User talk:201.215.187.159

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to 2MASS. 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 you may want to consider creating 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 (201.215.187.159) 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! AstroCog (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Erich von Däniken. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

2MASS

Unless you are going to create a separate list article of "brown dwarfs and white dwarfs discovered by 2MASS", why remove material from a stub-class article? I have had numerous people ask me for a list of brown dwarfs discovered by 2MASS and WISE. -- Kheider (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So make an article called list of brown dwarfs discovered by 2MASS, if numerous people really have asked you for it. Putting an arbitrary selection of an arbitrary sub class of the millions of objects catalogued by 2MASS, with no explanation of why they are seemingly being highlighted as the most important things in the whole survey, is not useful. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

2MASS is currently a stub-class article, when the article is reasonably expanded beyond 4 short paragraphs, list-material can be moved. I see no reason to remove the material from the bottom of the article at this time. Just blanking material from Wikipedia is frowned upon. -- Kheider (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for this table to be included. No explanation is given for why you are highlighting this tiny subsample of the survey results. The length of the article is of no relevance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created "the list" as a section of the 2MASS article: "Closest 2MASS objects discovered beyond the Solar System". Believe it or not, there are people that want to see such material. The article is not well enough developed to worry about were such material is kept and as such it should be easy for the reader to find. If you do not like that section of the article than do not read it. It is listed at the bottom of the article. If you want to expand the article, please do. But blanking a section that may be of interest to some readers is counterproductive. -- Kheider (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2MASS with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave a valid reason. Why lie, both here and in your edit summaries? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have made an error of judgement, yet again. My gravest apologies. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, my apologies are for my error of judgement in giving you a warning which seems to be uncalled for. I reverted your edit because I agreed with Kheider's view, and not yours. I won't be commenting further on this topic since I do not have much knowledge about the subject, and thus it's best I stay out of it. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that abusing a fellow editor, as you did in your edit summary (...you fucking idiot...) was totally uncalled for and uncivil. Yet, I consider the incident forgiven and forgotten. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, and I apologise for that edit summary. By way of an explanation I'd only like to say that if you should ever try making any kind of substantial edit from an IP address you'll find that very, very quickly, regardless of the content of the edits, you'll be accused of vandalism and left warnings. Being under constant attack doesn't bring out the best in people. Apologies again. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm well aware of the stereotype. It's not wrong most of the times, but the times it is, it deters good-faith editors from contributing here. Something all us editors should be more careful about. On another note, I'm glad we sorted this out like mature people. I'll see you around. Cheers! —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 13:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Erich von Däniken shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Note that POV disputes are not an except to 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

And of course you are also edit warring at 2MASS. I've notified the other editor also. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your recent edits

The edit summary is not a soapbox, nor is Wikipedia as a whole. Do not use the edit summary to indirectly attack other users "based off of" their "improper" grammar. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I'm expressing my frustration at the lack of any efforts to enforce very basic standards. It's very easy to find examples of fundamental errors that have gone uncorrected for months or years. What do you do in the face of that? Where is the effort to enforce higher standards across the encyclopaedia? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:COPYPASTE

Please completely read guidelines/policies/etc. before using them as justification. That was, in fact, a short quotation. Also, it says that such quotations can be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Its inclusion does just that. ViperSnake151  Talk 

There is no justification, in this case, for not using your own words. No point is being illustrated, no context is being established, and no points of view or ideas are being attributed. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You're just taking the information page too literally. We are showing the point of view of the IRB. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No we are not. The text describes the effect of a rule change, not the POV of the IRB. There is no justification for using someone else's words to do this. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: "based off of"

Actually, it seems as if that "based off of" is more common in British English, but used less in written, American English, per this ViperSnake151  Talk  21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Google Ngram Viewer I find no occurrences of "based off of" in British English, and in US English "based on" is roughly 10,000 times more common. In the Corpus of Contemporary American English there are 9 occurrences of "based off of", compared to 61872 occurrences of "based on". The British National Corpus contains no occurrences of "based off of" and 11461 of "based on". I am not sure if you're trying to argue that it's not an incorrect usage? Whether you're a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, it's not correct to say "off of". 201.215.187.159 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pan American World Airways may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Baby shoes pic

