User talk:50.128.184.140 - Wikipedia

  Hi. Please do not add unsourced personal observations or speculation on pop cultural references to articles, as you did with this edit to Leela (Futurama), as this violates Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. With regard to material about the content of fiction that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is original research, and using sources to form original conclusions not explicitly in those sources is synthesis, which is a form of original research. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Cloud computing, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipelli ^Talk 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Wikipelli with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at XTS-400, you may be blocked from editing. andy (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you really care what I said in my post on the administrators' noticeboard, feel free to satisfy your curiosity by reading the post. If, as I suspect, you instead just want to know why many editors keep reverting your edits, the answer is pretty simple. This website is a collaborative project, whose goal is the compilation of knowledge. It works best when editors communicate with each other in a civilized, good-faith manner, and resolve differences of opinion through reasoned debate before committing to publish content.

So far, you haven't done any of that. Instead, you've been applying the bull-in-a-china-shop philosophy of editing, i.e. "This is what the article is going to say and that's final, because I'm right and you're all incompetent corporate lackeys. Shut up, I know what I'm talking about and my content is right because I said so." Nobody benefits or gains any knowledge when you do that. If you talked to other editors and explained your ideas about various articles' deficiencies, and had a meaningful dialogue with them, it would be a win-win situation. You would have corrected other people's misperceptions, and they would have learned something. For whatever reason, you have chosen not to do this. You have chosen instead to trample on the contributions of others and throw the entire process into disarray, all while acting as if you are the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge. As long as you keep up that attitude, no one will listen to you, because you are not doing your duties as a member of this community—regardless of the quality or truth of your contributions. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Babur may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''m'' and ''r''. The choice of vowel would nominally be restricted to one of the four front vowels (''e'', ''i'', ''ö'', ''ü'' per the Ottoman vowel harmony rule (hence ''babr'' → ''babür'')

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating 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 (50.128.184.140) 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. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Torture, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Changeling. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I reverted the series of edits you made to Joe Nickell today. It seemed to express only your opinion, without any sources, in non-encyclopedic language. That kind of behavior can easily get you blocked. -- UKoch (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The same goes for Benjamin Radford, where another editor reverted your edits. -- UKoch (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your message on my talk page, I reiterate: Neither these edits nor those seemed helpful, or appropriate for an encyclopedia:

• They were not properly sourced. No, "personal conversations" are not good enough. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says what kind of sources is needed.
• The language you used is far from suitable for an encyclopedia. Name-calling won't get you anywhere, neither in an article nor on a talk page. And yes, if you continue that kind of behavior, I will ask for a block.

-- UKoch (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your latest message on my talk page, two more things:

• Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? Further discussion about the issue won't make any sense until you have.
• One more instance of name-calling on your part and I'll ask for a block.

-- UKoch (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Gmail are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Boot (torture), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Quenhitran. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wander Over Yonder because it did not appear constructive. 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. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stuyvesant High School with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Mattie^TK 17:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi: I have rewritten your additions at Shroud because we do not address readers, telling them to note this or that, for instance, and because by using "one or more" you contradicted yourself over mixed fabrics. The additions look useful, but they do require some sort of reference. Wikipedia has come to require references a lot more than it did at the outset, and the use of "shroud" for an outfit including a tunic and booties is less than obvious. So could you please go back and add a reference? Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Shroud, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis or interpretation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shroud. Amortias (T)(C) 22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Deuteronomy is uncited?" No, the material you added was uncited. The Bible is a primary source, not a secondary source, as required by WP:PSTS, and it makes no mention of "Jewish law". Rather, Jewish law, as well as Christian law, Muslim law, etc., is based on the Bible, so mention of this in Wikipedia requires a secondary source.

I don't know which "folks" you're referring to, but no one would make such a ridiculous comment about me if they actually looked at my editing history, which consists largely of fact-tagging or removing material that is not accompanied by inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, or which constitutes original research, the opinion of the editor, informal, promotional wording, etc., such as this material I just removed hours ago. If you observe other editors doing the opposite, then you should take that matter up with them, or report them to others, instead of ignorantly assuming things about me that you don't know, much less vandalizing Wikipedia, as you did with this rant about Wikipedia that you added to the Shroud article. Anyone who adds a rant about their personal perceptions of Wikipedia to the text of an article clearly holds no respect for the rules of the websites he/she visits, much less the ability to participate in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and therefore, shouldn't be bitching and moaning about the competence of others. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

None of what you say has anything to do with me, nor with your edits to the Shroud article, which were inappropriate for the reason I explained above (which I notice you did not falsify).

