User talk:2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

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 a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new 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 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 (~~~~). {unblock|I am currently in ANi discussion how am i suppose to respond when the sockpuppet allegation was opened and closed so quickly?} {unblock|I am currently in an ANI discussion when I was accused by this mark guy from Russia of being a sock puppet and immediately the case was closed without any discussion. that seems rather crazy.} Happy editing! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hans Oschmann[edit]

Hi I have reverted your edits on the above article. The article is covered by both the and is covered by MOS:DATERET, i.e. keeping the dates the same, if the article started with these types of dates. scope_creep (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jim1138. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Clara Bow seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Continual 'Alien' plot changes[edit]

Hi, you've put in a lot of changes to the Alien (film) Plot section. Sometimes listed (jokily?) as 'Tweek', they're not improving it. And someone will have to go in and fix the bad grammar and punctuation you're introducing. It does look like you're just having fun 'tuning it' back and forth. Please can you leave it be, there's no benefit apparent to what you're doing but the text is getting worse. Thanks for understanding.ToaneeM (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that there is much more than can be cut from that over-extended plot. Especially from what it was originally.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree. But we're not trying to get Wikipedia to your exact satisfaction, or to mine. Putting all that aside, the quality of the changes are worse than what's there. The English now needs correcting. (BTW, please detail your changes, 'tweek' doesn't help.) I'm sure your intentions are good but I'm also sure there's plenty more articles that could benefit from your attention instead of this one. Thanks.ToaneeM (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better now.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my intentions are always very good; very well received. Especially when it comes to extraneous matter. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The appeal to reason got nowhere. 'Extraneous' is subjective. Bad English and phrasing isn't subjective. You are making articles worse. Please find something else to do.ToaneeM (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6. You have new messages at Sb2001's talk page.
Message added 23:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.



Sb2001 talk page 23:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to History of graphic design. 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. TheMesquitobuzz 04:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There really needs to be a concerted effort by more experienced editors to refrain from such volatile language and the throwing about the term vandalism. Just because there may be occasion to find a correction not to ones liking is not justification to address it as vandalism. Just how is it that making WP better vandalism especially when the replacement has possibly not been done by others because they do not understand the nuances or complexities of a situation. Maybe this might be an excellent opportunity to explain just in what manner besides being insightfully inflammatory just what there is an issue? Could there be occasion that use of "BUTT" is not as universally concrete about its use if instead the root of the word "BUTTOCKS" is used instead? Also, when is it so wonderful for WP to encourage contributors to use as many words possible to explain something when fewer are applicable and in better style. REPEAT AGAIN is such a wonderful statement that should be encouraged regardless of situation?

Throwing about accusations is ineffective and gets no where.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not read the word "vandalism" here until you wrote it. Use edit summaries and try to be more clear in your explanations. And by all means, get a registered account. IPV6 addresses change frequently so you won't have an edit history.
I would have to agree with your assessment that the copy editing you did was not in any way unconstructive. @TheMesquito: Could you explain how changing "butt" to "buttocks" and removing the redundant word "again" from "repeated again" is unconstructive? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Actually seems to be a mistake on my part, sorry about that. TheMesquitobuzz 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you two quarrelling?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Up and down"[edit]

I have reverted your recent change to the Mount Lowe Railway article. Your change of "up and down" to "up or down" changed the sentence "...that trip was arduous and ofttimes required more than a day to travel up and down" to "that trip was arduous and ofttimes required more than a day to travel up or down" altered the meaning of the sentence and changed a correct statement into a false one. Your indiscriminate changing of this phrase across multiple articles is damaging Wikipedia. Please take more care. Also you might note that there is no such word as "philacious", the word you are looking for is "fallacious". Also your assertion that yur edits are supported by "logical science" is nonsensical; there is no logical fallacy to the phrase "up and down". Best, Railfan23 (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am having to correct dozens of articles where your changes have introduced factual errors. Take a moment to consider that the word "and" does not mean that the two actions either side of it have to take place simultaneously. In most cases it means nothing of the sort. Railfan23 (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As many as dosens or is that a bit of literary flair?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Up and down" v "Up then down"[edit]

Try Googling "Up and down the hill" returns 1,240,000 hits. While "Up then down the hill" returns 36,100. Jim1138 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses "common English" not "correct English" Please stop those changes. Jim1138 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

