Jump to content

User talk:20.133.0.13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.183.30.40 (talk) at 15:41, 3 May 2016 (→‎John Lennon: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! nonsense ferret 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MessageMan concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MessageMan, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Bayer (Musician) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Bayer (Musician), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay Diggins (October 9)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Bayer (Musician)

Hello 20.133.0.13. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Andrew Bayer (Musician)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Bayer (Musician)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stratou speculation

Hi, I've started a discussion on the Varofakis article's talk page. Contributions welcome. Talk:Yanis_Varoufakis#Stratou_speculation Jonpatterns (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

HI,Thanks for help about Rafale.124.13.234.53 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous warnings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


June 2015

Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to BAE Systems Hawk, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--M4gnum0n (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Dr Greg. I noticed that you made a change to an article, United Utilities, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Dr Greg  talk  18:51, 14 August 2015 (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.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sushi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Gilliam (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2015 (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.

September 2015

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Uptown Top Ranking. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2015 (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.
This seems quite illogical. There are thousands of articles for songs which have a description of the lyric content without any source. It's the same as the summary of a novel or the plot of a film. Sources are not needed for those. It's self-evident.
What you added to the article was your interpretation of the lyric's meaning, not a description of the lyric. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible to describe the lyric of a song without imparting the lyric's meaning? Many thanks for reply, but I would appreciate a demonstration of what would be an acceptable "description of the lyric" for that song. Many words and phrases are Jamaican English.
The point here is not to add your (or mine) interpretation but to source any such interpretation or meaning from a reliable source. Without such sources, well we could all just make it up.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm quite confused. The lyrics are just the lyrics. Plenty of sources for them. But we can't paste them wholesale into an article because that is "copyvio". I'm not making anything up. People who summarise film plots are not making things up. But they do not have to use ANY sources, let alone a reliable source.
Sorry to break this to you but unsourced film plots are just as much in error as unsourced interpretation of lyrics. Any editor would be quite within their right to remove them or require verifiable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Novels too, yes? So no-one will mind if I remove the entire Plot summary and Characters sections from The Count of Monte Cristo? And that big chart showning "Character relationships"? None of it has ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER. I asked for an example of what would be acceptable. Instead I just get a lecture.

If you found any of the plot of Monte Cristo to be contentious then yes you would be within your right to challenge them. --Egghead06 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And demand verifiable sources?
How to do a song. An example--Egghead06 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there quite so many sources about reggae songs as there are about Beatles songs. I was asking how you would say anything about the lyrics of Uptown Top Ranking. Yoo seem to be saying that a film plot or novel summary requires no sources, as long as it is not contentious. But a description of any song lyric has to have multiple good sources. Sorry, I just don't see the logic.

October 2015

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please stop your un-helpful category additions. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (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.
what's a couplr?

Edit warring

@KalebGiraya and 20.133.0.13: Please stop your edit warring at once. You are both guilty of breaking the WP:3RR rule. If you wish to discuss the two quotations come here to the talk page and leave the main page alone until consensus has been achieved. You are both running the risk of admin action which might include blocking.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is not WP:RS. My third edit was merely a tidy up, trimming the URL. I have actually supported the addition by suggesting formatting improvements. WP:RS is a policy, so please don't warn me for enforcing that. Thanks 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of WP:EW. There is no exemption for WP:RS. The correct action here is to go to the article's talk page and clearly set out the proposed changes, argument for and arguments against. Other editors can then join in and a consensus be sought.
Have you considered joining Wikipedia? If you sign up to an account there are some advantages, not least that if you edit from more than one location people will know you are the same person. Having an account will also avoid you being blamed for anyone else using the same IP as can happen within institutions or some domestic broadband systems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Martin of Sheffield and 20.133.0.13. What is that you want me to do? There is no context that can be put as the book itself that mentions this quotation, suggests it was John Newton's log book. I would be happy to discuss this and come to an agreement so we can stop modifying the main page. I have provided two sources and none of them seems acceptable to you while you are trying to remove it based on no source or anything so please let's discuss it. Given he was a slave trader, the fact that he said that should have been given the benefit of the doubt without even the sources I mentioned. As I said, my intention is not to discredit the man. The page itself mentions that towards the end of his life he felt very bad of what he had done and was against slavery. But that fact does not change the wealth he gathered from slavery. So I again invite you to a discussion so we can clear it up, if you have clear evidence, I have no problems accepting that. I provided two sources you haven't provided any. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by KalebGiraya (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

