User talk:109.77.214.139

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No thank you. -- 109.77.214.139 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I found my edit had been rudely reverted without any edit summary to explain why. Reverting unnecessarily isn't very respectful, reverting without an edit summary is not respectful either. It was strange to see the dead link tag had been removed before the dead link was fixed. The link was later fixed with an archive url (again no edit summary) but the fix did not include url-status=dead so the same dead link was presented in front of the archive link. By adding url-status=dead the working archive link is presented first, so readers are less likely to click on the dead link, like I did, again. It seems strange to revert a legitimate tagging of a dead link, even if that dead link was later fixed. This might have made more sense, and minor mistakes might be more understandable if there had been any edit summaries to explain any of these reverts and changes.

Betty Logan didn't specify which comment of mine exactly she objected to, my edit summaries may have been seen as direct but they weren't personal. Betty Logan comment "Get your facts straight! I have not altered the budget figure. I simply replaced a dead URL with an archived version because you were too lazy to do it." was not a model of civility either. There's no need to call someone lazy for not fixing one of the millions of broken things in Wikipedia. I was not expecting Betty Logan or anyone else except a robot to fix the dead link with an archive URL.

The budget figure was altered in these edits [1][2] It was not clear what happened or why. Again there was no edit summary so I can only guess. It initially looked like an editor was removing the budget range, which Template:Infobox film says not to do, but that was a guess because there was no edit summary. On closer inspection it looked like it had been removed because it wasn't properly sourced, so I restored the remove. User:Facu-el_Millo provided a proper reference for the figure and improved the article.

I hope there is no need to discuss this confusion further and we can get on with trying to improve articles. -- 109.77.214.139 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see Betty Logan is an experienced editor but that is only all the more reason to follow the simple rules and provide meaningful edit summaries. It is not just me, Betty Logan seems to having a bad day and reverting changes in ways that confuse other editors[3] without explaining why.

At least in that case of the edits of User:Rupert1904 I can see that a small but flawed attempt to fix a mistake[4] was reverted so that a bigger mistake/vandalism could be fixed.[5] Again there would be less confusion if Betty Logan explained with edit summaries. -- 109.77.214.139 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I simply fixed a problem at the article that you highlighted, by misusing the {{Dead link}} template. Please note the instructions at the template:

Before considering whether to use the template it is often useful to make a search for an archive copy of the dead link and thereby avoid using the tag altogether

.

You could have done that but chose not to. You also used the tag incorrectly:

Append this template directly after the link (after the link code's terminating ] if you are using wikitext), or, if you are using a {{cite}} template, directly after the {{cite}} transclusion (not inside it), but inside the reference, if any, i.e. before the </ref>

As you can see at [6] you did not place the tag in the correct place, instead leaving it littering the infobox. My edit removed the tag and added an archived URL. I did not alter the budget. That was a previous editor. I briefly reverted their edit and then self-reverted when I realised the information was not sourced. Edit summaries are only required when the nature of your edit is not unclear. My edits were entirely self-explanatory if you check the diff. Once again, my intervention was only necessary because yet another editor was too sloppy/lazy to fix the actual problem, leaving the work for somebody else to do. You can't really complain if someone comes along and does the job that you chose not to do. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Betty Logan edits/reverts are not as clear as they seem to think they are, even after reading the diffs. Fix or not as you choose, but if you really believe it is necessary to Revert before you fix then just say so in your edit summary. Betty Logan is clearly experienced enough to know better. Follow the simple rules and write meaningful edit summaries for your own benefit so people like me or Rupert don't need to waste your time asking what you are doing, and others don't need to read the diffs to understand what you are doing.

Your calls for civility while calling others lazy is itself rude. Failing to write a meaningful edit summary could also be called sloppy or lazy. There is no shortage of broken things in Wikipedia. If choosing not to fix yet another dead link, especially knowing that robots will (try to) fix them is lazy, then Wikipedia should be more lazy. -- 109.77.201.61 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Edge of Heaven, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave a very clear reason for removing IMDB scores. They fail both MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC. -- 109.77.214.139 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

---