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.
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]
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]
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:
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.
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 any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
