User talk:2601:1C0:4901:2191:7D64:C068:23DC:B8BD: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:57, 10 May 2016

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:

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 an 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

If you edit without an account, your IP address (2601:1C0:4901:2191:7D64:C068:23DC:B8BD) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here 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! Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ford's Theatre— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 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. Jim1138 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. BTW: Please wp:ping those who are wp:autoconfirmed to your page? Keeps the conversation on one page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Highway and Reporting Me.

I feel like a lot of the edits I make are called vandalism by people who aren't actually looking at the edits I made. If you take the time to look at my defences of the so-called "persistent vandalism," you'll see that every time I've made an edit that was reverted and called vandalism, once I've explained myself, the edit is understood and re-instated. An example would be the edit I made to Panorama of Hell, the discussion of which you can see here, once I explained what I was trying to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opencooper#Panorama_of_Hell

When it comes to Lost Highway, the first two sentences of the article originally read: "Lost Highway is a 1997 French-American neo-noir psychological horror film written and directed by David Lynch. Blending elements of psychological horror and film noir, the plot features Bill Pullman as a man convicted of the murder of his wife (Patricia Arquette), after which he inexplicably morphs into a young mechanic and begins leading a new life."

I shortened it to: "Lost Highway is a 1997 French-American neo-noir psychological horror film written and directed by David Lynch. The plot features Bill Pullman as a man convicted of the murder of his wife (Patricia Arquette), after which he inexplicably morphs into a young mechanic and begins leading a new life."

If a film's genres are psychological horror and neo-noir, then clearly it blends elements of those genres. Why do we need two sentences one after the other giving the exact same information? A similar claim of "vandalism" occurred when I made an edit to The Damned, renaming a sub-heading "Shift towards gothic rock" rather than "Recordings turn more goth," as it describes the genre the band adopted. "Turn more goth," could mean any number of things, but gothic rock is a clearly defined genre. The information is exactly the same, I simply tried to word it better, which is the same case with the Lost Highway article.

I feel rather than knee-jerking to the assumption that nearly every edit is vandalism, Wikipedia users should not just look at the fact an edit was made, but read the article before and after the edit to see exactly what the edit did. I don't deserve to be reported for improving articles, adding cited information, or removing un-cited information. 142.55.48.18 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :Thanks for letting me know. BTW: Please [[wp:ping]] those who are [[wp:autoconfirmed]] to your page? Keeps the conversation on one page. Cheers [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
+== Lost Highway and Reporting Me. ==
+I feel like a lot of the edits I make are called vandalism by people who aren't actually looking at the edits I made. If you take the time to look at my defences of the so-called "persistent vandalism," you'll see that every time I've made an edit that was reverted and called vandalism, once I've explained myself, the edit is understood and re-instated. An example would be the edit I made to [[Panorama of Hell]], the discussion of which you can see here, once I explained what I was trying to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opencooper#Panorama_of_Hell
+When it comes to Lost Highway, the first two sentences of the article originally read: "Lost Highway is a 1997 French-American neo-noir psychological horror film written and directed by David Lynch. Blending elements of psychological horror and film noir, the plot features Bill Pullman as a man convicted of the murder of his wife (Patricia Arquette), after which he inexplicably morphs into a young mechanic and begins leading a new life."
+ I shortened it to: "Lost Highway is a 1997 French-American neo-noir psychological horror film written and directed by David Lynch. The plot features Bill Pullman as a man convicted of the murder of his wife (Patricia Arquette), after which he inexplicably morphs into a young mechanic and begins leading a new life."
+If a film's genres are psychological horror and neo-noir, then clearly it blends elements of those genres. Why do we need two sentences one after the other giving the exact same information? A similar claim of "vandalism" occurred when I made an edit to [[The Damned]], renaming a sub-heading "Shift towards gothic rock" rather than "Recordings turn more goth," as it describes the genre the band adopted. "Turn more goth," could mean any number of things, but gothic rock is a clearly defined genre. The information is exactly the same, I simply tried to word it better, which is the same case with the Lost Highway article.
+I feel rather than knee-jerking to the assumption that nearly every edit is vandalism, Wikipedia users should not just look at the fact an edit was made, but read the article before and after the edit to see exactly what the edit did. I don't deserve to be reported for improving articles, adding cited information, or removing un-cited information. [[Special:Contributions/142.55.48.18|142.55.48.18]] ([[User talk:142.55.48.18|talk]]) 04:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)