User talk:70.122.135.104

September 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Stop-and-frisk in New York City, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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) 05:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

December 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Baby, It's Cold Outside, 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP 70.122.135.104. You've removed the same content from Baby, It's Cold Outside twice before leaving the same edit sum and it has been re-added each time. The content is supported by citations to two sources, which seem reliable per WP:RS. If you feel this content is really "unfounded political insinuations", then please elaborate why on the article's talk page. Present your position based on relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines and see if other editors agree. It's OK to be WP:BOLD, but once you're reverted then it's best to try and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. Continuing to remove the content without doing so is going to eventually be seen as disruptive, edit warring or both and may lead to an administrator getting involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2016 (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 your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Baby, It's Cold Outside, you may be blocked from editing. This is supported by reliable sources. Please stop. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2016 (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 remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Baby, It's Cold Outside. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2016 (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.

January 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- GliderMaven (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. -- GliderMaven (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)