User talk:75.191.173.190

history of archived discussions

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (75.191.173.190) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Ixfd64 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Alleviating"

I know you're better at alleviate this stuff ([1])—Then from your past edits you are clearly WP:INCOMPETENT and have no place to edit climatology normals. And quit pretending you aren't following me: I had made my last addition not 23 hours earlier, independent of your actions. You also must be deluded to STILL think the simplistic U.S.–Canadian arithmetic mean computation of daily means is useful information, and I am not the only one to criticise that method. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 18:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oslo is one of the city that I edited a while ago and you're the one following every page since this earlier March, then I learned what was problem compare to yours and fixed it. The temperatures of "mean" could be anything, numbers divided by each factors they have, and that's the one I'm using through the right source beside of high/lows. Seems like you're not helping with your competence to others, but simply decline them to think everything is justified on your criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC))

You can continue wreaking havoc on my talk page. Per WP:TPG, continuing to do so will only lead to your block. Also, ignoring me is not going to help your case at all. Rather, it will make it clearer that you are evading all attempts at discussion. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who ignored me to reverted your talk page and I'm doing nothing bad here. Once again don't disrupt me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

WP:NOTTHEM. You will be reported. Have fun doing something else for several months. And you are so intent on reverting me you caused even more collateral damage again! "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Report whatever you want now. After negotiated message in your talk page, I didn't mistakenly vandalized of your datas of Certain step or being out of the rule severely. So make sure that, you're not unreasonably decline others who have the idea, even I tried in better way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

I have already brought forth my reasoning; you have not. And your total blindness to the collateral damage you have wrought is not trying it in a better way. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're just basically pushing me out of this site with using dexterous of your skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

Allegation without evidence = personal attack. U.S. climate normals is only a small corner of this encyclopaedia—you must know that. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you're very perfect to never give personal attack to others Taipei and being sarcastic to me make you feel better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

You're wasting your own time. Discuss the content, not the user. In any case, thank you very much for providing me more fodder ammunition—you are shooting yourself in the foot, indeed. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 21:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"You should be blocked." like when you said to me exactly same. Even you're sacrificed over this site longer in time than me generally. Okay, keep bragging about how you're talented editing tools and ignoring others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

Last time I checked, your post on my talk page neither said anything new nor indicated you were willing to take this in a new direction. And, per Rule #2 on my talk: If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.. Many users on here adopt that convention, and I made it long before I encountered you. How vain!

BTW, I spend more time on here because I have several orders of magnitude more pages on my Watchlist (I can paste it here, if you want!) than the number of unique pages you have EVER edited, not because some IP has a mad intention to edit war indefinitely, unlike I. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 21:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like become complexible this conversation, give me what did I do exactly WRONG beside of your comment of "Useless" because I added mean temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

Most of these places had no mean temperatures until IPs, not limited to you yourself, added them in. Therefore the status quo for said places is to have no mean temperatures. Per WP:BRD, your change is the "bold" (more like foolhardy) one. I am the reverter, and have offered discussion. You have refused each offer every time, instead taking each and every opportunity to lampoon me. How simple is that? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me any Wikipedia policies that said NO MEAN TEMPERATURES ALLOWED IN WEATHERBOX even I'm using the official data? If they refused to be appear mean temperatures, why it has made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

(+)Additionally please don't say Template:Weatherbox sample is totally false because it is simply described as an arithmatic. I know what I'm doing and asked you politely before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

March 2014

I've blocked you again for continuing to revert to your preferred version of the weatherboxes, despite having been blocked for making the same edits four days ago, and despite being warned that continuing to revert after the block expired would result in a longer block. This block is for one week - subsequent blocks will be for longer still. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, is that because you consider my edits of "Recover the previous data" as exact same thing as reverted? Okay, then I can't touch anything from the weatherbox now right? Are you tacitly agreeing to inclining with Lieutenant of Melkor? Despite you're the administrator and should be fair. If I misunderstood please give me some reasons why can't I even do with it, but you allowed to let Lieutenant of Melkor edit and erase my data, still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

This makes it clear you did not bother to check out the new, albeit slow-to-load, NOWData interface, which is in line with the .TXT files I have been using for snowfall day normals, which NOWData no longer provides to the desired precision. Until you can learn to be careful, and not err the same way twice (or even more)... "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 07:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=phi) Does the this link expired or something what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

Yes, I regard your edits as reverts. From Wikipedia:Reverting: A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text. This edit from 22 March and this edit from today are almost identical, for example. It doesn't matter whether you pressed undo or not, or whether the edit summary is different. And you are missing one important thing: Lieutenant of Melkor's reversions are in line with the consensus view among different Wikipedia editors, as can be seen from the ANI discussion I linked to above. Reverting without first making sure you have a consensus for your edits is disruptive, and will result in further blocks. A good place to start a discussion about this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology, but you will need to wait until your block expires before you can post there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even surprised anymore who talked like this in front of you. [really?] that's kinda more than a personal attack right? If you want to talk about the consensus, that was about a half-month ago and I'm not issuing those listed discussions(different access, unsourced while where you edit the page, templates, leave it only (1981-2010) etc.)→today that you gave me blocked. Also I want you to focus that the opponent has also edited after released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

You mentioned my edit was almost identical that I edited few days ago. Well, TECHNICALLY I didn't clicked the "undo" button to revert that's why I choosed another way to save, today's blocking means biased you're just let the opponent do their way and confinement me from using edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

Calm the hell down, and keep a cool head. As I mentioned before, calling others 'opponents' will do you no good here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 20:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And by my word "opponent" goes with "counterpart" and if you want to discussed with me, answer my question first at Alleviating. Unless, I'm only talking to the administator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC))

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 months for persistently making changes contrary to cited sources, ignoring consensus, and being unswayed by messages about the problems with your editing, by discussion of the problems on an administrators' noticeboard, and by earlier short-term blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

75.191.173.190 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please focus on my recent edit. The edit warring has ended back in few months ago, no one again disputed my recent edit. But this moderator JameBWatson biased from my past edit and looks like immediately blocked. 75.191.173.190 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request open at a time please.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

75.191.173.190 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

JamesBWatson, you said "contrary to cited sources, ignoring consensus, and being unswayed by messages about the problems with your editing"? Can you prove me [2] anything from my edit here involved with your reasons? Don't talk about the past activity, I already deserved to had blocked twice from edit warring with someone. I'm talking about the linked article which you decided to made restore my edit and instantly blocked me. Let me tell you, that based station data has inaccurate and dubious recording, otherwise the Airport station supports better quality of the data.75.191.173.190 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request (see WP:GAB for how to compose a proper appeal). Please stop using the unblock template in order to continue conversations with others, the template is only to be used to appeal the block. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

75.191.173.190 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm supporting to edit official climate station to make accurate and informative. However, my past activity in early of March 2014 was a blunder because I was ignored and edit warring when the other disputer tried to communicate with me. 75.191.173.190 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The problem with the above unblock request is that you give the impression that you're going to continue to ignore consensus, and that you don't understand the problems with your editing. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind, can you elucidate me which behavior was illegal to the rule, determined from my "last edit"[3]? JamesBWatson's decision is unacceptable it just seems absurdly popped up after all, I haven't argued with anyone and if they would, I'm willing to participate the debate. (75.191.173.190 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC))

Daniel Case, why wouldn't you explain to help me understand clearly rather than threatening? (75.191.173.190 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC))

All of you guys reasoning is vague and cursorily whatever the rule seems like makes sense and why, give me any obvious examples from this edit [4] why JamesBWatson made me blocked but avoid my question? I'm not joking here to edit, seriously. Don't witch-hunting me. (75.191.173.190 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC))

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

75.191.173.190 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"I would not repeat same errors", read my notes and please help me. I'm still waiting. 75.191.173.190 (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. In fact, every single unblock and the discussion is ridiculous - the reasons behind the block, the methods of being unblocked, and the overall problems are as obvious as the nose on my face. As your sole intent appears to be disruption of the unblock process, I will be locking this page for the duration of the block the panda ₯’ 21:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 21:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

the panda ₯’ 21:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)