User talk:75.182.115.183

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (75.182.115.183) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! GAB^gab 16:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ascension (miniseries). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As I stated in my removal of your templating of an regular user, you are the one removing sourced information under the pretense that it is unsourced. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Anita Hill revert

I have started a discussion at Talk:Anita Hill. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Mirror episode summaries

I have started a talk page discussion based on your edits (and those of others) to List of Black Mirror episodes. You can find it here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 04:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Stop edit warring and removing referenced material! Read the references!...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from The Gaslight Cafe without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Modernist: Since you conveniently have your talk page protected so you can't get warnings, here's your warning:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Gaslight Café. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't you read?..Modernist (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Modernist: Yes I can read. Can you? Please quote from the source that describes a "lockdown" and a "reclusive" Dylan. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your final warning

@Modernist: Here are a couple more warnings for you:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Gaslight Café. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Gaslight Café shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Gaslight Cafe

Re: your note on my talk, the best thing is to open a discussion at Talk:The Gaslight Cafe, and request sources. If you keep reverting, people will assume that it's vandalism. I see that a discussion has started now. You can add sources yourself too. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jamie Dornan. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. INeedSupport (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: Please tell me how two reverts that are not in violation of policy is edit warring. Would you have given this warning to a registered account? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@75.182.115.183: Edit warring is when a user reverts edits repeatedly. Wikipedia never endorsed edit wars. I'm just giving you this soft warning just to prevent further battles. If you want your edits to be in the article, you can discuss it at the talk page of the article. INeedSupport (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: You have a misunderstanding of edit warring policy on Wikipedia. Please tell me what policy I violated.

@75.182.115.183: You didn't violate anything. I was trying to prevent you to violate the three revert rule WP:3RR. Should you did violate something, I would have given you a stronger warning instead. INeedSupport (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: So you warn everyone who makes two reverts on an article, even if the reverts improve the article? I can see why you were denied review rights. You don't seem to be knowledgeable or patient enough for that kind of responsibility. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. INeedSupport (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (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.

@INeedSupport: Now you are accusing me of harassment for simply calling you out on an unnecessary warning? That's another policy that you seem to misunderstand. Let me suggest that you take a few minutes to actually read some of the basic policies of Wikipedia. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You probably should drop the stick and focus on content. Making disparaging comments about another editor helps exactly no one. And since you obviously know a lot about Wikipedia policy, you should know that if you are reverted you need to take it to the talk page, not just make the same edit again. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: I never held the stick. I simply wanted to help INeedSupport realize that he needed to be a little more thoughtful before leaving false warnings and reverting edits. As for my edit, if you look at the edit summary of the editor who first reverted me, he did not object to my edit. He was reverting a factual error made immediately prior to my edit and reverted my edit in the process. I simply restored my edit made after the factual error. In any event, there was no edit warring. I took the issue to the talk page after INeedSupport reverted me for no reason other than the fact that someone else reverted me. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Chris Thile, you may be blocked from editing.

• Note: the YouTube video was posted by the airing organization, copyvioel does not apply

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:30, 1 June 2018 (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.

@Loriendrew: Point taken, and thanks for correcting my mistake. That being said, you were over the top in issuing a level 3 warning for an honest mistake with no additional disruptive editing. I suggest that you review WP:AGF and try to treat IPs with the same respect as registered users. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be an established user, whether registered or IP. The edit history shows more than a casual understanding, especially in citing policies in edit summaries.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: Yes, I have read and edited Wikipedia for several years, mostly small edits. What is your point? Does my experience justify excessive warning on your part? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Please don't change sourced content based on your own interpretation of what it should say. We have a source at Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer that the film received "mixed reviews at its premiere"; extrapolating from what review aggregators say in 2018 to change this to say it received "favorable reviews" 30 years ago is not helpful. Put another way, what Rotten Tomatoes says the reception is like today has no bearing on what the reception was like 30 years ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You're right, I acted hastily without considering that it was the reception at the time it was released. Apologies for the confusion. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aspening: Please link the blockable policy I have violated by removing material that has been unsourced for one year with the statement: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Or do you wish to discuss at WP:ANI the fact that you issued a level four warning without merit, which I plan to do if you restore the material unsourced? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I accidentally reverted you and have restored the previous version. Simple as that. The L4 warning came from the fact that you had a previous L3 warning and was automatically done by Huggle. Aspening (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, I'm AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sense8 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 24 July 2018 (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.

@AlexTheWhovian: What is it exactly about the words in my edit summary "It is not necessarily true that the title is a play on the word "sensate". Please provide a source" that you don't understand? I understand that you don't agree with my conclusion, but tell me how my edit is "unexplained"? Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See the other editor's reverts of the same edits. -- Alex^TW 12:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

June 18 deaths

Hiya, sorry to revert you here but was there a problem with this guy being listed? An edit summary would help avoid me blundering into a good edit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: No problem. Thanks for your message. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Heckler & Koch VP9, 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. Dawnseeker2000 09:22, 16 November 2018 (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.

Further clarification

If someone removes content with a claim of WP:V, and an experienced editor re-adds the content (which I did in late October) with a link to WP:BLUESKY (the essay that says you don't need to cite that the sky is blue), you should rest assured that that statement is true. That you ignored that and removed it a second time is disruptive. Dawnseeker2000 09:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: WP:V is a policy that must be followed if unsourced material is challenged. WP:BLUESKY, on the other hand, is an essay that has no requirement to follow as is the case with WP:V. So it doesn't matter what you think is "assured" or how much "experience" you think you have, if unsourced material is challenged, it must not be restored without citing a reliable source, per policy. Your claiming that something is obvious does not override that requirement. You've been around long enough to know that you do not WP:OWN Heckler & Koch VP9 or any article. I hope you don't try to force this issue and it ends up at WP:ANI. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: By the way, it would serve you well to not be so arrogant and presumptuous as to assume how much "experience" an IP editor has. Some of us were editing long before you made your first edit. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Relax man, and please listen. This model of firearm exists, so knock it off. Also, let's be clear about the origin of this. You were blanket reverting JBW95's changes, which makes me think that you didn't come into this edit war knowing anything specific about the VP9. I do, and I've told you now that the model exists and that you don't need to fucking cite that the sky is blue. Dawnseeker2000 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: I'm relaxed thank you. And please watch your tone or we'll be adding WP:CIVIL to the complaints against you. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Sorry to burst your bubble, but you didn't "hit a nerve" or uncover any great mystery about my participation on Wikipedia. I deleted your comment because it was drivel. Dawnseeker2000 made meaningful comments (although I disagree with his/her ideas), so his/her posts stay. You, on the other hand, added nothing to the conversation. And, by the way, to further dispel your suspicions, I have edited on Wikipedia since 2006. But that's irrelevant to the issue above. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Heckler & Koch VP9, you may be blocked from editing. Dawnseeker2000 21:52, 16 November 2018 (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.

@Dawnseeker2000: What is disruptive is edit warring, ignoring policy, and issuing false warnings. The very next time you push this, we will be discussing it at WP:ANI. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Wikipedia:COMPETENCE also speaks of the ability to communicate and collaborate. You might also read the chapter 'What "Competence is required" does not mean'. I suspect the concept of 'no personal attacks' is new to you? Using agressive and/or threatening language (on talk pages or in edit summaries) is not something to be proud of, either. I have a lot of other thoughts on the way you 'communicate', but for the sake of diplomacy I won't express them here. No need to respond to this. I will not even try to communicate with you any further. Richard 19:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richardw: Aggressive and threatening? No, that would have occurred if I had pointed out several other examples of problems in your writing, but I chose not to do that because, instead of trying to improve Wikipedia, I decided not to harass. I've been editing Wikipedia as long as you have. I understand WP:NPA, but I also understand, in the words of Jimbo Wales, that our social policies are not a suicide pact. It is entirely appropriate, and often necessary, to point out problematic writing. I would expect it myself when I am guilty of it. If someone is not willing to have his edits challenged, he should not edit. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Homecoming (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. — Lbtocth^talk 20:52, 1 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.

MarnetteD

@MarnetteD: Thanks for your message (I think?). There are several issues here. First, here why did you restore something on this talk page that I legitimately removed and that had nothing to do with the issue you addressed?

Secondly, why did you remove my comments on an articles talk page here?

Third, nine months with no addition of sources is quite enough. How many months do you think is enough? 20? 30? How many? One of the edits that you restored was on an article that had been tagged for four years. Another one was SEVEN YEARS. Please explain.

Fourth, here you restored a WP:YOUTUBE violation. Again, please explain.

Fifth, here you removed a perfectly legitimate tag. Again, please explain. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed content from A Clockwork Orange (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Please look at several edit summaries below your edit. The information has been tagged as unsourced for nine months, 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD

Two admins and another editor have now removed your inappropriate warnings from MarnetteD's talkpage. Your template warnings are out of order and are moving into harassment. Acroterion (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello.

Nice to meet you.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.

I hope you continue to contribute.

Please consider creating an account.

Any questions, feel free to reach out to me.

Benjamin (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at January 2019 lunar eclipse

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Your comment had fuck-all to do with anything I wrote, at all -- the word "redaction" should be a clue -- so either you were unable to do something as simple as read the edit history properly or you were attempting to obscure the issue. If you think this gives you some sort of moral high ground, you're sadly mistaken. Oh, and... --Calton | Talk 18:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)