User talk:174.58.42.212

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to What Happens in Vegas. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (174.58.42.212) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Minimac94 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in What Happens in Vegas. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. BLGM5 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to What Happens in Vegas, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. BLGM5 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Bloc Quebecois[edit]

Regarding your edits to the Bloc Quebecois article, I have reverted the because they are unreferenced opinions. Please take a look at WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Role Models has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaAtx4Jx7Y. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

The Blues Brothers (film)[edit]

Please stop adding minute and inordinate detail to this article. The plot summary is supposed to be just that, a summary, not a blow-by-blow description of the events of the film. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Blues Brothers (film). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. That edit summary was entirely inappropriate. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free on the seventh at seven![edit]

Re: The Blues Brothers (film)

I know you're impressed with the quality of my writing, and research. My summary was accurate, gave credit where credit was due, and was complete, having no more or no less content than required, in great contrast to the inadequacy that it replaced. You would have me write no more than "this is the film about those two guys in black hats and suits." Go back and compare the quality of my edit to the Plot section to what's there now. I even had other users complimenting the quality of my edit. You're being an officious intermeddler.

I would strongly suggest not continuing with the personal attacks. You're just about to come off your first block, you certainly don't want to walk right into another. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"First block"? The use of that phraseology presupposes prejudice on your part that there will be more. It's sad, but true: prejudice begets prejudice. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I saw a ramble, plagued with grammatical issues, that detailed minute details that were not critical to understanding the main focus of the plot. I won't deny that what's there currently could use some polishing for grammar and other copy editing. But this was a step backwards. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the word "issue" at least implies that the "grammatical issue" might be resolved in my favor. But then again, we might disagree on what the meaning of the word "issue" is, in that context. You may simply have conclusorily meant "grammatical problem" or "grammatical insufficiency". 174.58.42.212 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Dlabtot indicated that my edit was an improvement. I have no idea who Dlabtot is; therefore, it was solely the quality of my writing that impressed him/her. You're simply camoflaging your ad hominem attack on me by unfairly criticizing my writing. "[T]his was a step backwards" for no other reason than because you say it was, backed up not by your compositional expertise, but your power to access "controls" that I cannot. I'm a law school graduate, with extensive research and writing experience, with highly-graded work product. I'm a morbidly obese individual, so I know about "personal attacks". It's frustrating to be shunned for no other reason than suffering from that particular disease. If a wide diversity of people (and by 'diversity' I mean diversity of viewpoint) are going to be included, rather than excluded, in the overall effort of improving Wikipedia, there's going to have to be a concomitant latitude extended, not a mechanisitic adherence to what one individual thinks the rule means. In this instance, if one abides by the standard of the quality of another opinion forwarded, the edit was an improvement, and not because I think it was. What a collective labor of love that article represents! Why would you want to tear that down? 174.58.42.212 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was trying to be polite but if you'd like specifics my biggest problem was the massive run-on sentences. The paragraph you wanted to add about the donut shop was a one paragraph long sentence. This could have been cleaned up if it bore any relevance to understanding the overall plot. But as it did not, it warranted deletion, not copy related collaboration. Similarly, the changes to the first paragraph not only moved the central problem of the movie into another section, but changed the existing text into yet another run-on. You took the aforementioned central problem (the orphanage owing taxes) and bloated a succinct, two sentence explanation into a paragraph that was littered with irrelevant details, unneeded parentheticals, obtuse word choices, etc. And the middle content that was all your addition contained every possible violation of WP:FILMPLOT I can think of; from trying to recreate the experience of seeing the film to dialogue quotes not specifically needed. These sections were, of course, also plagued with the same kind of poor writing displayed in the other portions I detailed. And finally, nearly everything you wanted to add or change was filled with unneeded descriptors that, in the context of a film's plot summary, boil down to POV. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You use words and phrases such as "wanted to". How can you possibly presume to speak to what I want? You conclusorily presume to determine "relevance"--relevant to what? What is the standard for relevance? Based on your unexplained, conclusory determination of what ought to be or ought not to be relevant? "[I]t warranted deletion, not copy[-]related collaboration."--"We don't want to work with you, and we don't have any specific reason other than we just don't like the look of you" would be less dishonest. "[C]entral problem of the movie"? What is that--its existence? "[I]rrelevant details, unneeded parentheticals, obtuse word choices"? Why are you the arbiter of what is and what is not relevant or irrelevant, what constitutes an irrelevant detail, and where a parenthetical is a better choice than commas? And then you denigrate my choice of words by conclusorily labelling my choices "obtuse"?!? And what is "POV"? You don't even know me and you indulge in these personal attacks. I made it better--not perfect, but better. My interest in this instance was this article and the improvement of it--there is nothing disruptive about it. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you "wanted to" add the edit I was speaking of because you, well... added it. Several times. Obviously I was mistaken. Millahnna (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
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).

