User talk:73.159.24.89

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

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

If you edit without an account, your IP address (73.159.24.89) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. 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. 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 (~~~~).

Happy editing! --SpyMagician (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Come Dancing[edit]

Wow, I didn't know it was that bad. Those articles are pretty exemplary of what a hobby/fan site we have become. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, it's 99--my IP switches back and forth of its own accord out here in the country. I wouldn't argue with them anymore, or call them names. When I look at the long and mostly unchecked edit histories of accounts like that, it confirms my apprehensions. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Well, what if I call you "meow"?

Drmies (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's always welcome, and it made me laugh. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And you'll love this edit history [1], which I imagine belongs to a very young and zealous contributor. Over the last few years I've detoured into articles on animated television shows, which are breeding grounds for pre-adolescent cruft and unsourced descriptions. I should have stuck with my strength, because the rest of the site can make a grown man weep. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    73.159.24.89: When ones needs to share concerns about another editor (either with an account or an IP), please try to keep things WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and provide sufficient precise WP:DIFFs of edits that might be causing concern. The tone and the vagueness of this report appears to have lead to a block a month later [2] on a somewhat vague [3] and unclear basis.[4]. —Sladen (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your good advice, which is much appreciated. I sincerely hope and trust that the thoughts I've shared will be largely understood as expressing exasperation, and are not uncivil or demeaning to a particular individual. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, while I agree re: the vagueness in my report and the need for diffs, the 86 account also edited prolifically on Nottingham articles, especially those of academies. Not a smoking gun in itself, but neither can it be suggested that there's no possible correlation. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Balamand[edit]

Hello!

I noticed that you have removed my addition on the University of Balamand's page because it appeared to be of promotional nature. Kindly note that I was trying to expand that page by adding information and photos retrieved from the University's website. This interest arises from the fact that I am a Balamand Alumni. Although I got slightly upset by your measures, which basically undone a great deal of my work, I truly respect your rules and I can genuinely assure you that my violation was unintentional. Finally, I will try to become more acquainted with your rules and guidelines, and I hope that I won't be considered a repetitive distributor if such unintentional violations arise again during this process.Jadtouma (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Jadtouma 21:31, 10/7/2015 (+2 GMT)[reply]

  • Hi, a small portion of what you added, several times, may have been acceptable. But it was easier to revert the entire thing than sift through for what was salvageable, given that the balance of the content was promotional and a blatant copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines and feel free to contribute, if you can do so without violating these guidelines and others as detailed at WP:COI. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

A special thank you for your help in our battle against vandalism in the SM City Cabanatuan article. Thank you so much for your efforts to improve this encyclopedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Dэя-Бøяg 02:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider creating an account for yourself!

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your recent anti-vandalism efforts. Appreciate it. --NeilN talk to me 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're very welcome. The sentiment is mutual. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative account[edit]

These appear to be the two IPs to which my edits are most frequently attributed now, so this message is an effort to connect them. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

  • I explained twice--it's unsourced and unencyclopedic. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience, then you can indicate the best in the edit summary what you did so well the second time, because there are plenty of anonymous users who deliberately blanked one page. BerendWorst (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--there are plenty of registered accounts who vandalize, as well. That article is a mess of promotional, unsourced and WP:BLP violations. It may need protection. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for helping keep the Kemba Walker article clear from vandalism. Sakura CarteletTalk 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Sakura Cartelet> I had a misstep there at first--if the vandalism continues we may ask for page protection. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reversion on January 31. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi College[edit]

Hi Diannaa and Drmies, please take a look at this when you have a chance. I've removed some promotional and possible copyright violations--there may well be more of both. Thanks and cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I searched for a few phrases but found no source. Any URLs you found? Drmies (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I found a couple for one passage [5], but nothing else yet. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found some minor copy vio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa. Sorry it couldn't yield something more rewarding for your efforts. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilde Lake[edit]

Hi Drmies and talk page stalkers. I removed this as unencyclopedic towncruft, and it was restored [6]. Am I wrong? 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • And while we're at it, any help with Chris Cheek will be appreciated. I've opened a thread at COI. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose the COI in that article is clear, but that doesn't mean their edits are all wrong. It's a frequent problem outside of pop music and for older artists--an unsourced discography. Esp. for albums recorded as a sideman this is difficult, I suppose, though one can always rely on primary sourcing. I'm inclined to let those stand, knowing that the article will be more informative though lower in overall quality. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Drmies. I'm less sanguine about their contributions, which to me are the equivalent of an author posting a lengthy bibliography section of their works. Another editor has raised questions re: notability. I'm letting it be, at least for the moment. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Hope you're enjoying the figure skating. Medvedeva was stunning. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, NeilN or TonyBallioni, I'd appreciate some eyes on Seredushka94 (talk · contribs), who has a history of unsourced edits and recently added copyright violations at WP:BLPs. AIV is closed, so I'm posting for help here. And Dr, I'll try to catch some Olympics tonight. It's just that figure skating is so....elegant. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Governor AGS (talk · contribs). COI issues abound, and the name implies connection with the school. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Jarrige[edit]

—Claire Le Douaron— 2/02/2018 00:33 - Claire LE DOUARON wrote:

