The user of this IP address, an anonymous user, left a message for me on my talk page about a content dispute over sourcing on the Prime Directive page. Here is a copy of the text I left in response on my talk page. Recently, the lead section and material under the section "Notable on-screen references" has been blanked by an anonymous user whose edit summaries have requested sourcing the information. I attempted to provide more source material in my edit summaries but perhaps this was not seen. Regardless, ample sourcing exits within the article as it stands to support the information contained within. I am unsure what the anonymous editor's objections to the material is; however, their edit summaries seem to point to that they, themselves, have been unable to remember or find the material within an episode. This is not the article, the source, or editors like myself's problem. If the editor's objection is to a source not provided in the lead, please note that citations are rarely given in the lead, especially when supporting citations are given elsewhere in the article. Please see WP:WHENNOTCITE. To be clear, the episode itself, The Apple is the source material, it is referenced under the section "Notable on-screen references", as well as the quote from one of the characters. The time reference in the episode is approximately 38:30, though this is not given in the reference, I list it here for other editors to easily verify, though it is not common in referencing Star Trek episodes to give a time stamp of where material or quotes come from. I am unsure what effect it will have to post this notice on the anonymous user's talk page, but I will do so. I urge any other editors to weigh in on this subject as I want to make sure the right thing is being done here. StarHOG (Talk) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you recently removed content from North Pole, Alaska without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You might want to actually read the linked articles, check to see if listed people have articles that have not been linked, or do a cursory look for sources before ripping people out of notable resident sections. I undid no less than four of your removals from this article.Meters (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: Please take two seconds to read the edit summaries in my edits to the article and tell me how I didn't "adequately explain why . . . with an accurate edit summary". 75.191.40.148 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's jsut a canned summary. That's why I explained why I left the notice. You simply said they were unsourced, but I managed to restore 4 of the entries. Had you bother to read the articles, look for unlinked articles, or check for references you would not have needed to remove those entries. Two of them were linked to articles that verified the claims. Another had an unlinked article that contained an easily sourced claim. The fourth entry had a claim that was easily verified. Meters (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: "Canned summary" or not, it was inaccurate and thus inappropriate. As for some items having information in the subject's article, simply having information in an article that is unsourced is insufficient. Wikipedia cannot source itself. I'm happy that you found sources, but that does not mean I had any obligation to do so. I removed unsourced content, which is perfectly appropriate. Templating me was inapproriate. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you removed some entries for which there were articles which contained sources that confirmed the connection to the town. Had you looked (or looked more carefully if you missed it) you would have seen that. The template was justified. Now please stop pinging me. If you want to remove the warning then go ahead. If you want to keep removing material that is actually sourced, or can easily be sourced then go ahead, but don't be surprised if someone undoes you and points it out. Meters (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: I'll stop pinging you when you stop putting false information on this talk page. Tell me specifically which items I removed that were sourced in the subject's article before you added a source. And again, templating me was inappropriate. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you really need to look at things. Read the edit summary I left. [1]Therriault's connection is sourced in his article What part of that do you not understand?
@Meters: As I said, I'll stop pinging you when you stop putting false information on this talk page. Exactly where in Therriault's article is the sourced connection to North Pole? Give us a direct quotation from the article. If you can't do that, then it's obvious that you are wrong. It's you who needs to take a minute to read before templating. It's fine if you made a mistake, but stop blaming me for your mistake. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my second edit summay when I copied the link to the article from Therriault's article [2]add ref for last since it's not obvious in his article.
