User talk:141.157.254.24

New message from LauritzT

Hello, 141.157.254.24. You have new messages at Talk:Kate Walsh (actress).
Message added 10:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— LauritzT (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Mojo Hand. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Braxtons—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My apologies - your edit was fine. Sorry for the confusion.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just had my edit reverted again. Guess I should've included a summary--141.157.254.24 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries definitely help. It was the all caps title in the reference that made me think it was a disruptive edit.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake. I reverted my edit. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Hanson (band). Your edits appear to be 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. — Friedlemon⭐^💬 20:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. I updated a URL and article links to say American instead of U.S. as they are currently situated--141.157.254.24 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry. I didn't mean to undo your edit. You can delete the warning if you want, I restored your edits. --— Friedlemon⭐^💬 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Disney Channel original films. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not change content of sourcing – you can update URLs, but you cannot change from the original publisher/originator of the material. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wait why am I getting a warning if you’re so familiar with protocol that you didn’t start the talk page discussion? You’re telling me my edit is unconstructive without telling me how it’s unconstructive. You made a claim against me without putting any weight to the claim--141.157.254.24 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just told you above. More at User talk:Geraldo Perez – it's very clear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sir is a template, not your words. And you’re telling me you had an entire discussion about me to speculate what I’m doing instead of actually communicating with me, and still haven’t justified your calling my edits “disruptive” and not productive. It has been too often that the articles at the defunct websites in question only redirect to the main page and not the new location of the article. That is why they need updating, and calling me disruptive for doing so when I wasn’t bothering anyone is rather rude--141.157.254.24 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors 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 (141.157.254.24) 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! wizzito | say hello! 08:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wipeout (2021 game show). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call my edits unconstructive and disruptive without evidence and explanation. You cannot throw out such accusations so baselessly--141.157.254.24 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained to you within edit summaries- seems that you don't bother to read it yourself to see your own disruptiveness. Magitroopa (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edit summaries do not explain how it is disruptive. Futureproofing and cutting down wordiness is neither of the things you claim it to be. You had no credible reason to revert my edits, and then put the onus on me to start the talkpage discussion. You had multiple opportunities to do so yet chose reversion instead. Even after the unexplained edits were explained to you. If all you needed was an explanation then you would've stopped reverting after one was given. But you didn't. So this isn't a policy issue, it's a personal issue--141.157.254.24 (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not 'futureproof' sentences to be in past tense before it actually occurs. I'm certain you don't know what will happen on/prior to that date, especially this far in advance. And no, you really should've started discussing it following the first revert, WP:BRD. Magitroopa (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. You can keep claiming that, but it doesn't make my edits disruptive, unconstructive, or wrong. You insisting it is doesn't make it so. You went straight to warning without a proper talk page discussion. You are dancing around the fact that you did not follow the rules you insist I follow--141.157.254.24 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in American television

Hi there, TVSGuy here to show.

I understand that this is a rare moment in television but then back then there are no sources and I await for the news but you saw that you remove that message; I have to oppose this revert because first it was a celebrity playing for charity and second, the grand prize take it hard to achieve but this is just something notable it was its first time it was lost. I have to object the revert, please as it was a history first for this show, so make that as an exception. I need a reply and I hope my post will be evident and notable.

Thank you. TVSGuy (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have overlooked the post but please reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

I think you are overstating the importance of the event.--141.157.254.24 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you removed the post, even though I have the sources. Thanks, I glad I have learn something, but still you please reply the message on time next time. Take care. TVSGuy (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish the Mraz fan who lodged an incident report would understand. It’s ludicrous to be reported over such a petty thing--141.157.254.24 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found that user suspicious and I try issue a report because it's against policies. I give it a try. He should not have interfered because that is not their concern. TVSGuy (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure it’s impersonation (FC I’m pretty sure is supposed to stand for Fan Club) but the behavior is still really suspicious and myopic.--141.157.254.24 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might have a feeling. Personally, arguing over so-called "technical win" argument... I know what is that just like him because of several internet etiquette lessons I learnt before I come to Wikipedia. TVSGuy (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seen that recent edit. I respect your decision. Personally, I think that this post is right but warning about online trolls... for now just wait and see if there got improvement. Again, glad we learn something. TVSGuy (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 20, 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JMrazFC (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at WP:AN3, I believe the other IP editor was right in removing unsourced and poorly sourced content from the page. Per WP:V, content must be verifiable, and it's unclear how some shows ending can be verified without a source. Also, please refer to this Reliable sources noticeboard discussion for reasons why RenewCancelTV is not a reliable source. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you directing me about RenewCancelTV. I would've let up sooner in that regard had they not made it so contextlessly, coming off as a random declaration--141.157.254.24 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jailbait (web series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Akakievich (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another one? Did you even bother to look at what I actually did, or was it just assumed?--141.157.254.24 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about that. I misread, and thought that you had broken the citation deliberately. For what it's worth, creating an account will allow you to keep your IP address hidden and reduce the likelihood that other editors will misconstrue your edits as spam – but of course, that's optional. I have reverted hundreds of edits with no problems, but I made a mistake here, so I'm sorry! All the best, Akakievich (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the breaking of the citation comes from the fact that in cite web, year-only dates are permitted, but in tweet citations, they’re not. So I had to grab the link without losing my work in order to grab the full date. And yeah, I might have to create an account to get my edits in to start editing semi-protected pages, because the page I visit frequently doesn’t get responded to all that often, so edit requests would basically be thrown into a void--141.157.254.24 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.