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

Welcome!

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:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

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:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

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 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 (~~~~).

Happy editing! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hans Oschmann

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

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

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

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)

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. TheMesquito^buzz 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. TheMesquito^buzz 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"

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"

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

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 are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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)

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)

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)