Fine. I'm about to go on vacation before Wikimania and it's not the end of the world. But I still think that article deserves an illustration of some sort, a free image even, and I reserve the right to create one myself showing a pair of baby shoes with an accompanying sign saying "FOR SALE: never used." When I create and upload it, I will consider any attempt to remove such an image without a broad consensus to be disruptive at best and vandalism at worst. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You consider it how you like. If the image is not relevant to the article topic then there is a pre-existing consensus, embodied in the form of the manual of style, that it should not be included. It will be you who is editing against consensus, not me. It would be nice to illustrate the article, but an image "inspired by" the article title is not an appropriate illustration. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, you did this the wrong way. You could have started a discussion on the talk page first—but, looking over the rest of this talk page, it seems you prefer to just shoot first and ask questions later. It's one thing to be bold, another to seem to look for opportunities to upset people, in the month since you started editing. Are you a sock of someone perchance? What would we find if we did an open-proxy check on your IP?

And I don't see any difference between that picture and the one at You have two cows, BTW. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What would you find? The box that someone put at the top of this talk page might give you a clue. But instead of making vague threats, do whatever check would make you happiest. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we won't need to, if you keep up like this. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, an open-proxy check would tell us more than your ISP. A lot more. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So do it. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:201.215.187.159 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at You have two cows shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

How about you fuck off and don't stalk my edits? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies. 3RR is one of them. If you cannot handle following our rules, do not edit Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"How about you fuck off and don't stalk my edits?" This is unacceptable. You're very likely to get an indefinite block unless you change something drastically. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please self-revert

You recall being reported for edit warring at For sale: baby shoes, never worn. The complaint was at Wikipedia:AN3#User:201.215.187.159 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action). I closed this because you were only at three reverts, and I assumed you would take note that a majority were against your change. You've continued to revert at the article against multiple editors, so it's time for a block if you won't agree to stop. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your behavior at For sale: baby shoes, never worn, where you have now made the same revert four times, reverting four other users, and at You have two cows, where you have three reverts, is edit-warring. Your decidedly uncivil edit summary at [1] and your earlier behavior at WP:AN ([2], [3], [4]) add to the impression that you have more interest in being disruptive than in making positive contributions. If that impression is wrong, please demonstrate it by modifying your behavior from here on out. Orlady (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Report for incivility

I see that you used the phrase 'sycophantic bullshit' in an edit summary. Since this is a violation of Wikipedia rules and you have already received a final warning, I will report you to the administrators. Kryptonite Cross (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you find the word "bullshit" more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than substandard content, then of course you should. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You really want to get blocked, do you? Utilize the article's talk page instead of repeated reverts please. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including edit warring and personal attacks. 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. See the block list for more blocks.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Pity

And here I thought from half a world away that you'd learned your lesson. You had been making good edits; you do have a point that the too-frequent use of "best known for" in ledes should either be cited or removed (although in some cases, I think, it would be obvious from the context, something like "While the group released x albums over y years, they are best known for their only hit single, 'TITLE', which reached the top 10 in several countries in YEAR.")

However, I think you're being way too rigid about footnotes always being at the end of sentences. Has it perhaps occurred to you that, in a situation where there are footnotes mid-sentence as well as at the end, the editor who so placed them did so because they wanted to support the fact established by the words at that point in the sentence, something which might not be supported by the note at the end? You might want to take your enforced break to look at what WP:INTEGRITY, which addresses this very issue from within the MOS, has to say. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe you could find a single example of a footnote that I moved that specifically referred only to the immediately preceding word. I have never seen any such example, and if I did, I would rewrite the sentence such that the reference could go at the end of a clause.

There was a time when the kind of edits I make were not in the least bit controversial. Wikipedia's always been more of a game to most people than an actual encyclopaedia, but there was a time when people who cared about quality were numerous enough to actually make a difference. Not any more. Nowadays articles are degrading constantly under an onslaught of uneducated and ignorant edits, with stupidity enforced by the fervent believers in the sickeningly misguided BRD essay. My break will not be as long as any of you would like it to be. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)