Jump to content

User talk:68.234.100.60

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.234.100.60 (talk) at 14:54, 5 June 2017 (~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 2017

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Double-stack rail transport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Railroad retirees are not reliable sources?

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Blondell

Somebody gave me a brownie and Joan Blondell appeared on my radio! She was sitting on top of it. Thanks for the fix. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did she improve the reception? I don't know why but "appearaances" just jumped out at me. I considered "programs" too but "broadcast" has that old-school feel, lol.

I couldn't tell. Jackie Gleason and Popeye were breaking all of the dishes. Lol. I agree, that was rather strange wording. Maybe written by someone with synesthesia? Jim1138 (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Number matching, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Actually every article written, cited or not, is "original research". And who is this "we" you speak of? Are you an owner of Wikipedia in some way, shape or form? The article is seriously flawed as it existed before I found it didn't even mention VIN numbers, which are the numbers that have to "match". I'm reverting your removal of my edit. You don't own Wikipedia and I'm sure there are more productive things you could be doing than destroying the work of others. If you have a problem with my ADDITION to the article, take it to a review page or whatever power-tripping mass reversionists do to validate their refusal to allow participation in "their" project.23:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Number matching. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Home Lander (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block away because when I have a little more time I'm going to write a decent article on this subject from scratch, refer this piece of crap for deletion and start taking Wikipedia back from power-tripping assclowns that do nothing but destroy the work of others while claiming they're here to "create an encyclopedia". I donated money to Wikipedia just last week. When is the last time you put your money where your mouth is, hero? 68.234.100.60 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You need to take a serious look at WP:EDITING, and specifically WP:CITE before continuing. Home Lander (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 2017

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Horsepower. Jim1138 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, Jim, why were there "needs citations" notices going back to 2014 on that same article you just now decided has to be cited and referenced? Why was there a passage I started my ADDITION to the article right behind that had no citation or reference? You folks and your little watch pages and warning systems are fucking hilarious and pathetic. You don't even have the common decency or self-respect to check to see what an ENTIRE article looked like before you go into reversionist mode. You just jumped all over me for an ADDITION to an article that has been sitting there unedited to add the things you claim you HAVE TO HAVE for almost 3 years.

You're pathetic, and nobody needs a citation or reference to know it. And if you weren't so pathetic, it might be worth going through some of your articles and edits, if you have any, and pointing out all the unreferenced and uncited crap you've produced. Or lighting up all those big, important articles and their authors or "watchers" with all the instances of uncited, unreferenced material that just STAYS THERE FOREVER. But you're not worth the time. So I make my terrible, vandalizing edits and wait to be blocked again because its inevitable with you clowns. Get a life. 99.9% of everything that's on Wikipedia is "own research" when some wannabe "author" uses the internet to get the information for an article. If the information is already available online, that makes Wikipedia about as useless as a real encyclopedia in a real library with real reference books. So you may as well go ahead and block me. Maybe I'll see if another donation to Wikipedia makes a 6-month block disappear like it recently did.

Apparently Wikipedia is more hard up for money than content. Which isn't surprising given the server space taken up by dipshit editors and admins and their ridiculous arguments about every edit ever made take up probably 100 times as much space as the actual content. Ever think about that? Would a real encyclopedia ever get published if every little argument, discussion and stupid personal note between editors had to be included? Probably not.

You're legends in your own mind. Burning bandwidth like it's free.07:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you've got a lot of work to do editing much more important and widely read and highly rated articles throughout Wikipedia. Because I have seen VOLUMES of unsourced, uncited and unreferenced data throughout some big, important articles that have received "Good Article" status. You folks should spend more time creating content instead of deleting it. You're a bunch of hypocrites and it makes this "encyclopedia" look like a joke.

Opinionated, art we? BTW: Got to stomp out all of your wp:original research such as "steam" in a vapor degreaser. If you read the article you might note that they don't use water. The reason is that vapor degreasers use solvents that are expensive to buy and to dispose of. If they used water, it would be filtered (at best) and flushed down the drain. Boiling water to remove the sludge is expensive. Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some of your own research there, Jim? Pull your head out of your ass. Steam is used throughout a lot of industries for cleaning. In fact, it's used in homes to clean carpets, drapes, etc. Water is the universal solvent, after all. And why would anyone BOIL WATER TO REMOVE SLUDGE? Anything that doesn't mix with water either settles below it or floats on top of it. You skim it off or drain it off. I wish I were as smart as you are. But I'm just a dumb mechanic with apparently a hell of a lot more practical, real-world experience using steam to clean and reading about its use.07:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)~