Yeah, Wikipedia does treat its contributors in an idiotic manner (just check out the quotes at the top of my user page), it does encourage illiterates to edit (again, check out this message I left on an IP editor's page yesterday--I have to do this every damn day), and its administrative body largely is a joke. But that has nothing to do with me, so I don't know why you keep using the pronoun "you" to refer to Wikipedia when you're speaking with me, since I don't ask people to contribute; I think many of these illiterates shouldn't go within a thousand light years of of the edit button. Nor does it have any bearing on my rationale for removing your edit, which is entirely valid. If it weren't, you could've explained why it wasn't. Instead, you added a personal rant to a Wikipedia article, which comes across as mere vandalism, and doesn't do wonders for your credibility.

Also, you don't need to create a new heading for each talk page message. One conversation can go under one heading. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Imagine the righteous anger that people feel, particularly when things that they worked LONG AND HARD on are summarily undone by some joker.

Preach on, brother 50.128.184.14. I don't have to imagine it. I've lived it for the past nine+ years.

In particular, as a widely published authority on computer security (from days LONG past, not some Johnny-come-lately who took a "degree" at JohnQPublicsUniversity.edu), I find it unconscionable when, for example, I go to great lengths to edit a "Windows security" article—or some such—to dispel adspeak and nonsense and call a spade a spade, and some teenage yahoo deletes my posting because he's been brainwashed into thinking that the likes of Microsoft and Google actually care a whit about security.

Was your addition accompanied by an inline citation of a reliable, secondary source? If so, then you could alert an administrator, request Third Opinion, start a discussion on the article's talk page, or even alert other editors to ask their advice. And if your additions were not accompanied by citations, then they were right to be removed. However, you did not mention what rationale the other "yahoo" gave in their edit summary for their removal. Did they cite the policies I just mentioned? Did they provide a personal opinion of Microsoft and Google as their rationale, or is that just your characterization? Can you provide the diff? Let me know if you want me to look into it.

Couldn't something be done to differentiate people who know what they're talking about from those who don't?

People can certainly state their credentials on their user pages or in discussion, but there's no way to verify this, and in any event, it's irrelevant, since the inclusion of material on Wikipedia isn't predicated on authority, it's predicated on citations of reliable sources that accompany the material. Shifting the criterion for inclusion from writer authority (as on say, Britannica) to citations, is what allows everyone to edit (even if not everyone adheres to this policy, alas). I mean, what do you think of the Union City High School, Saga (comic book) and Spider-Man (Miles Morales) articles? All three of them were single-handedly written by me, and all three achieved Good Article status, which is the second-highest quality rating that an article can achieve (below Featured article, but if we only allowed experts, I never would've been able to write them. Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to İmam bayıldı may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2008-04-16|author=Jennifer Speake, Mark LaFlaur|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> ( {{lang-tr|İmambayıldı}},<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.seslisozluk.com/search/imambay%C4%B1ld%C4%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Gyro (food), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Takeaway (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, I hope you left the bulk of the edit, which was useful. It pays to read before deleting. I thought the joke about Shermer (perhaps you failed to understand the phonetic similarity to shwarma, thus my concrete annotation thereof) was REFRESHING. It's acceptable occasionally to inject humor into so dreadfully boring a text, IMHO.

I just noticed that you DID NOT leave the useful material&#151;unless you feel that adding the fact (admittedly, unsourced and unbibbled, 'cept for the fact that I've BEEN there and EATEN that) constitutes "vandalism"&#151;so I shall put it back m'se'f. 50.128.184.140 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have just reported your behavior. -- UKoch (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you wish to appeal the block, Bruce, you're welcome to do it either here or at your user talk page. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You folks really need to examine your own selves. I would call YOU the trolls, since you take it upon yourselves, acting (in your would-be omniscience) from a position of ignorance, to determine what is fraudulent. Oh, yes, and, disapproving of a portion of an edit that is arguably humorous (even if, technically, vandalism), you throw out the baby with the bathwater, possessing, as you do, critically minimal research and editorial skills.

I'm sorry you couldn't find other references to "gatch gereftani." I HAPPEN TO OWN THE BOOK. Would you like me to scan in the relevant pages? I will gladly do so if you will publicly admit your petulance and ignorance.

(It's amusing that you "can't verify the source" because "Google Books doesn't have [Hirsch]." Holy cow! A chink in Google's monopolist armor??)

OIC: the "what you did" to which some editor referred was my having logged in as BruceDavidWilner rather than as such-and-such IP address. One scarcely notices the difference. Congratulations on you "security hounds" (who don't even know enough to provide a LOGOUT button) for your astonishing detective work!