With your logic we would all be using the grammatical table established in the first ediution of the encyclopdea Britanica? So when in your judgement is it permissiable for science to start using proper logic instead of ehat people commonaly accept as correct when it is not? Google that.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's with an extreme of Jim1138's logic, a rather pointless one. Wikipedia is not one's private playground, it's a co-operative effort. Why won't you co-operate with these people on this page?ToaneeM (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've not found a constructive or co-operative reply you've written when your changes have been questioned. Unfortunately, you tend to refute everything, which frankly reads as childish and silly. (For an example, read your last comment as adult might.) This isn't a personal argument, despite your efforts or next glib remark. Reflect on what all these users have posted, they're largely saying the same thing on different articles. I'll leave you to that, so you can take your fingers out of your ears now.ToaneeM (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You will need to be far more objective rather than insulting to make your point. Would you like to give that another try? Or should I just take your first as a failure? And that is in no way extended as hostile, just unappreciative of remarks that coming from someone that wants to be taken seriously decides to be use up their valuable time to show how impolite they can be.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've said my points already so, again, you have all you need and I'll leave it. Because there's not progress towards a valued point in this exchange ('valued' means the values of Wikipedia). Your reply does read as hostile, disclaimers won't change that. As did 'are you kidding me'. If you can point out a reply you've written that exemplifies your co-operation, please do. Besides that, I wish you well and I do hope you show a change of attitude towards this site and all its users.ToaneeM (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Attitude is it? Oh, do please allow me into your clubhouse. Do you speak on behalf of all WO? Do you realise how foolish it appears acting as the gate monitor for something that has as its existence courtesy instead of demanding respect? But that does not apply to you because you have it on full authority to speak on behalf if ever so foolishly of WP and all your WPians would follow suit if only to sustain the artificial authority of WP. Oh, gees, I am been blasphemous. One of the problems of an organization promoted from within is that it does not take much for some to over take their step and trip up themselves. I'll let you get back to your self absorbion or is that laudatory?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm genuinely trying to communicate with you to get to a common agreement and I'm sorry you feel that way. You sound very unhappy there but lashing out won't help all those discussions here. Please calm down then read the guidelines for this site, they cover this. If you can not write either a rebuttal or an outburst but simply discuss with the other users, you'd be underway. Constructive instead of destructive, nothing to be afraid of. Again, I wish you well and let's leave it there.ToaneeM (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You beg the question. If your intention is to settle something then do not go around throwing your weight as if you are the only person in the world. It makes you appear ill-suited to cooperative endeavors. Please your time for apology has left the train station. Just go away!2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages...ToaneeM (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your effectiveness to convey a message has long past when you have the inability to stay on message without editorializing. Please, just go away!2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Justin15w. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Alien (film) 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. Thanks. Justin15w (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2017 (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.
Which edit is it that you are having problems understanding?02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page comments using four tildes ~~~~ 7&6=thirteen () 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Yes I Am (Melissa Etheridge album).

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Take it to the board if you feel you have an iussue. The changes were granatically correct.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC) \If you feel that you have an issue with a grammatically correct statement then take it to the board.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Ishqbaaaz. Adam9007 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2017 (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.

I did not rrmove anything. merely put it back into circulation. You must be muistaken. Please refrain from the auto pilot on the creating an account. It is not appreciated.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments in the middle of another user's comment, as you did twice at ANI.[1][2] Doing so makes it difficult to see who said what. Normally I would move your comments per WP:RTP, but in this case too much context would be lost. I am not allowed to modify your comments to provide that context, so I ask that you take care of moving your comments and modifying them appropriately. ―Mandruss  08:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the forms on your site should be more user friendly?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. MarkSewath (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

MarkSewath (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, this ought to be interesting, pulling who knows what out of plain thin air. I welcome it. A sockpuppet? What will come next, Super LOTTO winner?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not well, 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 rangeblocks please admins. MarkSewath (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Honey, you are the person that is not well. Where did you pull this accusation of being a sock puppet? You are on drugs, do you know this?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

MarkSewath you are 12 years. MarkSewath (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark, save yourself the embarrassment and put down the bong. what is "12 years"?

IP address, user you are 9 years got called sock puppet Gabucho181 in ip address. MarkSewath (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Mark. You are in Moscow? Are you 12 years old? Who is this other person you believ me to be a sock puppet?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Who is gabucho?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 you are 100 years called sockpuppet. MarkSewath (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to take a nap and then mark you came along. I realize that your non_russian language skills may be limited but this will get interesting as how can I be something that I am not and the sock puppet discussion will be interesting.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

IP you are 9 years. MarkSewath (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Mark, you need to take this discussion to the sock puppet board! not here.
IP address, admin please talk page access change disabled talk page you are 100 years. MarkSewath (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You have repeatedly accused other editors of being on drugs. That kind of abusive language is unacceptable. bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 7 October 2017 (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.

Are you serious? there is some delusional person in Moscow called mark saying that I am a sock puppet? This is getting comical by the moment. I really will need to put dinner on the stove so that after all this at least I will have dinner ready. I thought tiwas difficult enough to dela with the status quo but now there is some guy from the old country.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC) How am I suppose to defi=end myself ehen I am on block. there is some delusional guy saying something about 9 years whtever and now I am blocked? This is a circus.

Where live country and city? MarkSewath (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I am currently in ANi discussion how am i suppose to respond when the sockpuppet allegation was opened and closed so quickly?

Decline reason:

You are blocked because we have reason to believe you are the vandal, Gabucho181 (talk · contribs). You have not addressed this in your unblock request, so there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Note that Gabucho181 is not welcome here. Yamla (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

One unblock request at a time, please. You have plenty of opportunity to address the sockpuppet allegation here. You don't need to be unblocked for that. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked your talk page access. You either lack sufficient competence or are outright trolling. This leaves you with WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)