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  caknuck ° needs to be running more often 08:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.234.100.60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because a thin-skinned editor couldn't handle being proved wrong when I posted a link to what he told me isn't done on his talk page. After he vandalized mine. 68.234.100.60 (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are continuing to make personal attacks here on this talk page, I have revoked your ability to edit it. (As an aside, please read WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:EW and WP:Consensus, and if your future edits and interaction with other editors after this block expires are not in compliance with them, you should expect your next block to be considerably longer.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He put a smartass comment on my talk page mentioning that he edits to "stomp out" own research edits like mine to vapor cleaning, and informed me that my edit adding "Such as when water is heated to create steam" was not only unsourced but apparently flawed own research because THAT doesn't happen. He apparently used his own research to determine that water boiled into steam would never be used for vapor cleaning because it would result in polluted water and the water would have to be boiled to remove sludge and blah blah blah. A typical blowhard gasbag of book-smart Wikipedia editor sticking his nose in articles and subjects he knows nothing about. Apparently he's not even smart enough to know that steam is used to clean carpets and drapes in peoples' homes. But he certainly didn't know what he doesn't know and decided to ridicule me on my talk page. And of course knowing that the hunt was on for a reason to block me and that it was inevitable, I told him what I thought of him on my talk page and posted a link to Steam Cleaning on HIS and PRESTO! I get blocked. Big freaking surprise. All because his own research wasn't as good as mine and he ran his mouth when he should have walked away. And he didn't even have balls enough to leave my comment on his talk page there for the world to see him get owned. Nor did he have balls enough to block me himself. And no, I don't expect to get the block lifted and don't really care if it is. I have a life. I get online and on Wikipedia as a diversion from it. And I get a lot of satisfaction from being blocked by a bunch of thin-skinned crybabies that think their "contribution" to something is destroying it. But at least now my story and my version of events - apparently the ONLY version - is on the record. Buh-bye08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's the post a "helpful" and "assuming good faith" editor put on my talk page that's NOT a "personal attack" or "harassment"

Opinionated, art we? BTW: Got to stomp out all of your wp:original research such as "steam" in a vapor degreaser. If you read the article you might note that they don't use water. The reason is that vapor degreasers use solvents that are expensive to buy and to dispose of. If they used water, it would be filtered (at best) and flushed down the drain. Boiling water to remove the sludge is expensive. Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) o I'll reiterate since I'm asking for another review, although only to get this noticed, that I responded with "personal attacks" and "harassment" AFTER he put THAT on my talk page. Which if I'm not mistaken is kind of an old issue, having happened many days ago. I certainly didn't bring it up, after all. And then he first refers to his apparently mission to "stomp out" my edits, which implies that he's a little more interested in destroying content than improving Wikipedia and might just have shown up to "stomp out" more of my edits out of some personal vendetta. Cyber stalking? Cyber bullying? Doesn't matter. He's a pansy and he knows it or he wouldn't have run for help. But he did then proceed to tell me that I'm wrong because the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE didn't mention using water. No shit it didn't mention using water. That's why I made a very simple, innocuous and completely HARMLESS edit by adding that water and steam ARE used. If steam had been mentioned, I don't think I'd have mentioned it. And then he goes on with his OWN RESEARCH telling me WHY water and steam aren't used for vapor cleaning. Once again, completely irrelevant and definitely a case of OWN RESEARCH being used to apparently EDIT WIKIPEDIA. His claim that steam isn't used is flat wrong, I was right and my minor and innocuous and FACTUAL EDIT didn't do anything but make the article better, but that's beside the point. And the whole little episode got escalated to getting me blocked when I simply pointed out to HIM on HIS TALK PAGE an ARTICLE LINK TO STEAM CLEANING right here on WIKIPEDIA. An article that just so happens to be about exactly what he says isn't done - using steam (aka vaporized water) to CLEAN. And he immediately removed or had removed my link to that article on his talk page removed. No doubt because he's too thin-skinned to just admit he was wrong. Whatever. We all know the truth... When my block is over I'll be sure to go to the Vapor Cleaning article and edit it again citing and referencing the Wikipedia article on STEAM CLEANING. Or maybe they should just be MERGED, since STEAM CLEANING is far and away the most common VAPOR CLEANING METHOD.08:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Vapor degreasing source?

Just a question on vapor degreasing This process relies primarily on the vapor condensing on the item to be cleaned. So, how is water, which doesn't dissolve grease very well or if at all, going to degrease the item? Never heard of water being used. Got a wp:reliable source (RS) stating that "water" is used in a "vapor degreaser". I don't believe that steam cleaning is the same process and is unlikely to be vapor degreasing. Detergents can be added to water to dissolve grease, but would not likely vaporize with the water. A source would be needed to change this. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bentley 8 Litre have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Whatever your point is, discuss it at Talk: first and don't leave this article in a state with a wl pointing to simply the wrong page. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm not going to argue with yet another "expert" Wikipedia professional content deleter. But here's a link to what I specifically said - http://salesmanual.deere.com/sales/salesmanual/en_NA/tractors/2012/feature/differentials_axles_frame_and_chassis/6030p_7030p/6030_7030_mfwd_story.html

I'm a former John Deere service technician and a pretty big supporter of the company, so I'll be notifying Deere & Company of your little article here and the fact that I tried to correct what is not only an incorrect spelling AND an incorrect claim of the "action" of the suspension but also a potential trademark violation. Have a good day.

Stop icon Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Believe me, I'm not considering it and it won't be ME taking "legal action". I'll simply report it to Deere & Company and I'm sure their lawyers can take it from there. I reported a user of a popular internet website/forum for vintage farm machinery years ago after he repeatedly scanned and uploaded pages, wiring schematics and other John Deere service manual content to the site and refused to stop after I very politely warned him. I sent a quick email note to Deere and within a few days his uploading of Deere intellectual property and the pages he'd uploaded and stored on the website both ceased to exist. If you want to claim to take copyrights and other intellectual property seriously on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be posting thinly-veiled threats of "sanctions" against me FROM Wikipedia for giving you fair warning that you might be violating trademarks. You insisted on reverting an edit that fixed a spelling error, a usage error and a potential trademark violation. That's on you now.

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Template:Z7 Materialscientist (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.234.100.60&oldid=783934679"