User talk:Timefordindins

Edits on Xenon Dioxide

Hello! I recently made edits to the page on Xenon dioxide which you reverted. I do not have much history with editing Wikipedia pages, but this change added two factual sentences which can be confirmed through the main source, Brock, David S.; Schrobilgen, Gary J. (2011). I do not believe my edits violated any wiki etiquette, but those changes add important content to the page. Thanks :) (User: 134.114.181.183)

Ok let me take another look... Timefordindins (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Hello. It seems like you have been reverting lots of edits. Some of them are vandalism and should be reverted but others seems legitimate and I don't understand why they should be reverted. Please make sure that you understand what is vandalism. Also, if you are running some kind of bot or automated editing to do this you need to get it approved first because you are giving me the impression you are using a bot to revert. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using a bot no. I was under the impression that everything I reverted was vandalism. I apologise if this was not the case and I will try to do better in future. Timefordindins (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second that emotion, User3749 - I am in my 12th year and simply not logged-in, and fiercely resent a new user with 400 edits sending me a warning as a knee-jerk bad reaction, when the edit was perfectly fine and adequately explained in the edit summary. As mentioned elsewhere, I was undertaking a re-jig of the same article, and this is wasting time.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably help if you did log in, otherwise the edits are more likely to be flagged up as vandalism and there are so many to review mistakes are inevitable now and again. Was there any reason you chose not to login? I'm curious as often that would constitute a deliberate attempt at evade detection as your normal user, which is against the rules. Timefordindins (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing as an IP isn't an indicator of attempting to evade detection, instead it makes it even more obvious should you attempt to evade detection that you are the same person. Plus what do you mean by flagged up as vandalism? That implies you are using a bot to revert. User3749 (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No what I mean is, when I use the recent changes filters and filter on only anon edits, I always find a much higher hit rate of vandalism edits. Thus if someone has an account but chooses not to use it I'm more likely to make a mistake (though I'm trying my best not to but a few false positives are getting through). Timefordindins (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, a new user heeds the advice of others more experienced; new users usually do not attempt to act as Wiki-police trying to seek out vandals from WP:recent changes. The general advice and Wikiquette is to find something you are interested in, or experienced in, and develop those aspects for the good of the 'pedia, to gain contributory experience, without forcing anything un-naturally and in short-order.

Your registration has been dormant since 2016, and sprung into life in March 2024. Wikipedia has evolved to become highly-complicated and highly-structured. (See what I did there? Americans dominating WP will not allow hyphenisation after the 'y' in mainspace). All of this, including you forensically examining the perceived deceit behind editors' motivations - I always find a much higher hit rate of vandalism edits and a few false positives are getting through - suggests previous experience; have you edited before, under another name or IP addresses???

In 11 years, I've only seen this level of vehemence twice before, both self-declared autistics.

I am not an evader of anything, and have never been sanctioned; logging-in is optional, not mandatory. I am in my 7th decade and don't have the time or patience for people promoting themselves and demanding I self-identify. Everyone is the same on WP.

Regular editors can easily discern experienced IP editors - it's all in the edit summary, and other factors I will not disclose, given your supposed-inexperience. Just from the content of this message, anyone can discern I know my way around and how to format - vandals normally do not exhibit such variation and patience, albeit a weakening latter aspect with me. You can easily check my worklist with 99.999 completed summaries, not voids, and the majority are entirely-random gnoming.

I abandoned my account in November 2022 after the latest of several attacks in my wiki-career, from someone with three years' experience who should've known better. Worse still, once WP:AGF has been violated to the extent of personal attacks, I feel an increasing need to retaliate, which is not a good place to be, as the innocent party can be unfairly sanctioned. The word I would use for his latest attacker is Ocker, meaning uncouth Australian; I'm not a fan of the one-class society which allows them to get away with low discipline and brusque atitudes. I've declared to a to a checkuser off-wiki, via my dedicated email in February 2023, and at least two others (admin, admin+) are aware of me. So far this IP, over which I have no control, has been stable.

Wikipedia is an escalating toxic environment, and the drama boards such as AN/I and COIN are a waste of time. Think I've wasted enough time here; at least it exercises my brain. I am a specialist editor of motorcycles and motorcycle racing - during the 10-month international season, it is plagued by non-English first speakers, in descending order of frequency, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thailanders, which is enough to have to deal with - I hope you will stay away.

I wish I could 'say' it's been a pleasure.....things like having to deal with your dubious, disruptive background as a supposed-newbie, sending out standard warnings that are supposed to intimidate, detracts from the pleasure and relaxation that editing of WP should be.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duhhh!! Thanks, GeneralNotability - thought there was a bad smell here....

.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Além do Guarda-Roupa

Listen here, my brother, what is this story that threatened to block my younger sister just because she edited the article about "Além do Guarda-Roupa"? In case you didn't know, I was the one who created that article and I was the one who asked her to edit it, because I'm working right now. Then she called me desperate because of what you told her. I'm going to tell you straight: what you did to her was disrespectful and you better explain why you did it, because I'm one step away from reporting you to the Wikipedia administrators because of this disrespect towards her. What you did to her was wrong, bro... MafiaBoy123 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Timefordindins (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just slow down when reverting edits, alright? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as mentioned above, will try to be more careful! Timefordindins (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 18:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Gregorio Luperon

Hello I saw that you reverted my edits to the Gregorio Luperon page. The source that source is from a well documented book from a actual historian, so I don't understand how its vandalism. 76.98.78.191 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'll take another look. Timefordindins (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 76.98.78.191 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Book is called "Personajes Dominicanos" Tomo OK, or "Dominican Characters" Volume 2 76.98.78.191 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reverts and warnings

here you reverted an ip making a correct edit (sfn citations do not go inside <ref></ref> tags) where the editor left a perfectly clear edit summary. You then warned the editor for making this perfectly correct edit. Please be more careful - this was not vandalism and shouldn't have been reverted. Please be more careful and don't revert blindly.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]