... for a comment on Mozart, worded much better than my own. I tried to say something like that to the user (who copied the same arguments - all refuted long ago - on Jean Sibelius) and was banned from his talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a well-reasoned response, and rather reminiscent of another notorious egg-head.. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Plague (disease). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (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.

January 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tara Reid— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Will Young, you may be blocked from editing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:21, 25 January 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.
Ah right. So Will's twin brother is called Roger, yeah? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:FoCuSandLeArN. I'm really not sure why you think an edit to Tara Reid on January 13 has any connection at all with one made to Will Young on January 25. This ip address is accessible to a whole bunch of folks (i.e. thousands) across several countries. Thanks. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after FoCuSandLeArN's message it says: "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." --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Coca-Cola Company has been undone 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. Materialscientist (talk) 11:20, 9 February 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.

Information icon Hello, I'm Frosty. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to UFC Fight Night: Silva vs. Bisping— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Frosty ☃ 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Barry Gibb. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:26, 7 March 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.
The source currently provided is about rattlesnakes. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked...

"What the point?" ...the point is the history of this account is long and filled with persistent vandalism and disruptive editing. It's likely this will continue and having this information easily accessible will make it easier for admins to get the full picture when making decisions when reviewing and possibly taking action. If the user(s) of this account could simply follow the rules, then this would not be an issue. If indeed there are multiple users, then this shouldn't be an issue. Only a single, regular user would have need to hide this. - theWOLFchild 14:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shared IP address, provided by an IT supplier which serves numerous large organisations. The history is available to an admin or anyone else who wants to look at it, but WP:UP#CMT says that the comments can be removed and shouldn't be restored. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tidying the page by hiding a whole bunch of ancient trash. You think an admin has to "get the full picture" by looking at minor vandalism/ mistakes made 9 years ago? What's the ratio for this address between good edits and vandalism? "CSC has 56,000 employees in over 60 countries" - but it also supports internet access for literally hundreds of thousands of employees in other companies - look at its portfolio. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that this account committed vandalism only 9 years ago. It's that this account committed it, was warned, then continued to vandalize and disrupt this project continuously since, despite being repeatedly warned and blocked, right up to 3 days ago. I simply added the entire history to a single, hidden list and offered an reasonable explanation why. As this account is simply an ip address, apparently shared by "56,000" people... why would any of them care? But just the same, now that my edit has been recorded in the history, the list can still be viewed, along with subsequent attempts to remove it, therefore making both access and decision-making for admins that much easier, should there be any further disruption from this account. My work here is done and I'll be moving on. Have a nice day. (oh, and please, ask your co-workers to respect the polices of this project, thanks) - theWOLFchild 15:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list could be viewed, as part of the history, at any time, whether you restored it to the visible page or not. Your first edit, at 13:48, restored everything from the past nine years, including the unnecessary "Welcome" template and made the Talk Page too long. A more useful alternative might be to create archives, by year, each of which would then be searchable. You don't seem to grasp the nature of this account. "This account" is a merely collection of edits, made by a multitude of anonymous users, across may different companies. It's not possible to "ask your co-workers to respect the polices of this project" if you have no idea who they are. And you didn't answer my question about the ratio. Your description "then continued to vandalize and disrupt this project continuously since" is wholly misleading. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list could be viewed, as part of the history - which is onerous as each, single edit has to be viewed one at a time. Why not make it easier?
...the unnecessary "Welcome" template - unwelcome how? Surely not every single person, out of "56,000" is familiar with Wikipedia. Why have a welcoming message that includes many helpful and useful links for the uninitiated? Why would you want that removed?
Your...edit...made the Talk Page too long - my last edit made it shorter than I found it.
A more useful alternative might be to create archives - Go right ahead.
You don't seem to grasp the nature of this account - Oh, I think I do as this history speaks for itself.
Your description "then continued to vandalize and disrupt this project continuously since" is wholly misleading - Um... how?
Like I said, I'll be moving on (at least, I'd like to) so... bye. - theWOLFchild 17:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (consider all questions above as rhetorical, I actually don't care anymore)[reply]
It's already been explained to you that it's not just "56,000" here - do you understand what "IT service provider" means? And what on earth do you mean "this history speaks for itself"? You're suggesting that all the edits made from "this account" are just "vandalism and disruption"? For the third time of asking: "What's the ratio, for this ip address, between good edits and vandalism?" Doesn't that give a fairer impression? By all means move on after you've answered that question. If you really "actually don't care any more", please leave it to another editor who does. And please quit with the sarcastic "have a nice day" crap already. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk Page