@Meters: I'm sorry if you feel embarrassed, but feel free to ignore the pings. You have failed to even remotely justify the template or your misstatements here. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I'm certain you knew that was an amusing autocorrect typo, and should have read "harassment". You have pinged me three times since I told you to stop. That's three times too many. WP:DROPTHESTICKMeters (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: Since you seem to be having trouble understanding something obvious here, let me try to simplify: If you stop messaging me, I will have no need to ping you with a response. If you continue to message me, especially with inappropriate templates (two so far) and false information as an attempt to bolster an insufficient rationale for those templates, it's likely I will need to respond, which will require a ping. Your attempt to intimidate by linking Wikipedia essays is less than impressive. If you wish to escalate this matter to WP:ANI be my guest. But here's another essay that you might want to consider first: WP:BOOMERANG. Let's pause for a second and review what has happened here. You started this interaction with an inappropriate template. You continued it with your repeated messages to me, telling me not to ping you in the apparent belief that you can message me but I can't message a reply. Now, in case you've forgotten the first sentence in this message I'll repeat it. Don't message me, and I won't ping you. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at North Pole and the "famous people" section is poorly sourced. I was able to find simple things on the NFL player and the musician (re-adding her), and I reviewed the sourcing for some of those politicians. There may be source saying they are from North Pole, and maybe that they were in politics there, but a lot of the other stuff about "being from famous families" owning businesses, etc. is completely unsourced and should be sourced or removed. Remember, other wikipedia articles are not valid sources of citations, you must find 3rd party references to back up these claims. I'm not trying to play sides here, but @Meters:, with your long history of good edits, I am a little surprised by your restoration of statements on North Pole that have no citations to back it up. I hope the two of you can end your content feuding and settle into some good edits for the article. StarHOG (Talk) 01:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, while I agree that unsoured should (usually) be removed, your repeated tagging of Slightsmile isn't helpful and you're probably going to end up getting blocked. Let the discussion at the Noticeboard and Talk pages play out. It might not get fixed right this second, but cooler heads tend to prevail. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says you have to obey a request not to post on a users talk page, there is against harassment. If a user makes disparaging PA's against you you can warn them (just once (per incident), and do not reinsert if they delete it) on their talk page. What you should not do is use an article talk page for that purpose (other then to ask them to stop (as I did).Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Thanks for your message. If Slightsmile acknowledges that the comment in question was directed at me, I will address it on his talk page. If he does not respond at all, I will drop it. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Masumrezarock100. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chelsea Cooley without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎15:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100:Eleven years tagged as unsourced on a BLP article is quite long enough. As a regular editor, I'm sure you're familiar with WP:V, which states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I have no responsibility to add sources. You do, before restoring. Also note that, contrary to your warning, I left an edit summary explaining my edit. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
June 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of common misconceptions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Same warning applies to you if you continue to revert. If you want I can place the warning on your talk page, but then you would accuse me of templating the regulars. Again, get consensus to make changes in the inclusion criteria if you want to restore the items. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, you are the one pushing to make the change. You are the one removing sourced content. So you need to make a case for this first, through the article talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Trouble is, you are the one violating the consensus. The sources do not fulfill criteria 2. Take a few seconds to look at them. You need to make the case for an exception to the inclusion criteria through the article talk. And by the way, each of us has made one revert in case you're counting. Thanks for responding so that I have evidence that you saw the informal warning. Now, unless you have something new to add to this discussion I think it would be best if you move on so both of us can attend to more important matters. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible YouTube violations
Hello 75.191.40.148,
I actually don't know for certain if there are copyright Youtube violations on the Leaving Neverland page. I know the Mark Geragos AP clip certainly is not a violation. However, I suspect the other YouTube clips might be violations. This one and this one. I don't object to the written content on the page, I'm just wondering if there is a way to access these clips without violating copyright. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
June 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to El Cóndor Pasa (song) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
I suggest you carefully read the Wikipedia policyEditing policy. It's a very broad subject that covers what the point of what we're doing is, and it addresses the fact that some in Wikipedia's early years were destroying the encyclopedia via death of a thousand cuts. Mass deletion of content that can be improved results in no content at all. You have to make a minimum effort to find fixable problems and fix them, or give others time to fix them, rather than delete everything that doesn't meet some small guideline or local consensus.
@Dennis Bratland: I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's editing policy, probably better than you are. Believe it or not, some IPs are not ignorant of policy. I have violated no policies. All of my deletions have been from improper sourcing. And NO ONE, including me, is required to provide sources rather than delete unsourced material. Speaking of policies, please review WP:V, especially the part that says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If you don't like the way I am editing, by all means feel free to take it up at WP:ANI. But you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first. The last time I checked, Jimmy Wales had not appointed you wikiczar. So please stop assuming ownership of any article and stop leaving me false warnings. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All you do in Wikipedia, is removal of content. I can see that you've added bytes to only talk pages. Do have any intention of expanding an article? What reasons do you have for reverting this? Just don't remove unsourced content without consensus. That's why we have this {{refimprove}} and other maintenance tags. Also you don't need to cite everything. Masum Reza📞04:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: Please give us a link to a policy (not your opinion or an essay) that contradictsWP:V. Give us a link to the policy that requires a consensus to remove unsourced content. If you can't do that then stop wasting my time and stay the fuck off this talk page. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still didn't get my answer. What reasons you have for reverting the above diff I posted. Please don't comment with such words. You should not ask someone to stay away from a talk page just because you don't like them. You don't even know the basics of civility. Let me ask you this. Do you check all sources in a article before removing unsourced content? It could be that the an inexperienced editor who added the information forgot to include a inline citation or simply forgot to do it. Have ever tried conversing with them? Have you ever tried to find sources for article? We are here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not shorten it. Masum Reza📞19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to John Porter East, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Giooo95 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giooo95: Take a look at my edit summary. The removal was not "unexplained". Please don't leave false warnings. Just because I'm an IP doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wyatt2049: There is a global unsourced tag that has been up for eleven years. It says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." That is plenty of time to add sources. Do you suggest waiting another eleven years? Read WP:V. Feel free to restore with reliable sources. If you disagree with the policy, take it up at WT:V. And stop leaving false warnings, especially Level 3 warnings. That is a policy violation. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 75.191.40.148. You might be a bit confused if you do not view my reply to yourself on my talk page, but to be quick I just wanted to point out something regarding an edit as per my reply on my talk page. Your edit here removed an external link due to no longer existing. I did some checking and I did find that it was saved to the Wayback Machine in the past. I am not sure if that is the best date possible as I just checked at random until I found one with what looks to be the proper content. If you wish to, feel free to use this citation instead as a replacement and feel free to delete this message after reading. Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk)
@Kudpung: There are major sections that are unsourced, notably most of "Around the world" and "flatulence". Leave me a false warning again, especially level 4, and we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. I'm reverting your removal of the template. Remove a legitimate template again and we'll also be discussing it at WP:ANI. Let me clue you in to something: every IP is not an idiot. I have edited as long as you have. And the fact that you are an admin does not excuse this behavior. In fact, it makes it worse. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am only interested in your short history as an IP here and the numerous contentious issues surrounding your editing. If you cannot feel disposed to discussing this issue in a civil manner without of edit waring, making threats and personal attacks, I will not feel disposed to reviewing the block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Since when is adding a refimprove template to an article that is not fully sourced "vandalism", and level 4 at that, with a block issued within two minutes of the false warning? I'm not asking you to lift the block. If I want the block lifted I'll have it reviewed by a reasonable admin. My biggest concern is that you have abused your admin tools, and I intend to hold you accountable because such abuse discourages new or IP editors from editing. And if telling you such things is a "personal attack" or a "threat", then we'll add that to the list of things about Wikipedia that you, an admin, don't seem to understand when we go to ANI. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to avail of the process for unblocking so that the issue can be de-escalated if necessary, then you must continue with your incivility and carry out your threats. If you continue your personal attacks however, access to your talk page may be limited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: I'm sure I could say that the sky is blue and you would construe it as a personal attack and vandalism. Unless I am able to communicate with a reasonable admin, my block will continue until it expires. Then I'm going to ANI and, if necessary, beyond ANI, including Jimbo. If you limit access to my talk page, that will be noted among the other issues. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you could infer the sky is blue and make it sound like the rest of your abrasive communications with other editors. You appear to assume that contributing to this encyclopedia as an IP exempts you from civility and engaging in reasonable dialog destined to diffuse situations. Let me clue you into something: You have not been editing as long as I have; If you maintain this claim which you have made to other users, you will need to prove it just as you heavily insist on sources in articles. I may or may not raise an issue over your removals of content - If I consider it worth my while, because I am mainly concerned with improving articles by adding text and/or references rather than wholesale removal of unsourced content. However, any ex post facto attempts by you to take a walk to ANI may open a can of beans worms. The IP address you currently use has been unblocked - without having been subject to any threats or bullying by an anonymous user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡ ✡
maybe the jewish mezuza is a symbol of debt or somthing... ; * "muzzaz-bābi"/"munzizu-bābi = מילון-אשורי-בבלי "assyrian dictionary - Oriental Institute - University of Chicago"
I'm not vandalizing 'Would You Rather (film). The wording made before you edited was correct - I trimmed it - the trimmed version had less words than your edit. I have noticed that other editors have had issues with you. Consider your behavior and what I said - if you did other editors wouldn't have conflict with you either. TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBlackKitty: Look at the article's edit history. You'll see +359 in green by your last edit. That means the edit ADDED 359 characters to the article's length. I'm not arguing about this. You've been more than sufficiently warned. If you add to the article's plot again, you'll be discussing this at WP:ANI. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My report wasn't false. It can be reported if there is a conflict and rudeness. I reported you because other editors have had similar issues with you. Someone needs to do something - the common denominator in all of this, with the same issue, is you. TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBlackKitty: What other editors think about other situations is irrelevant to the current problem, which is that you have repeatedly increased the length of the plot summary despite being told that it should not exceed 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT. As I said, I'm not arguing about this and you have been warned. If you have nothing new to say, stay off of this talk page. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vandalize. Also, IP Editors don't have access to Twinkle for warnings. I'm just curious how do you send warnings as an IP Editor? Do you copy and paste them? I can't do that as an IP Editor unless I copy and paste something that's pre-existing. TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 75.191.40.148. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Message added 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've fixed the section header. Originally, the section header stated the message was from me. It's not; it was from Berean Hunter, who probably isn't aware that IP editors can't be notified through linking to userspace.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
