User talk:73.34.105.30

April 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( in the enhanced toolbar, or if you use the old "classic" toolbar) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 19 April 2018 (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 don't ever post to this page. I would prefer to never speak with you again, as you have been extremely unpleasant and like to threaten me from time to time.

You will continue to receive warnings as is appropriate, from everyone and not just me. Asking you to sign your posts is a quite reasonable request. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The request was reasonable, but again you don't read my comments. I just don't want to ever speak with someone as unpleasant as you who threatens other Wikipedia members when you don't get your way. And you keep stalking me to a weird and concerning degree. So don't ever post on this page again, with requests that are reasonable or otherwise.

someone as unpleasant as you who threatens other Wikipedia members when you don't get your way. - I have warned you about your actions but I have certainly not threatened you so please do not make baseless claims. They constitute personal attacks which are, as you well know by now, not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You blatantly threatened me with longer bans because I disagreed with you. It seems your comprehension of the English language is again quite lacking, as anyone with a brain would see that as a threatening comment. You have also repeatedly stalked me and changed whatever edits I make. So because of that, I will be speaking will several mods regarding this. I may have used some unkind words, but that is nothing compared to stalking and threatening as you have done. I think you must have some serious problems if it is so important to you to continue bothering me, and to police pages and content without having any sources to back you up. Why do you personally care if a show is a U.K. or U.S. production if you have no evidence either way? Who could possibly care SO much about something so menial? I truly hope you get some help and find some hobbies or something.

You blatantly threatened me with longer bans because I disagreed with you. - No, you were warned that your actions might result in further blocks. If you don't want to heed these warnings then that is up to you.

It seems your comprehension of the English language is again quite lacking - Again, please be civil and do not engage in personal attcks.

I will be speaking will several mods regarding this. - I would actually encourage that.

and to police pages and content without having any sources to back you up. - It is you who is lacking sources. You've demonstrated that. As another editor said, "I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but I'm not seeing any sources from the IP stating this is American or is produced by an American company". That is quite appropriate and you still are not signing your posts, despite a request to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, your sources that don't even EXPLICITLY STATE what you suggest they do? The ones that you are selectively taking information from and drawing your own conclusions with? Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. You can't chastise me for having no sources then have no sources yourself. You know what hypocrisy is, right? Because it doesn't seem like you know what that concept is. Also, none of the statements I have made are personal attacks like you suggest. They are merely an observation regarding your child-like understanding of the English language. I am not being mean, just making observations and hoping that it leads you to get some help with English since you don't seem to understand any of my comments or even your own (see WP:SYNTH for an example). Again, I don't want to speak with you because you say weird and rude things. If you comment again on this page, I will be contacting the mods for your constant harrassment. Again, I don't know why you think it is okay to follow me around the internet like a sad, weird troll, but it needs to end and you need to get yourself some hobbies outside of living on wikipedia to constantly complain about irrelevant matters.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion (19 April 2018)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:73.34.105.30 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks in your attempt to win an edit war. Your accusation is childish. I’ve told you across multiple reverts to take the content dispute to the talk page. Baconsnoot (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You clearly created a new account to troll me and revert my edits. You clearly tipped your hand with your first edit on this page that you removed. Who exactly is the childish one again?

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Block length is influenced by the personal attacks you've been making. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why I am being blocked? I added citations to several articles and I had two users follow me around reverting everything I edited. I don't understand how this is somehow my fault? I was just trying to add sources to pages. How is that a problem? And I don't believe that my language has been anything worse than what I've been called (idiot, jackass), so I also don't understand that.

