User talk:70.79.75.159

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


November 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patty Hearst. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your addition has been reverted by two editors because it is original research, opinion, and the amount of material added is out of proportion to its significance to the subject of the article. Please do not add it again without discussion and reaching consensus on the article's Talk page. Tvoz/talk 03:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


These edits that you made today seem reasonable to me. Thanks for listening to the objections. Tvoz/talk 19:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use an edit summary, and also preview button[edit]

Please read the messages below. It would be much appreciated by other editors.

January 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Plot synopsis[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to A Fish Called Wanda, the plot synopsis is not meant to be a blow-by-blow retelling of every detail of a film, only a brief synopsis of the most important information. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to A Fish Called Wanda, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Logan Talk Contributions 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at A Fish Called Wanda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A Fish Called Wanda[edit]

You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. Please stop editing and discuss your changes on the talk page. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at A Fish Called Wanda. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

24.64.234.17[edit]

Same articles edited (ex. Anarchy in the UK, Creepshow), same style with total disregard for any policies, etiquette, sourcing, etc. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at A Fish Called Wanda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned multiple times, and blocked already, so do not start this again. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
I have never vandalized anything on this site - that is total bullshit. All of my edits have been constructive and justified, and you know it. If you don't like people making constructive edits to Wikipedia articles, maybe you should petition Jimmy Wales and tell him that the site shouldn't allow anyone to edit!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.75.159 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 January 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2011[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Steven Spielberg. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Steven Spielberg. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of my sources are reliable and are taken from print interviews that have been republished online. There is no original research whatsoever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.75.159 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 March 2011
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Steven Spielberg. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


Dear 70.79.75.159 (talk • contribs), You seem to possibly have a misunderstanding of the purpose of edit summaries. There are a couple of issues with your use of them. I've noticed that your edits (at least the edits coming from this IP address and that also appear to be from the same editor) are not using very many summaries (only 6 in the last 350 edits). Valid and respectful edit summaries are considered a courtesy to your fellow editors. They help everyone understand why edits are performed and keep other editors from considering legitimate edits to be vandalism. It has been requested before by numerous editors that you use them, please consider taking their advice.
Also, Wikipedia policy regarding the use of edit summaries in disputes states that:

"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."

Other editors have requested that you take content disputes to the various article's talk pages. Please consider doing that as well. -- Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the various problematic edits under consideration on this talk page, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Spielberg. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit warring at Steven Spielberg[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:70.79.75.159 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 2 weeks). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another vandalism warning—I feel a user block coming on[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pulp Fiction, you may be blocked from editing. —DCGeist (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what are you talking about? Siskel definitely used the word "brittle", not "brutal". If you doubt me, watch the show yourself before you make ignorant and insulting accusations on my talk page.70.79.75.159 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your Spielberg edits...[edit]

You said:

Who has been "vandalizing" this article? How and why has this been happening? I've noticed that some so-called administrators on this site have a very loose definition of what constitutes "vandalism". In my experience, "vandalism" on Wikipedia usually just means when someone contributes something to an article that, for whatever arbitrary and capricious personal reason, the admin just doesn't like or doesn't agree with. And so, the said admin feels an overwhelming urge to revert the contribution wholesale and then try to stamp the contributor out of existence at all costs. This petulant and annoying knee-jerk reaction on the part of the admin is typically attended by a phony, ostentatious, grandstanding display of self-important, self-righteous arrogance (i.e., all that puffery about protecting the precious site against all those hordes of nasty vandals just waiting to pounce and rip articles apart like a pack of ravenous hyenas), as well as some hysterical and scurrilous statement disparaging the moral character and intelligence of the contributor. If you asked me, it is precisely these sorts of small-minded, sanctimonious, power-tripping admins who are the real vandals here.70.79.75.159 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My reply:

Pretty much. Seems like you have a pretty solid grasp of how Wikipedia works and why it's generally not accepted as a source by most college professors. In Wikiworld, words like "verifiability", "factual", "reliable" and others don't mean what they mean anywhere else. You can see something that you know is wrong on the level of 2 + 2 = 3 but if it's in an article written by some screw-up hack that happened to end up in a "reliable" source it's treated as the sacred gospel. I know someone who was responsible for managing the showbiz career of their now famous family member who I guarantee you've heard of and they couldn't believe how inaccurate the article about them was. Not gossip stuff but dates, times, titles etc. - just basic, mundane facts that were simply wrong....but came from "reliable" sources.
How much validity an article contains is largely a crap-shoot - depends on the agenda of whatever cabal has exerted their influence on an article. It can actually be entertaining to see some of this unfold, when an "uninvolved admin" is called upon to review something and they can't string together three correctly spelled words and exhibit no understanding whatsoever of the subject matter. One wonders which Domino's franchise they deliver for. You never know who it is that you're dealing with. An admin whose real life ID I became aware of is currently serving time for child molestation. This guy was the stereotypical admin who had a long history of pissing people off on here with his capriciousness and puffery. He sounded exactly like any number of admins on here.
It's not about truth or accuracy, it's about consensus by whatever faction whose members' primary qualification is they're willing to devote large chunks of their lives to Wikipedia so they can drape themselves with pretentious Wikititles, be given Wikiawards, be on Wikicommittees, and generally (and ironically) gain "identity" by being part of the Wikiborg. Welcome to Wikipedia!TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Felecia with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Janine Lindemulder. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Felecia. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

11:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Wayne and Shuster has been reverted.
Your edit here to Wayne and Shuster was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OwUW5_7N94&feature=player_embedded) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ray Davies has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edits to Chinatown (1974 film)[edit]

Before making any more such changes to film articles, please read WP:FILMPLOT. Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the plot is complicated is irrelevant, there are rules for plot length, as laid out in the link above. Read it and abide by it or get lost. It really is that simple. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I did read it. And it says that if a plot is excessively complicated, more length may be allowed to describe it. The earlier synopsis of the film leaves large gaping holes in the plot that make no logical sense. Why don't you go interfere with someone else's edits and stop harassing me on my page. 70.79.75.159 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive, and if you continue I will take the matter to an admin. Your version of the plot was entirely too long and heavily detailed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator's review: This is not disruptive editing. This is an editorial dispute. Please use our dispute resolution mechanisms. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link for dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chinatown (1974 film), you may be blocked from editing. The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chinatown (1974 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Administrator's review: These two warnings are totally inappropriate and border on harassment. I am admonishing The Old Jacobite to cease this approach to resolving editorial disputes.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Malik Shabazz. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Lou Reed, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.79.75.159&oldid=1136402586"