exists" should be boldly removed.
- If your contribution log consists overwhelmingly of drive-by undoing editors' changes, you might not be in the best position to accuse other editors of "unconstructive" activity.
73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As of December 15, the anonymous user who wrote the above text no longer uses this address.
Heaven Is a Place on Earth originally was removed due to claim of WP:NOR even though an outside source was provided. Can you provide further clarification why you reverted the article back? Thx... Rob110178 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The text of the example didn't explain the significance of the reference, so I assumed that there was none. I don't believe that one writer's non-specific reaction establishes significance. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reverted your deletion on Jack of all trades, master of none. What was the problem with interwiki links that required blanking the section? Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with the interwiki links (though there are not as many as I as I thought). The problem is that the list of translations dominates the article, as I remarked on the talk page. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have checked the talk page first but didn't look past your edit summary. I agree, I also don't like how the list dominates the article, but it might be a good idea to have a talk page discussion before making any major changes since the list is long-standing and removing it entirely will probably ruffle some feathers. Paisarepa (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Urechis unicinctus have been undone because they 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. CLCStudent (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Thanks for the great work you've been doing on these articles to remove some of the random rubbish they've accumulated. Tried to send official thanks, but apparently it's not possible to send thanks to an IP editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my cliche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.98.183 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I remove "the rest is history" from any article where I find it, unless it is part of a quotation. Its only use is to excuse a writer from explaining something by assuming that the reader already knows, and that assumption shouldn't be made in an article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Dark-World25. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Constitutional crisis seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dark-World25 (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gold Clause Cases, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- You reverted 39 edits. Perhaps be more selective. The paragraph I removed in the last edit was one that I added. I've changed my mind about it. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to United States Treasury security, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this edit warring. --evrik (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A bold demand from someone who won't explain their edits to someone who has. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil to people posting on your talk page. A lot of editors have been critical of your editing, because you appear to have violated Wikipedia's policies at times. The top of your talk page doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, whenever Wikipedians give you warnings on your talk page, you tend to remove their comments without archiving them. Wikipedia recommends archiving your talk page instead of deleting it. I am asking you to please stay calm when you are on Wikipedia. Don't personally attack other editors. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors who want to "criticize" me on my talk page should read my edit summaries and address them. I am not going to preserve a paper trail of invented infractions that will later be used to justify a block. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: As it turns out, Evrik and I have gone through this before. From time to time I search the article space to find pop-culture examples farms that need pruning. On this occasion, the scouting article came up. It also came up in such a search more than two years ago. On that occasion, it was none other than Evrik who refused discussion, reported me to AIV, and failed to make his case. I would submit that such defensiveness over such a span of time amounts to article ownership conduct on Evrik's part. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Anon IP 73.71.251.64. We have had reason to interact before? Under which IP or user name. Please stop stripping the information out of the article. --evrik (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop stripping it according to what standard? As I told you then, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a Wikipedia policy. Content must be kept for a reason, not by default. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are surrounded by Philistines. I carefully copied the text from the frontispiece without bothering to ask Google to translate. Big mistake. "Key of Mathematics again all restrictions, or, preferably are made by" - eh?? What on earth??? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit on Robert M. Price and it was reverted. Instead of making the same edit again you need to present your case for your change on the articles Talk page and see if you can achieve consensus. Editor2020 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I've been watching around your contributions for a little while now and I love seeing what your doing! Thanks for doing what your doing, IP 73.71.251.64.
Neon Richards (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Neon Richard's comments, thanks! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits - that's much clearer. SilkTork (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have created an account - this one. But the account shows your IP address. This is not a problem for us, but it could be a problem for you. Wikipedia is the only website that reveals people's IP address when they don't create an account. The Foundation are now aware of the personal identity security issues related to this and are making plans to change the default setting whereby people's IP address is revealed. You are likely unaware that by revealing your IP address you are leaving yourself vulnerable to identity theft, or a hacker misusing your IP address for illegal activity, or someone simply maliciously blocking your IP address from other websites. Some users on Wikipedia can be very vindictive, and if they are knowledgeable about IT, they could make things awkward for you. Up to you what you do, but I thought I should let you know that it's potentially not safe to reveal your IP address - particularly on Wikipedia! SilkTork (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely right. Can tell an awful lot about the IP. Frisco for instance. Nasnema Chat 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less than impressed. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit on American militia movement and it was reverted. Instead of making the same edit again you need to present your case for your change on the article's Talk page and see if you can achieve consensus. Et0048 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that edit on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, but I think every single line on every article no matter if it's controversial or not needs to be verifiable, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Justiyaya (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please see my edit summary for an explanation of why I rejected your pending change to Fraud. I wasn't sure about the change, but as it was a bold removal and I didn't fully understand your justification, I erred on the side of caution and reverted per WP:BRD. I invite you to explain why you feel the change is necessary in more detail on the article talk page so that more frequent editors to the page can discuss it with you. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, I just wanted to say that I noticed your message on the talk page and saw your second removal attempt was accepted. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for clarifying things. Jr8825 • Talk 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just deleting the comments made by others as well as the link bot, maybe read them. Don’t push your own POV, adding links that are not deemed a reliable source, and take it to the talk page. You stated your POV on the talk page, let others engage before you start editing and adding links not regarded as a RS. You obviously have a lot of knowledge on the topic, just follow the rules. Equine-man (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what POV you think I am pushing. The BBC has spilled buckets of ink against the North Korean government, and has contributed more than its share of fake news about it, but even the BBC, in this instance, acknowledges the shoddiness of CI's reporting. I encourage you to read the WP:SYNTH policy that I referred to. It directly addresses the kind of text in dispute here. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And I encourage you to read WP:RS as it directly addresses the kind of source you are adding each time, which you then re-add.(thegrayzone.com/2019/06/03/us-journalists-fake-news-north-korean-official-purged/) Equine-man (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Look closer at both the edit and the accompanying edit summary. I did not "re-add" that source. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figure we use the full title in the infobox and the first line, the common usage, weird as it is, can then be in the rest of the article where applicable. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Limited liability company, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you continue to engage in further disruptive editing by improperly deleting properly sourced and neutral material in order to deliberately produce a wildly unbalanced summary of the article's subject matter, you will be permanently blocked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing isn't vandalizing and I don't care for your tone. You are not an administrator and therefore in no position to tell me what disciplinary actions will be taken. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolcaesar, I have left you a message on your talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