As you undoubtedly know, you were blocked for the determined edit-warring seen here [1] and for the accusations of bad faith against everybody you've encountered, aggravated by similar behavior, for which you were blocked a few days ago. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why it was ME who was blocked, and not the users who were stalking and harassing me. I was followed by several users who undid any revision I made. One even went to such lengths as to create a new account to avoid the possibility of edit-warring with me (ironically it was the person who submitted the block that you approved on me who did that). All I did was revert those edits back to my original pages that included numerous sources from reputable websites that were removed with no explanation. Why would that stuff be removed, and be allowed to be removed, though I am not allowed to revert those edits? There is no logical consistency with your punishment and the lack of punishment given to the other users who were warring WITH ME, not the other way around. I just wanted to add more information to some Wikipedia pages. How in the world is that deserving of punishment, but removing citations to push an agenda that does not agree with the facts, is somehow completely fine? Also, the link you had in your previous comment showed other users reverting my edits and removing citation with no reason whatsoever. Obviously I am going to revert them to include the citations. And I was blocked for not providing source and making edits. Now I provide sources and those edits are removed for no reason, and reverting them somehow leads to a ban. That is so ridiculous it is hard to even believe.

For the sake of the IP I feel I should add that that Bacon editor is not me ..... Accusing editors of being socks could see your block lengethened so it may be wise to stop with that - I'd welcome any admin here to do a CU on me .... now that out of the way, Instead of repeatedly reinserting the content you need to stick to the talkpage (and if that fails then you have a wide range of options for resolution - WP:RFC, WP:30, WP:DRN ..... however as multiple editors have disagreed with you your best bet is an RFC which will seek opinions from various and random editors on the project,

Last but not least 73 You need to work with us not against us .... The whole project centers around consensus and what is and isn't agreed ..... I've disagreed with thousands of outcomes and "consensuses" but that's the way the place works ..... You can disagree with that consensus but in all honestly after things like an RFC you can't then change it,

It may be a good idea to step away from this place for the next 2 weeks and seriously think whether this place is for you and if you think the latter then you need to think how and what you can change to make all run smootly (IE you not being blocked), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I am well aware that Baconsnoot isn't you, and I've taken appropriate measures with that account. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I never said you wasn't ?, I was saying all of that for the benefit of the IP, Apologies for the confusion. –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So you can respond instantly to him, but you just ignore all my questions? And sorry for assuming that Baconsnoot is him, awfully coincidental though that a new account is made right as soon as he would be violating the 3 revert rule. And to edit all of those same exact pages? Yeah, that's pretty weird.

They only disagreed with me when I had no evidence/citations. Then, when I presented DOZENS of citations I was completely ignored and no one responded further. Consensus doesn't really matter if you have countless pieces of evidence saying you're wrong, and not A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE saying you are right. That is some insane logic to think that you can overrule facts just by mere consensus.

I'm not responding to your repeated justifications for edit-warring, as you've not been listening. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You never once answered ANY of those questions (ie. why were the other users not blocked for the same EXACT thing?). I haven't been listening? More like you haven't said a single substantive word.

Sorry, I just realized you thought I was talking to you in the comment to which you replied. No, I was saying my previous statement to Davey2010 and explaining why I just went ahead and edited it. No one was discussing any further on the talk page when I presented all those sources, so a consensus could not be reached as there was no further input. Go look for yourself. Also, could you respond to my question in the comment that begins "I guess I don't understand why it was ME who was blocked.." I feel you owe me at least that much, since you are acting as some type of internet police, abusing any modicum of power that comes his way.

You reverted eight times, after a block for pretty much the same behavior. That's why you're blocked. It's that simple. Stop doing that. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I originally was just adding cited content that was removed for no reason and given no explanation. And the 1st block was because I repeatedly made edits without evidence and was scolded for that (which was fair and I have now changed my habits). Now I provide A TON of evidence and it can just be ignored for whatever reason and the page reverted instantly? I don't understand why it would be a problem to include citations as I had tried to do. And I was also wondering why none of those other users were blocked? Not only did they break the 3 revert rule (that I am currently blocked for) they also were the ones to start the revert war, and did so by removing cited evidence. It seems that there is a clear double standard regarding behavior for you, and that some people can do whatever and you won't reprimand them. I don't get how that behavior is more acceptable than mine, since it is far more harmful to this website. I guess you'll just ignore any punishment for people that you like, and punish the people you don't. That's some extreme fascism man, and it is why no one respects this website.

