User talk:17.255.236.41

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (17.255.236.41) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and  [ create an account] . If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Cat in the Hat (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You provided three sources for your claim. None of them say anything remotely close to what you said. '' Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

August 2016
Hello, I'm Île flottante. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Raymond Federman— 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. Thanks. Île flottante (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi,

It appears I mistakenly reverted your well sourced edits. Please accept my apologies! Best regards, --Île flottante (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gil Cohen. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Bentogoa (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Read it. What do you find to be inappropriate about these standard type external links?

Editing at Islam El Shehaby
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Islam El Shehaby, you may be blocked from editing. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That edit consists of additions (and improvements). It does not at all consist of blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia.
 * I agree that your edits are constructive. But please try not to escalate the situation - I hope there is a quite benign explanation. See WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor is using tools. Incorrectly. Conversation with him here and on his talk page (some of which he deleted) have not led to him changing his actions. He made a massive deletion of material I had added. Supported by reliable sources. And then accused me?? of making a deletion? And vandalism? And threatened me with a block? These are all facts - not escalation. No benign explanation was given. Plus, he did it using tools. Do you really want someone to use tools, if they use them in this way? I appreciate your help - especially in watching the article, but also in looking at this editor's use of tools. This is not cricket. 17.255.236.41 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Give it a moment. Communication via exchange of text messages in potentially three different places is not the most efficient way, and is quite prone to misunderstandings. It's very hard to do permanent damage to the Wikipedia database. Nearly all content is conserved forever, and easy to restore. It's much easier to damage the community by escalating conflicts which could be solved with a bit of patience and discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First, its a breaking new moment. 9,000 hits just yesterday. Thousands more today no doubt. Damage is greater under the circumstances. Patience in such situations can be damaging - not all filibusters are innocuous. Thanks for your help - this editor clearly used his tools incorrectly.  And none of the messages, in any of the three places, which were all fact-based and all evident by anyone looking at the situation, affected him. Only your involvement.  You may want to look at his use of the tools.  Especially - any comments that he deleted from his talk page protesting them. As he did with me. This can't be a good way to encourage people to edit wikipedia. 17.255.236.41 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake, the score of his edits were quite high and has prior warnings for unconstrutive editing. I revert up to 15 vandals/day so sometimes I mess up. Like mentioned before always assume good faith per wp:AGF and be CIVIL. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See my above comments to Schulz. Also - if you check back those prior warning you refer to, you will see that almost all of them either self reverted or admitted that they had given the warnings in error. Just like you. But unlike you, once I pointed it out, they looked at their errors. And admitted them. You kept on going. You will drive away editors with this behavior. That is very bad. The fact that you continued this behavior after many messages, clearly pointing out that your initial use of tools was wrong (I added material, didn't delete it - you could see this but still did;t admit your error) is a major problem. Your only response, before the other editor got involved, was to tell me not to post on your page. And to delete my post. That's not good at all. Not for someone using tools.17.255.236.41 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, looking over the "prior warnings", none seem to have stood up after inspection. Only one of the reverted edits has stayed reverted, and even that looks like a fairly benign and good-faith edit to me. Reverting vandalism is certainly valuable, but it should not come at the cost of unnecessary conflict with constructive editors. At least if there is an attempt at communication it is a good time to slow down and do a more careful check, including checking ones own assumptions. 17.255, I suspect some of this is due to you editing under an IP address. This is neither forbidden nor even unwelcome, but since a lot of vandalism is by anonymous editors, IP edits see more scrutiny, and are more often misinterpreted. You might consider creating an account to reduce the number of spurious warnings and reverts. It would also make it easier to address you ;-).  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editors need to be encouraged. Scrutiny is fine. But this behavior against IP editors is the opposite of what we need -- untrue accusations, using tools to call non vandalism the opposite, and then saying "don't post on my page," and not looking at clear explanations as to why use of tools was not proper. All of this is completely wrong. We should not make IP editors suffer this behavior. Saying "if you are white we won't traffic stop you as much" is not the answer. The scrutiny is fine. The improper use of huggle is not. 17.255.236.41 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * user:Pharaoh of the Wizards -- I'm confused. Did you make a mistake? You left me a Level 4 warning here re. Dmitry. Using Huggle. Saying I may be blocked the next time I "vandalize Wikipedia," as you said I did with this edit to Dmitry.  But that was not at all a vandal edit. Why did you call it that? And leave me a level 4 warning for it? And misuse Huggle to do it? I see that you later deleted the warning. But you did not revert your incorrect undo of my edit. For days now. Why not?

You did the same thing here. At Siberia. And also did not fix that.

User:Stephan Schulz -- can I ask you to maybe speak to Pharaoh about this use of Huggle? Thank you.17.255.236.41 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gary Player, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mojoworker (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.