86.132.158.101

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to BMC connector, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that if there is no consensus for an edit you must discuss it at the associated talk page. Please also see WP:3RR which could result in a block for edit warring. I've already requested that you do this. --mikeu ^talk 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: 1. It is reliably cited in the article BNC connector. 2. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to obtain the consensus for your change because you were reverted, not for anyone else to revert you. 3. Your reference is unreliable given that it doesn't even support your change as given. 4. There is a consensus of two, myself and Wtshymanski who first reverted you (discounting your rather obvious sock). 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. Provide evidence of this sockpuppetry accusation, or withdraw it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record: the resulting check user block supports my aspersion. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(as I was strongly involved in that case, I'll add my two cents too: It doesn't necessarily seem to. The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved in that matter.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: So making two reversions restoring the incorrect material means that you are 'completely uninvolved'. That is a novel argument. Oh! and you were not involved either. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved", now with emphasis, appears to be correct. There is no "support" for the far-fetched sockpuppetry accusation made in Special:Diff/928377815. On the contrary, I'd say that if LoganTheWatermelon was checkusered, such a connection would have been noticed as well. What you interpreted as "support" appears to be the opposite, or at best irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The sentence "The only confirmed sock was completely uninvolved" is bollocks as confirmed by these two reversions [1] and [2]. I suggest that you check your facts before posting crap. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_LoganTheWatermelon contains one sock, Special:Contributions/LoganTheAplle, which had nothing to do with that page. Do not use it as "support" for the inacceptable accusation against Mu301; continuing to do so may be considered to be a personal attack. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to IOS 13, 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Hi 86.132.158.101, sorry for the incorrect double warning, which was about IPadOS. As you are relying on the cited source, this can't have been "original research" indeed. Thank you very much for your contribution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor concern about addressing the reader

Hi 86.132.158.101, if I may voice a minor additional concern about the IOS 13 addition, Wikipedia usually does not address the reader directly, as it is not a guidebook. Details can be found at WP:YOU. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Sorry that you find it to be original research. I could upload plenty of screen shots of the randomly added recipients (original research is allowed in illustrations per WP:OI). Unfortunately I am prevented from uploading screen shots. That the added recipients cannot be removed is something anyone can verify for themselves. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You wrote, "Consequently they are able to track you as much as they want without you knowing when they are doing it." It is not possible for a screenshot to illustrate this unpublished statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: As an IP, I cannot upload illustrations. I have no desire to register an account. Also: I don't think the unintended recipients would appreciate their details revealed. Just discovered that I can (currently) track 3 iPhones and 4 iPads. None of the users were aware of this. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Warning by OxonAlex

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to IPadOS. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: So in what way is a contribution supported by three references vandalism? 86.132.158.101 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It appeared to be link spam, as is typically the case when similar websites are used for references. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: If the ref appears to be something it is not then that is not vandalism but just good faith contribution. You were therefore casting ASPERSIONs for which you can be blocked. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

While the IP’s edits don’t seem to incorporate reliable sources, he is not vandalizing Wikipedia, the edits look to be made in good faith. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

86.132.158.101, please assume good faith as well and take it as a general "I disagree like the others, please don't start an edit war about this" warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on IPadOS. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. When you write that another editor may not understand English as you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPadOS&diff=prev&oldid=934239474 you're attacking the editor I clearly provided a reason for the revert: the content you added is not in the source. The part about the thumb drives is not supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

@Walter Görlitz: My quote in the previous edit summary was copied and pasted directly from the source. How do you explain that you cannot find it? 86.132.158.101 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

Hi 86.132.158.101,

If you would like to continue restoring the content after multiple reverts, please start a discussion at Talk:IPadOS instead. See the standardized message below for advice.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at IPadOS. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---