<outdent>Administrators don't judge content in these events - in fact, we're prohibited from doing so outside of very narrow limits. We deal with behavior, and eight reverts is a block every time, as it is plainly disruptive. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Please learn from this, and please start taking the concerns of other editors seriously - this project depends on collaborative editing, not reverting until everybody gets tired and you've gotten your way. And drop the fascism business, I'll remove your ability to edit this page if you do that again. And please learn to sign your posts. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You'll punish me if I don't blindly agree with you and follow your orders? I wonder if there's a word for that that begins with F. Also, you again ignore my question of why the users who removed my cited content and violated the EXACT SAME RULES, were not punished for reverting 3+ times each. You conveniently ignore that question every time I ask. Are they your friends or something? Because it is ridiculous to punish people completely differently (or not at all) for the same crime.

So you are just going to completely ignore me since you don't want to answer that question? You are not representing this site or yourself very well. I know you probably won't respond though, since you don't have a good answer for why the other users were not also punished for violating the same rules I did (in fact, they were essentially rewarded by getting someone blocked who they didn't like - just because I disagreed with them). I don't know if they're your friends, or if you're all the same person using multiple accounts, but it is pretty ridiculous that the same crime for different people can result in such drastically different responses, and it speaks to the fact that you probably should not have the power/responsibilities on this website that you currently do.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Grand Tour (TV series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 04:36, 20 April 2018 (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.

May 2018

Please note that, per WP:BLANKING, you are not permitted to remove templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address from this page, as you did here. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at The Grand Tour (TV series), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Warning for disruption: I checked the first four sources and they don't verify British-American. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2018 (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.

Will you please explain why adding numerous citations from reputable sources would possibly be viewed as vandalism? Wouldn't it be the reverse? That people trying to suppress the correct knowledge are the vandals since they are doing so because of some weird bias? I would like clarification please. And the first four sources have the same amount of evidence as the ones supporting British production; that company that is British/American is behind production. How can you say that those citations provide the correct standard of evidence, and not the ones I included, when they say the exact same things regarding production!!

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please answer my questions regarding your earlier post. I'm trying to understand this website better, but instead of helping you all just ban me without giving any adequate explanation, and then you ignore my questions. This is abusing your power, and it is not in the best interest of this website.

You were clearly monitoring my page as you banned me immediately, yet you couldn't answer my questions (right above this) that would allow me to better understand the website and why I was blocked (and why the others who were doing the same weren't blocked)? That is despicable behavior that shows a clear violation of your admin powers, showing that you don't care about bettering this site. Demonstrating what little authority you have is apparently more important.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

• You're edit warring, again. Now you're not edit-warring anymore. You said, "They all SPECIFICALLU say that it was produced by an American company (Amazon)". No. They said it was produced by Amazon. That's not the same. Also, you've been edit-warring here long enough that you know how to find the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But that is the only evidence given for it being a British production (the one link never says it is British produced, only that it is produced by a British company - and the other link is a joke tweet that also never specifically mentions British production). If that is used as evidence in one situation, why not the dozens that I provided? That makes no sense and it reeks of clear bias on your part.

Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Yeah, sure, I'm somehow biased against calling things American. That's stupid. You got off lucky with only a one-week block. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read my comment at all? I explained how it was the same level of evidence across all citations (the ones there for British production as well as the ones I provided that it's an American production). To ignore the evidence of one side would be to ignore the evidence of all sides, (as the most specific evidence in any of the citations is that it is "produced by a British" or "produced by an American company"). It is therefore CLEARLY biased, as you are holding the exact same level of evidence to different standards based on what you want it to say. What would you call that if not bias?

So you just ignore my questions when you are wrong and have no response? That is behavior that reflects extremely poorly on you. I ask questions to better use and understand this site, and you just ignore them because they prove you wrong and show the biases you clearly have. So you just block me instead? That is not how adults handle things.

September 2018

IP Header

Per policy, the IP header cannot be removed from your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As you continue to edit war to remove the IP header from this page contrary to the policy I pointed out to you above, I've semi-protected the page. As the only edits you have made recently are to edit war on this page, as well as at Dredd, I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't just make more sense to reblock this IP. If the disruption continues, that will be the inevitable outcome.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Quenhitran. I noticed that in this edit to The Sword and the Rose, 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. Thank you. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 05:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

---