User talk:Lonepine17

This website is a total joke due to people that get paid to make edits. Although it appears that the average person can help Edit the page with valid information,that's not the case. Tons of money is poured into effecting social media on every level, Wikipedia is an example if this, just try to edit a page with a concrete fact, it will be edited by a professional hack in minutes.

As more than one of us has tried to explain to you, accusing people of bad faith is not how things get done here. I am going to ask you a very straight question and I would appreciate a reply. If "affluence" is such a concrete fact as you claim, give me an exact quantifiable definition of it. Please hurry as I do not like to not have the latest information on a subject. Apparently you know of a better definition of affluence than I. Please enlighten us. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence

As you mentioned, people come to Wikipedia to find factual information. Affluant is not a fact, it is an opinion. I share your opinion that the area is affluant, but neither your or my opinion is relevant content for an encyclopedia article. There is no set level of wealth or even a consensus on how to measure affluance. Its very much relative. The median income should be in the article; we can let people draw their conclusions from that. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are intent on edit-warring that word into the article on West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, despite the concerns of those of us reverting you that such phrasing is a violation of our neutrality policy. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; you are expected to communicate with other editors and reach a consensus with them over article content. Furthermore, you are expected to be polite to other editors, accusing those who disagree with you of being "paid internet hacks" certainly isn't. Please desist from edit warring and seek consensus or I'm afriad I shall be raising your behavior with the administrators, which may see you blocked. Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Dolescum (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Affluence"

Hello. I once again removed that word from WBT. I also looked at the other city's articles you mentioned (even the ones you misspelled) and removed it when it was present, which it wasn't in several. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in a constructive manor, feel free to drop me a polite note and I will be glad to help you when I can. However if your only interest is shoving your agenda down other people's throats, please do not bother. Perhaps blogging would be more your style. John from Idegon (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. 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.

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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. 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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]