User talk:CLCStudent

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by .

Rollback on an edit

I think the edits I started on the article Murder of Harry Collinson wer neutral and factually true but were promply rolledback and I got a block warning saying it was vandalism. I always use wikipedia just reading, unless it seems there's some mistake worth editing. Thought this was a free encyclopedia, that even someone might disagree with my edit and change it back later, but seems it all depends on the approval of an authority in order to publish anything. So, do you have any social media whereby we could talk,I could get to convince you of the validity of an edit - since it does have a point - and maybeget your approval for it?

You need to put sources in that back up your claims. CLCStudent (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oy !!!

The edit I made to the article on Timothy Dexter was constructive. It was a quote from the text referenced.

I see a pattern on your talk page from other contributers: You are clearly reverting constructive edits without any grounds

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannonball I changed an error in units from "m/ps" to "m/s". The slash already denotes the 'per' in the measure of speed, so having "/" and then a "p" is tautology and just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.28.113 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oy !!!

The edit I made to the article on Timothy Dexter was constructive. It was a quote from the text referenced.

http://www.lordtimothydexter.com/the_holl_pickle_3.htm

See the section 'Note to Dexter's Second Edition' Beaneater00 (talk)

Made a mistake

Hello. I am proud Wikipedian Thepersonwhowritesanything. When i was editing French Creek, West Virginia, I forgot to log in. You can change my edit back. Thanks. TPWWA. Time. 3:50 (EST)

Message from 174.253.160.104

Hi i was told that i edited some thing but i did no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.160.104 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The message you saw was an old message about an edit someone with your IP address tried to (but did not) make. Don't worry about it. Since IP addresses are sometimes shared, you can get an account for yourself so you don't have to get messages that may be sent to other people. I've left additional notes on your talk page. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Wondering if you would be interested in being nominated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but take me with a grain of salt if you wish. The4lines (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)The4lines[reply]

I would rather wait for now. CLCStudent (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London pronunciation

Hi CLCStudent - I think the IP editor is correct with their change to the IPA pronunciation of London, Ontario. The version you changed back to would sound like "Lawndon" (""a" as in father"), as opposed to "Lundun", per the IP editor. PK T(alk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About my change on an article

I am writing in response to recent message from you on my edit which was automatically prevented. My edit was to remove categories and most content from the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sports

I still believe that the content of that page is not accurate and definitely not comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.7.105.213 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi, I'm not the sort of admin who insists on endless warnings before blocking an obvious vandal, but you're making a lot of reports of IPs that have very few edits, even including unsuccessful attempts that were caught by the filter, or that aren't active at the time of the report. Blocking an IP after they've finished a vandalism spree doesn't accomplish much (unless it's a static IP with a long history, in which case a longer block can be considered). Take, for example Special:Contributions/2601:40F:4102:A750:B9BA:E261:517:67EC—two edits ever (both unhelpful, but hardly serious disruption), and two filter log entries; they had a {{uw-vandal2}} from ClueBot after their most recent edit, but you reported them to AIV without any further edits—unsurprisingly, it was declined by another admin. For obvious vandalism (ie not just harmless tests like adding random characters), one warning, preferably something like {{uw-vandal3}}, is sufficient but you're unlikely to get a block without any warning for anything short of libel. Please be a little more conservative in your AIV reports in future. Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who edited my userpage?

When I saw the content on User talk:223.24.92.65 about 223.24.92.65, that user edited my userpage. What were the edits? Commuter3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They attempted to edit, but it was stopped by a filter here [[1]]. CLCStudent (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly, did they try to edit on my userpage? Commuter3 (talk)

You can see it here [[2]] CLCStudent (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mention of me on user talk page

On User talk:2601:300:4102:4420:2CDC:3D4F:BD50:CCE6 you have mentioned that the IP user made some edit on my user page which has been disallowed - but I don't see anything this user has done to my page. I don't understand what is going on?— Rod ^talk 15:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She attempted to edit your userpage, but the filter prevented her from doing do. CLCStudent (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks.— Rod ^talk 15:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job bud on fighting those vandals Lars.Dormans (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	A small appreciation and gratitude sign from me! Juliette Han (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never Have I ever

You keep reverting my changes but if you scrolled back in the view history page.. username: Dru alexandro had some valid changes with explanation and username: Crispsoaks is sturborn and pushed his or her edit through. So instead of going to my talk page, you should be alerting username: Crispsoaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck2020 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is what you meant about contacting you. But, I edited the prime count function page. At bottom last inequality, said was in citation 31, it is not. At least explicitly, think with some extra work it can be derived from the source, but should not be referenced as containing something that it explicitly does not. Easy to see for yourself. Thought possible that citation was incorrect, so looking into that. Should re-add my note about it. -Shaun

But still, you have to discuss it on the talkpage and not on the article itself. CLCStudent (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]