User talk:37.209.114.151

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Windows 10. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2019 (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.

Drmies you are very outrageous calling my edit unconstructive. I already justified the edit in the edit summary with reason. The claims i removed are not verifiable and it's not okay to force wikipedia readers to pay money to just have access to the original data to be able to verify it. If the data is not publicly verifiable, you can't use it for wikipedia. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No. You didn't. You simply removed a bunch of random content."Publicly" verifiable means nothing. Keep it up and I'll block you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Now you insulted me. If you don't stop that, i will sue you. And the content wasn't random, it was a a data field. You can check the edit and stop making false claims if you are incapable of reading it correctly. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have examined the pending changes log and perhaps you can explain what exactly is not verifiable? The reference provided in the table is quite open for all to view. Please also avoid disparaging other users - WP:NLTGeneral Rommel (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the site the data is from. [[ https://statcounter.com/pricing/ ]] You can take a look at the pricing to see, that the data is behind a pay wall. You need to register and pay to be able to verifiy if the claimed data is correct. It might also be possible, that taking that data from that site is a copyright infringement and it might be possible, that the data is from that company to lure wikipeda readers to pay to get behind the pay wall. Drmies called my edit unconstructive while it wasn't unconstructive. He didn't read the reason that was given. And in his last post he lied by telling me, that i didn't gave a reason while the reason is clearly visible in the edit summary. That makes him insulting me. His claims that i only deleted random data is also wrong. It wasn't random data, it was just that graph with the data from statcounter and nothing else. Thus he lied again and is proven wrong. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows use of published material, whether it's in a book, open website or behind a paywall, and there's no requirement that a source be checked in depth as long as the source is generally acknowledged as reliable and authoritative. I can see the data here [1] in any case. The New York Times is behind a paywall,and it's used all the time. Your removal took a piece of subsequent content with it [2], leaving the sentence incomplete, and was at best a sloppy edit, but mostly appears to be unconstructive. Simply removing the material isn't acceptable, and stating "I'll sue" is completely unacceptable. Please reconsider your approach to editing WIkipedia and to interacting with other users. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I used the visual editor. If it left stubs you should write a bug report. He offended me. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You are responsible for checking your edits, and for the errors they introduce, as well as for your application of aggressively mistaken interpretations of policy. Your edits aren't the editing interface's fault. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, i am not. I used the visual editor and if that one doesn't work properly i do not have to switch to text mode just to clean up its mess. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

---