User talk:109.79.184.96

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to User talk:24.251.25.227 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! HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No. WP:WNCAA -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You do realize you keep citing a humorous essay to justify not creating an account? More than that, based on our numerous interactions, I learned that you have received many warnings from many editors about your editing, so what legitimate reason would you have not to register as a user other than to evade blocks? KyleJoan^talk 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Warnings? Minor disagreements. I edit in good faith and if I didn't the admins have tools to track down and block people across IP ranges.

There is usually some truth in humor. I don't think these welcome messages are a good idea (why not automate them and shoot them at everyone automatically if they're such a good idea) but I try to be polite about it, pointing to the essay seems better than the alternatives or repeatedly explaining that since I'm not required to use an account then I will not use one. I don't have to justify anything, and the only "legitimate reason" needed is that they are not required. Tried it for a while, didn't like it. Not interested in fake names, reputation games, collecting barnstars, or these kinds of discussions unrelated to improving an article.

I made a change to an article, it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't read though long the wall-of-text on the Talk page before doing so. I didn't see a comment warning that the text was based on a long boring discussion, but you reverted my change, pointed it out that the wording was based on consensus, so I made a comment but didn't change it again. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Warning. Warning. Warning. Warning. Warning. This you? KyleJoan^talk 06:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Warning. Spurious. Look at the article history. I edited Late Night (film). Multiple good faith edits, added various reviews. Editor deleted budget source and ignored Template:Infobox film and overreacted with a warning when I called him on it. Look at the Talk page. This was discussed politely and resolved. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Warning. Spurious. Editor clearly didn't read the edit summary or the diffs. I was restoring the article to the previous WP:STATUSQUO.[1] A named editor was ignoring WP:FILMLEAD, adding a bunch of made up shit to the lead, that wasn't supported by the critical response section. Looks reasonable at first and it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the named editor knew what he was doing but that would have been an incorrect assumption.
3. Warning. KyleJoan used the template "Welcome-anon-unconstructive"[2] KyleJoan likes long run on sentences, which I disagreed with for a few edits. I don't think escalating those minor disagreements in edit summaries to talk page warnings about disruptive editing was appropriate.
4. Warning. Again edits like to throw warnings on user pages instead of discussing. I engage on the article or on the article talk page. The named editor was asking for references that had already been provided. The editor asked again and so even though MOS:LEAD does not require references to be repeated in the intro, but ultimately I provide them anyway, reusing the existing references using named references.[3]
5. Warning. This was addressed on the article talk page. IJBall was aggressively reverting. The reverts came before the explanation, an explanation did come later but it was far from clear. We both failed see that a typo needed to be fixed.Talk:Rachael_Leigh_Cook#Love,_Guaranteed
6. This you. No that is not me. I follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and include edit summaries. I fix budget figures, I call out editors who delete/cherry pick them without explaining, see above edits to Late Night film). I don't change the budget without updating the references,[4] and if the figures don't match I'll check BOM/NUM and include more than one budget figure. I discuss things, that editor does not discuss.

I don't keep a user profile because it is not required. I don't want to respond to talk page messages directly because people fire them off reflexively without checking, and make it personal instead of making it about improving the articles. I do comment through edit summaries and I actively engage in talk page discussion. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/109.255.166.136. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 06:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement is allowed, so revert, we discuss. I don't think this was necessary at all. -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet: "That may be annoying and spammy and all sorts of other things, but it's not WP:ILLEGIT so not an SPI issue."[5] -- 109.79.184.96 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

---