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

Request reason:

Constructive discourse is not harassment. Surely there is room on Wikipedia for different types of people, with diverse viewpoints. I am a person of good conscience who simply wants to contribute constructively.

Decline reason:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were originally blocked for edit warring. As soon as your block expired, you went right back to the article and picked right back up with the edit war? Wikipedia works by consensus, not by reversion without discussion. I do not see a single edit by this IP to the talk page of the article in question. If you want to edit constructively, discussion is the first step. TNXMan 01:27, 27 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't even know what "edit warring" is. It sounds like a bad thing. All that I was doing was advancing an ongoing improvement of the article. Intent is essential. This is supposed to be a collaborative and ongoing effort--not the destructive, and ultimately static, one, that your blocking of me has effected. This is because as a result of your action, the plot description remains the same--inadequate--and no positive advancement or improvement has therefore been effected. Is that what you want your function here to be? My intent was to be collaborative with others who have contributed to other segments of the article, and to advance the encyclopedia, by improving the article. I hold a doctoral degree--I know how to write, and I know how to collaborate. We have already agreed that the previous plot description was inadequate. Go back and look at my version--my plot description in the article was a significant improvement in fact, accuracy, and summation, and there was collaborative consensus with User Dlabtot. People of good conscience here edit articles because they care about the particular content. Stopping people from doing that, and justifying it by coming up with officious-sounding, but ultimately illusory, reasons that in truth diverge from those stated--for no other reason than that it has been placed within your power--is counterproductive, and have amounted, in this instance, to nothing more than personal attacks on me, and it should be intuitively apparent that your action has been detrimental to the advancement of the The Free Encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

If you don't know what edit warring is, then you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia, as you are unable to follow links, a basic skill of Internet users. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, you don't get to the talk page until you get to the edit page. Are you telling me that I have to edit the talk page too, with a little missive justifying the edit, kind of like a written defense to a thesis?

Decline reason:

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that after several hundred edits, you don't know what a talk page is...considering you are posting on one right now. Smashvilletalk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Obviously, I now know what a ‘talk page’ is—it’s sort of a “bulletin board” where one posts messages such as this one. You erroneously think that all this esoteric terminology and its application is always self-evident to everyone. In asking “[w]hat is a talk page?”, the question is not intended to communicate that the issue is whether or not I know what a talk page is. The issue is what is the proper procedure for editing an article, obviously wherein a talk page is supposed to be utilized. Am I supposed to post a proposed edit on the talk page first?

Decline reason:

Your block expired almost 19 hours before you posted this unblock request. I will assume that this is a simple mistake, though your editing history gives the impression that sometimes you may just perhaps pretend not to understand when you do. A word of advice: I suggest trying to be as cooperative as you can, lest you find yourself blocked for a longer period. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (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.

The Blues Brothers[edit]

You are really not getting it, are you? Assuming good faith goes only so far, and I now believe you are refusing to hear what you have been told again and again. Your vastly-expanded version of the plot violates WP policy. Reproducing it on the talk page and asking for comments, as if a popular vote would go your way, or would make any difference, indicates you are simply refusing to understand the multiple messages left for you above in regards to this matter. Please stop. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Billy Gardell has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billy-Gardell/20228115068.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

See my response at Talk:Law of the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using appropriate edit summaries[edit]

On Larry the Cable Guy, you added a citation needed tag to the birth location, which is fine, since it's currently unclear where he was born. However, in the edit summary, you used inappropriate language. While such language is borderline in some contexts, our policy on biographies of living people requires that we do not make negative unsourced statements about living people in any part of the project, including in edit summaries. Your summary was deleted by an administrator; please do not make such statements about living people again on the project. Continuing to do so may result in your editing privileges being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old School (film)[edit]

I undid your edits to this film although I believe they were made in good faith. The plot section is already too long; it needs to be 400-700 words. See WP:FILMPLOT. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Sizeism, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Weightism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (practical joke)[edit]

I have reverted your edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.58.42.212&oldid=1138944808"