> Bonsoir, > > I am very surprise. > I receive the message below this evening, when I try to correct some errors in the > article about Jacques Jarrige. I don't understand why I receive that. Jacques > jarrige isn't my employer, or my client, I am not in a conflict of interest with > him. > You are talking in the message on the wikipedia page about "advertising" : I > repeat, I am very surprise. What advertising, where, and why? I think you are > talking about a text which is an art critic article about the work of Jacques > Jarrige. I had given the reference of it, I had edited source. Nothing with some > advertising! And it is a very old contribution, and nobody ask something about it. > I don't undersatnd. > I think, the message you sent me , and your interpretation is an error. > I will be very glad if you could revise your opinion and correct its > consequences and remove the two tags, they are absolutely without sense. > Regards. > Claire le Douaron. >

  • Please. You have been closely associated with Mr. Jarrige. That much is easily confirmed through a Google search, so WP:COI is relevant. The article was so blatantly promotional that I considered requesting it be deleted as spam; much of the unacceptable content I deleted was added by Claire Lumière (talk · contribs), perhaps another account of yours? By removing the promotional text, I've brought the article a lot closer to encyclopedic standards. You're most welcome. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Hate to bother you for a second time today, Diannaa. Storefront for Art and Architecture will need lots of rev/deletion--just about everything I reverted was copied. Thank you, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for reporting — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Art, Design and Visual Culture[edit]

Hi Diannaa, further rev/deletion looks necessary. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your singular and commendable efforts to rid Wikipedia of various and sundry crap, you may have accidentally reverted a valid edit, Oshwah, the remedy for which may be the partaking of tea and scones in some properly civilised tableau. Or just a brief discourse here.[edit]

Bob, stand by; I'm taking another look.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Bob, I'm not familiar with this edit at all. I think I accidentally double-fired and took your edit with it... my sincere apologies... I've reverted the article to a revision made before today; I hope that provides some help. Please let me know if I can do anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I'd suggest a block of that account--persistent spamming and copyright violations today. Diannaa, more rev/deletion necessary. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that user is done... nothing but spam is what I see in his contribs. I also take issue with the username and would have had him change it if I had run into him. You're all set, and please accept my apologies (yet again) for my stupidity. My talk page is open to you any time should you need me for anything; please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Hope all's well with you--very best, Bob. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah and Diannaa, I think we may have similar issues at Maurice Berger, which has been conscientiously tended by the blocked account. I've already removed what appeared to be one copyright infringement passage, and guess the entire article could use a check. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if my assistance is needed for anything, and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oshwah. I've removed the overlapping content with the bio at Amazon, though the page was not archived back that far. It's either copyvio or the same person has been supplying the same content to both websites. Also there's a big overlap with this page, but we had that material first for sure, so I left it in. I also started some cleanup on the page. I am not going to do revision deletion on the Amazon stuff, as ten years of contribs would have to be hidden; it's too much. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and very much appreciated, as always, Diannaa. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some unusual articles percolating[edit]

For talk page watchers: Is there anything about these drafts that belongs on Wikipedia User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Foundation; User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Criteria and Rome Process? They look to have promotional/technical/copyright issues. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've nominated both for speedy deletion as promotional user page drafts. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer for thesis. These are not promotional. These are educational. The is an enter field in he filed of medicine called Functional gastrointestinal disorders. This field is often misunderstood. It provides a educational resource to clinicians worldwide and patients worldwide to better understand this group of disorders. It is developed a foundation(which really is a gourd of physician comittees) that develop the criteria for the diagnoses and provide and path for everyone to better understand and treat these patients. It is really a reference on the disease states and treatment and how these diagnoses came about

Please restore. this was easily done without any real basis. it would have been nice to b contacted for inquiry This was a painstaking process for research and writing/editing

please restore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwriter77 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple problems with your drafts that rendered them inappropriate. But until you adopt transparency and address WP:COI concerns as stated at your talk page, I won't expend energy belaboring this. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 6#User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Criteria and Rome Process. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JJMC89. I noticed, but figured that others commenting there have a better grasp of specific guidelines than do I, and administrators will be able to view the deleted content and note the promotional and copyright issues for themselves. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aiken[edit]

Hey, Bob... I'm John. Glad to meet you. As both Doc and Osh will attest to, I'm a firm believer that IP editors can be just as important as named editors and there are a couple I work with regularly. I've looked at that school, added some more cuts and added to the talk.

A favor though. If you ping me to your talk, don't erase the conversation without dropping me a note. I'm never dependably able to respond immediately (usually it takes a couple hours), and on Sunday especially my response time is slower. Full time business owner; plus Part time dad, part time minister, doing both on Sunday. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. If you want to dive into another, take a look at my contribution list. I've got a doozy in West Virginia right now. John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much, John from Idegon, and apologies for my aggravation. It wasn't my intent to expect an immediate response, and Sunday nights are often slow times here. The Dr is an old Wiki friend, but his dismissive reply didn't sit well....nor the 'Yes, ma'am.' (Quite alright, I won't trouble him again) For the record, I'm also 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs). I appreciate your clean up at the article, and suspect watchlisting may be necessary. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again, John from Idegon, for keeping on eye on this. If the disruptions continue I'll ask for a page lock. One suspects it's the doing of a zealous COI user adopting multiple accounts. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another old avatar[edit]

Dropping a line here just to stay connected to an old IP account. Such fond memories (*sniff*). 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.159.24.89&oldid=895555017"