User talk:70.163.208.142

Welcome to my IP talk page

I likely won't create an account for a couple of reasons, but I've been consistently at this IP address long enough to have a little hello message. Before 2020 I didn't give time to any online presence, but an accident has changed that. Now I'm bed-bound and unhappily read and edit Wikipedia.

I find myself editing mostly films, a few BLPs, and fashion/footwear articles. Some of the latter can get extremely crufty despite being watched by so many editors. This is how Puma (brand) looked like in June 2022. I like to see how articles change over time; it reveals some trends. I swear editors use the word "respectively" unnecessarily a lot more than they used to.

Wikipedia's manual of style is helpful, but I've learned faster by following editors I like. One editor discourages using the word "also", now I see it everywhere. Anyway, shoot me a message maybe.

*UPDATE 20 March 2024* My IP address is stable but still periodically changes—it's now 70.163.220.139

70.163.208.142 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback and restoration of edits to Soldier (1998 American film)

Hi 70.163.208.142, I'm Wikipedialuva. I recently undid an edit you made to the article Soldier (1998 American film) because it was flagged in the recent changes as "likely (having) problems" and initially appeared to me that "Peoples" was improper grammar instead of being the last name of the writer. A tool I use called RedWarn automatically rolledback all your edits to the article when I undid that edit. I went ahead and restored all of your edits to the article with the exception of I did make a change to change the freestanding "Peoples" to "He" for clarity. I apologize for any confusion or concern this caused. Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva: Yes, I saw your revert almost immediately and was prepared to make a case... but now I'm just kicking myself for not thinking of using "He". Thanks. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Your contributions are much appreciated. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think IPs could get barnstars. Made my day. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Have a cookie too.

Short note on my experience as an anon IP editor. I had an account long ago and stop using it but never entirely stopped editing. I also had more time indoors recently and did lots of editing. This week I was amused and interested to see that an article I was heavily involved in editing (and that I self-assessed all the way to B class) had been nominated to go through the {{Good article}} process. Depending on how it goes there is another article (Carbon Creek) that I might try and push through the process by myself.

There are some things that anon IP editors cannot do (like upload images to Commons) but if you're willing to dive deep and put in the time and effort there isn't a whole lot that you cannot do on Wikipedia.

See you on the Star Trek articles later I guess. (If you haven't seen it already you might be amused by WP:WNCAA.) -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 109, I don't know why you choose to stay anonymous, but it's always fun to see you pop up. Unlike my IP, yours is always slightly changing, so I can't reliably see what you're up to, but you're so active it's just a matter of time. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No particular reason. I take what the ISP randomly gives me. I know my edit patterns and even speech patterns make me not very anonymous at all. You can add /16 and like this Special:Contributions/109.76.128.10/16 and see what other IP addresses in the same subgroup are doing, but that won't show half of my edits and will mix in other people's edits too.
I really should be doing more useful things with my time. shrugs?!? -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Schitt's Creek! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! AldezD (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User @AndyFielding brought me there, I'm a sometime stalker of theirs because I think their copyediting is sublime.

I might register, but I'm afraid it might give me a different mentality... 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Hellraiser (2022 film)

Hey 70.163.208.142, thanks for reverting that edit on the Hellraiser (2022) page. I've had numerous issues with the IP user (though the address always changes) that keeps on making disruptive edits on the opening paragraph and manipulating the URL of the reliable source I included. Thanks again! Edwordo13 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I understand some stubborn editors, like in politics articles, but what's this IP trying to accomplish? I'd hear them out if they didn't edit out parts of a URL to support their case. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I created a talk page for that IP user, haven’t responded back yet. No clue what are they even trying to accomplish here, and would like to hear why they keep on reverting my edits. Edwordo13 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Home on the Range (2004 film) box office

The Numbers article for that film has a lower box office gross than what box office mojo has. Don't you think we should have both of those sources? According to box office mojo, the film only managed to make back it's budget thanks to worldwide gross. Evope (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Evope We can have both, but the Box Office Mojo source has an obvious error for France's last row.[1] As editors we can't interpret sources, even if they're obviously wrong, but we can use editorial oversight in choosing them, and lucky for us we have two. We could also try to get BO Mojo to fix it, but I've heard other editors didn't have much luck with other films. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hyrule kingdom in legend of Zelda

can I just say that the Hyrule kingdom in legend of Zelda is in inspiration off of saint mount Michel but somehow you can accept other pop culture related to the castle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.229.50 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed what's obviously original research, something in common with a lot of your edits (Even your edit to Air Jordan could be called this if you don't have a source explicitly saying Miles Morales wears Jordans in the sequel). Hyrule might very well be based on Mont-Saint-Michel. It might be obvious just looking at it. You need a reliable source saying it; your source didn't.

September 2023

Hello, I'm Adakiko. Your recent edit to Gulliver's Travels (2010 film) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2023 (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.

Respectively

It only takes one or two editors for words like "respectively" to end up all over the place. There was one editor who really loved the word "eponymously" and tried to use it everywhere when "of the same name" was more almost always simpler and more appropriate. Respectively is part of a group of words and phrases I find to be entirely redundant, assuming "respectively" is being used to mean in the same order as those other things just listed. I remember seeing editors using "respectively" in film articles when they meant "retrospectively". Wikipedia has overused the word "however" for as long as I can remember. We can go down the WP:IDIOM rabbit hole too, I increasingly dislike the phrase "going forward" because in most cases that is the normal state of human existence, and it is only worth mentioning if you are going backwards or time travelling or doing something else unusual. Many editors use the phrase "on the other hand" without having said what the first hand was (the idiom is harmless but simply unnecessary) or like to claim one thing is "conversely" or "despite" some other thing, when the two things are separate with no particular need to compare or contrast them against each other, editors are merely in search of a wikt:conjunction.

Just wanted to drop by and say hello and see if you were still editing, which I can see from your edit history that you are. I'm not editing much but still as distracted and irregular as ever and editing sporadically. Cheers from your friendly neighbourhood "exopedian". -- 109.76.135.251 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a nice recent example of words that add nothing—"the actual", "as well as", "manage to", "thus"—and I find certain editor's insistence in using them amusing, like—I understand fighting about key words in the lede, but edit warring about how many adverbs to include in a plot summary? I will say that Wikipedia gave me better writing habits than public school ever did.

Oh, thank you for the IP subgroup trick, I use it a lot and don't think I'd be aware of it without you. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

slightly overboard deletion on Nike skateboarding

quick note before I get started, if I don't respond soon after a response; I'm asleep. anyway; on Nike Skateboarding your edit seems to have been deleting a bit too much. I definitely agree that the Andrew Garfield part is completely unnecessary, but Im unsure of your reasoning for deleting the few paragraphs of most of the thing from 2022. Do you mind explaining this? Awaiting (but not too urgently) your reply, Megabits000 (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'm on a bender lately with company/brand articles and realize some of my edits might be cutting too much in one go. That edit was mostly a revert of this largely unsourced addition, but I'll admit I didn't spend time investigating that Why So Sad redlink. Do what you feel is necessary, but keep my new sources, the Hypebeast one is quite good and is the only one I've found that corroborates "1997". 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and the word "iconic" may have biased me against that addition, too. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

---