User talk:109.78.206.181

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2 (number), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: 2 (number) was changed by 109.78.206.181 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.935801 on 2011-03-19T20:50:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jennifer Holland, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Admittedly Heavy.com is not an ideal source. A better source would be prefarable but it is not necessary. It is good that Todd actually read the source and noticed that the author used IMDB in part of their research for the article. I encourage Todd to read it again, as it is clear that IMDb was being mentioned only in reference to her filmography, it clearly references other external articles too like Maxim for example. The mention of IMDb does not seem to have anything to do with any statement that might be considered contentious. If there is any fact in the article that Todd believes is actually contentious then that would be worth discussing on the article talk page but there is no need to overreact and reject Heavy.com entirely because they admitted looking at IMDB. -- 109.78.206.181 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jennifer Holland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This was so silly. For the record User: Toddst1 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/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Heavy.com_quoting_IMDB
 * Adding better source needed would have been more constructive than deleting sources and accusing other editors of edit warring for merely trying to WP:PRESERVE 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.)


 * On the upside the Reliable sources noticeboard seems to have gotten an update over it, with better advice for editors in future. WP:RSPS -- 109.76.203.12 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . QED Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Toddst1 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 the previous discussion, and despite people such as User:Aquillion explaining it already.
 * While it is not acceptable to reference IMDB directly if it is mentioned by WP:SECONDARY sources it can sometimes be referenced indirectly. (The IMDB reference I deleted was a link direct to IMDB and was quoting IMDB user voted scores which are specifically not allowed, on top of any WP:RS 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 better reference where possible, I think we can at least agree on that and hopefully move on. -- 109.76.146.58 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK for sure. Not sure why you're still pinging me on this and/or using a different IP to continue it. Toddst1 (talk) 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. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)