Most editors keep a regular Talk Page with a selection of recent threads and one or more archives for old threads. This is often very useful in showing a "picture" of an editor and of their previous interactions, their style of editing, who they interact with and why, and so on. Archives can be quickly and easily searched for topics. But you don't seem to do this? You just delete everything without any archive at all. Why is that? It comes across as you trying to hide all of your previous discussions. Thanks. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can read, no? My talk page clearly states I prefer discussions kept to one page, that being the page on which they originated, which would be here. This is a very common practice for account holders here on Wikipedia. It's my talk page, and per WP:TPG, I'm allowed to remove whatever I wish. It's all kept in the history anyway, which I made clear in the notice (that you apparently missed). Also, as an account holder, I can request that people stay off my talk page, which I am now requesting of you. You are an IP user, and you've already stated this is a shared account (by 56,000 people!), and as such it's handled differently. I don't know why you don't have account (something to hide?), nor do I care. I added the history, for reasons already clearly explained, with a standard template used widely across the project, on IP talk pages with looong histories of vandalism and disruptive editing, such as this one. It had nothing to with you specifically, I don't even know you. And perhaps you noticed that once you got all bent out of shape about it, I simply moved on... unlike you, who for some reason decided to show up on my page weeks later to post some childish nonsense. So what's going to happen now is, we are going to go our separate ways. You're banned from my talk and I have no interest in returning to yours. mmm'kay? Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 12:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had expected an adult response. Not some deluge of sarcastic back-chat with accusations of "childishness." Your so-called "Talk Page" is wholly bleak and unwelcoming. Some of us editors, even as ip's try to add content, instead of spending 90% of our time berating others and acting like some kind of self-appointed vigilante force, with a cringe-worthy pointy little user name. More than happy to stay from away from your dismal "Talk Page" where you can avoid awkward questions and ban people you disagree with. And very glad that you're not here to reply, and never will be from now on. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC) ... you really just don't get it with the "56,000", do you. And seven days is not really "weeks later", is it?[reply]

Wythenshawe Hall

FYI:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding once, with a justification, constitutes "edit warring"?? That request was declined after 30 minutes. Other editors made many more reverts. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, coward, log in and have the balls to face the music rather than hide behind an IP address. CassiantoTalk 17:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, Cassianto. Eric's response provides no encouragement for anyone to log in, or create an account. Balls, or no balls. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. That's why you're not listed on the ANEW post, but I thought you still ought to be notified that other editors, at 7RR, had been raised there. You can see how upset J3Mrs was when he felt he was being left out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well in that case, thanks for telling me. A few editors seemed to be "very upset" quite regardless of your request. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely; power in the hands of a bullying WP editor is beyond description78.151.27.61 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Skepta, you may be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 27 April 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.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Skepta. McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 29 April 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.
I added bit about the origin of name and did two wiki-links, and you call it "disruptive editing". So I searched for a source for the name and added that as well. You now say that well-known source is unreliable, and threatening to block me. That not really fair, is it. You are a bully. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon

Do not remove important questions from the talk pages of articles. (86.183.30.40 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:20.133.0.13&oldid=718448868"