50.128.184.140 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough we cover this subject in much more detail and better sources at Immurement#Immurement in Persia. It wasn't hard to discover this or even to find the sources it uses without looking at the article. I've even found another source not used in our article. Talk about minimal research skills. And the existence of your book doesn't mean it can be used. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OW!! How clever. I LOOKED AT IMMUREMENT, which, you should know, means "placing in (also, by extension, behind) a wall," and decided that that wasn't the appropriate place for it. Also, the old "The Black Cat"-type plot line doesn't seem quite as torturous as gatch gereftani. Plus, you found gatch gereftani in yet another source, you say? My, my, how competent your various editors are, loftily debating with one another about whether such "obviously fake" material should be deleted. Talk about minimal research skills, even when said skills apply, not to an individual, but to a cooperating group of individuals!!

Re "doesn't mean it can be used": it's remarkable what you accept and what you don't. There wasn't even the FIRST mention of tablillas anywhere on the Web until I put it there in 1995 or so, on the very first "Atrocities of the Christian Church" page, which has been endlessly stolen, hacked, and destroyed over the last nineteen years (hunt for it via the Wayback Machine). (You can't beat the best!) The only existing reference to that of any consequence appears in a 1930s-era encyclopedia hailing from Spain: even an older Britannica referred to the torture as "boot and thumbscrew combined," which the uninitiated would interpret as "the union of the two" when, in fact, "the conceptual intersection of the two" were more appropriate. You certainly haven't minded enshrining that in lights in Wikipedia even though there's only one correct reference. (Come to think of it, "El Arte de Matar" by I-don't-recall-whom [I'm too lazy to employ my minimal research skills just now] also mentions it, sciz., lifts the description bodily from Enciclopedia Larousse Gran Universal Ilustrada.)

Oh, also, if you cover gatch gereftani in more detail and from "better" sources (quite subjective: talk about minimal research skills!) elsewhere, why would a goodly-sized coterie of Wikipedia editors and muckety-mucks and sachems fail to notice this while joyously bashing gatch gereftani? Talk about minimal research skills (that's twice, now, in one paragraph!).

(Gosh, isn't it fun to block people and destroy things and employ your quaint capabilities at restricting access? I outgrew such nonsense when I was a sixteen-year-old college junior. Admittedly, I was responsible for some gaffes, e.g., oopsidentally deleting three hundred user accounts. Beer and superuser don't mix!)

Incidentally, it's quite clumsy having to remember mechanically to type however many colons before EACH paragraph, rather than being provided with a mechanism that distinguishes a "temporary (viz., the next paragraph) indent" from an "indent so until overriden." Text formatters of the roff family provided this in UNIX and MERT as early as the early 1970s. The historical knowledge and, particularly, the depth and sophistication thereof, of your developers would appear to be as unremarkable as the research and bibliographic skills of your editors . . . I won't go bashing the young, but I see this sort of thing every day, when I turn on, say, CNN or Fox News and hear the testimony of the latest "computer/network security expert," whose expertise fits only within the constraints of Microsoft as the only operating system and encryption as the only mechanism. LOL!!!! Is that why ever larger corporations are hacked weekly to the tune of millions and billions of dollars in eventual fallout? One wonders whether the average age of your editors&#151;AND DEVELOPERS&#151;is 22. (I apologize for the perceptibly rambling nature of this paragraph.)

50.128.184.140 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Our developers actually agree with you about using colons to indent and are developing a new system for talk pages. I don't know why you think your article is describing something clearly different that what is already described in Immurement. Not interested in the rest of your bragging.

"Bragging," when you went off the deep end mocking my "research skills," eh? I see: a person is just supposed gleefully to accept your half-witted crap; if he successfully hammers you back into your ditch six or seven times, then he's "bragging." I have gone over my musing twice and have yet to detect any "bragging"&#151;unless demonstration of crystal-clear, brutally obvious semantic and pragmatic superiority to you and your ilk constitutes "bragging." That's right, antagonize someone with baseless crap and then, when he buries you beneath your own foolishness, tell him that he's bragging. How picayune can you be?

(This is quite a mystery! Perhaps you feel I'm "bragging" because I indicated that I was the first to contribute such-and-such content to the Web. It seems to me that many millions of people can make such a claim, provided it's posited within an idoneous context. Is someone who beats you fair and square in a game of skill also bragging? That's right: lose a war that YOU started, then call the other party a BULLY.)

Why don't your developers who "agree with [me]" take a few minutes and code up the missing feature? Do they have any capabilities other than staunch agreement? What's the problem: are they Microsoft-style or Linux-style engineers, continually mistaking elaboration of mechanism for refinement of policy, leading to inability to effectuate the conceptually slightest change without monumental effort? Or are they more like those standard "network engineers" who stand around looking concerned and muttering various acronyms to demonstrate their "seniority" while the Asian kid with the Coke-bottle glasses does the actual work?

50.128.184.140 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Cyrillic script, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cyrillic script. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cyrillic script. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Category talk:Antisemitism. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply