User talk:109.78.206.181 - Revision history

109.76.139.121: sign own post

2022-03-16T01:16:01Z

sign own post

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:16, 16 March 2022
Line 29:		Line 29:
	::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::: Toddst1 should remove this page from his watchlist if he does not want to be be pinged. I'm ready to let this die, but past experiences have shown that I need to put it on record that I object to these kinds of accusations from editors overreacting to a minor difference of opinion. Interpretation of the guidelines simply did not need any accusations of edit warring, especially since a talk page discussion had already been started.		::::: Toddst1 should remove this page from his watchlist if he does not want to be be pinged. I'm ready to let this die, but past experiences have shown that I need to put it on record that I object to these kinds of accusations from editors overreacting to a minor difference of opinion. Interpretation of the guidelines simply did not need any accusations of edit warring, especially since a talk page discussion had already been started.
	::::: Toddst1 should also read the documentation about Sock puppets again. There is a significant difference between a user choosing to edit without an account, as I am allowed to do even if some people don't like it, and someone using a sock puppet to pretend to be someone they are not. Either file a sock puppet complaint with admins or stop making accusations.		::::: Toddst1 should also read the documentation about Sock puppets again. There is a significant difference between a user choosing to edit without an account, as I am allowed to do even if some people don't like it, and someone using a sock puppet to pretend to be someone they are not. Either file a sock puppet complaint with admins or stop making accusations. -- ] (]) 01:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

109.76.139.121: Either file a sock puppet complaint with admins or stop making accusations.

2022-03-16T01:14:39Z

Either file a sock puppet complaint with admins or stop making accusations.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:14, 16 March 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{static\|an identifiable customer of ] in ]}}		{{static\|an identifiable customer of ] in ]}}

	{{ipsock\|109.76.146.58}}
	{{ipsock\|109.76.203.12}}
	== March 2011 ==		== March 2011 ==
	] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].		] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].
Line 29:		Line 28:
	::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::: Toddst1 should remove this page from his watchlist if he does not want to be be pinged. I'm ready to let this die, but past experiences have shown that I need to put it on record that I object to these kinds of accusations from editors overreacting to a minor difference of opinion. Interpretation of the guidelines simply did not need any accusations of edit warring, especially since a talk page discussion had already been started.
			::::: Toddst1 should also read the documentation about Sock puppets again. There is a significant difference between a user choosing to edit without an account, as I am allowed to do even if some people don't like it, and someone using a sock puppet to pretend to be someone they are not. Either file a sock puppet complaint with admins or stop making accusations.

Toddst1: {{ipsock|109.76.203.12}}

2022-03-14T02:06:13Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:06, 14 March 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{static\|an identifiable customer of ] in ]}}		{{static\|an identifiable customer of ] in ]}}
	{{ipsock\|109.76.146.58}}		{{ipsock\|109.76.146.58}}
			{{ipsock\|109.76.203.12}}
	== March 2011 ==		== March 2011 ==
	] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].		] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].

Toddst1: /* January 2022 */ and using a different IP to continue it

2022-03-14T02:04:46Z

January 2022: and using a different IP to continue it

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:04, 14 March 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:
	::: ] still does not seem to understand that he overreacted by accusing me of edit warring, and that he overreacted by deleting a reference to Heavy.com for merely mentioning IMDB, despite , and despite people such as ] explaining it already.		::: ] still does not seem to understand that he overreacted by accusing me of edit warring, and that he overreacted by deleting a reference to Heavy.com for merely mentioning IMDB, despite , and despite people such as ] explaining it already.
	::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: /* January 2022 */ WP:STICK for sure.

2022-03-14T02:03:35Z

January 2022: WP:STICK for sure.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:03, 14 March 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:
	::: ] still does not seem to understand that he overreacted by accusing me of edit warring, and that he overreacted by deleting a reference to Heavy.com for merely mentioning IMDB, despite , and despite people such as ] explaining it already.		::: ] still does not seem to understand that he overreacted by accusing me of edit warring, and that he overreacted by deleting a reference to Heavy.com for merely mentioning IMDB, despite , and despite people such as ] explaining it already.
	::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::] for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this. ] <small>(])</small> 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: multiple IPs, same editor

2022-03-14T01:55:43Z

multiple IPs, same editor

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:55, 14 March 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{static\|an identifiable customer of ] in ]}}
	{[static}}
			{{ipsock\|109.76.146.58}}

	== March 2011 ==		== March 2011 ==
	] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].		] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically ]''' (undone) by ].

109.76.146.58: Heavy.com should be replaced with a better sources ... I hope we can at least agree on that.

2022-03-12T18:17:48Z

Heavy.com should be replaced with a better sources ... I hope we can at least agree on that.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:17, 12 March 2022
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		:On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::. QED ] <small>(])</small> 16:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		::. QED ] <small>(])</small> 16:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			::: ] still does not seem to understand that he overreacted by accusing me of edit warring, and that he overreacted by deleting a reference to Heavy.com for merely mentioning IMDB, despite , and despite people such as ] explaining it already.
			::: While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by ] sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting ] which are specifically not allowed, on top of any ] concerns.) The mere mention of IMDB did not poison the Heavy.com reference entirely. Using unnecessary Latin is not clever either. Heavy.com should not be deleted but be replaced with a {{tl\|better reference}} where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- ] (]) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: /* January 2022 */ missed 2

2022-03-12T16:15:00Z

January 2022: missed 2

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:15, 12 March 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB		:This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB
	:Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.		:Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.
	(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)		:(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)

	:On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		:On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: /* January 2022 */ missed one

2022-03-12T16:14:28Z

January 2022: missed one

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:14, 12 March 2022
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB		:This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB
	Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.		:Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.
	(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)		(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)

Toddst1: /* January 2022 */ WP:POTKETTLE

2022-03-12T16:14:11Z

January 2022: WP:POTKETTLE

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:14, 12 March 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:


	This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB		:This was so silly. For the record ] was totally overreacting to a source merely mentioning IMDB and rejected it as reference entirely as a result of that. There was a long discussion about it on the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB
	Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.		Adding {{tl\|better source needed}} would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to ] content.
	(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)		(Unfortunately the reason I feel it is necessary to come back and fully explain this because previously some editors have tried to excavate long dead and entirely unfounded accusations like these because they don't like having to make reasonable efforts to explain or discuss their deletes either.)

	On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)		:On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. ] -- ] (]) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			::. QED ] <small>(])</small> 16:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)