User talk:173.77.0.185

March 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Monica Crowley has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Monica Crowley was changed by 173.77.0.185 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.933709 on 2017-03-09T04:11:06+00:00.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Caine Mutiny (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it 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. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 10 March 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.

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Casino Royale (2006 film)— 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.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   03:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)), 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! L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You Again?
Putting that Ivy League education to good use again, I see. Terry Foote (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You kinda remind me of this guy
You kinda remind me of this guy. Just replace "Cornell" with "Columbia" and "A Capella" with "Philoexian" and this is you. Come on, you must know that at some Manhattan cocktail party there's someone who has said "if he talks about Columbia or the Philolexian Society one.....more....time..... You and I both know that you work in the publishing industry! Which is it - a publishing house, the NYT?  Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting your moribund industry or your friends. And I use the word moribund with a great degree of sadness, as I think the changes have been a net loss for the quality of American journalism and publishing. Some of your edits are quite good - you obviously have a gift with the language and wording, which is often need of correcting on Wikipedia.  You're quite welcome to use your gifts in this capacity.  How about this for a deal; if you can convince me how your edits are not Deborah Copaken propaganda, I'll let them stand?  Terry Foote (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sharon Waxman
That was one shocking, utterly lacking in class edit you made, Mr. Philolexian. You do know that by implication in this edit you're defending Weinstein.....and maybe giving away your hand that your employer is the New York Times. It's a very sad state of affairs that someone's $150,000 education in today's dollars at an Ivy League institution is spent making edits of this caliber. Terry Foote (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Was your edit unbiased?
Does a quote from the NYT about the NYT really have any credibility, particularly in light of this? Just because you want to discredit Waxman's claim doesn't give you any justification for putting this on WP. Terry Foote (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverting my comment to you doesn't make it any less true. Furthermore, if you really want to be fair and neutral, you must also add this quote in response to your employer's claims about her: "Mr. Weinstein had his own enablers. He built his empire on a pile of positive press clippings that, before the internet era, could have reached the moon.” [The New York Times was one of those enablers. So pardon me for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times." Your edits have ulterior motives (albeit poorly disguised) and contrary to the interests and purpose of Wikipedia. Terry Foote (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Breitbart....one of the few things you and I have in common is that we probably both find Bretibart abhorrent. I'll give a big however to this - just as Fidel Castro and the Ho Chi Minh had a large following in part due to the vast excesses of Western capitalism, so too does Breitbart have a significant following because of the excesses of the mainstream media, including and especially the New York Times.  My point?  American capitalists and the New York Times have no one but themselves to blame for the existence of their enemies.  However, in humanity's almost infinite capacity for hubris, I doubt the guilty parties take a deep look at themselves.  So, now to my point: what do you think Breitbart would think of the New York Times have someone surreptitiously try to make it look like on the Sharon Waxman article that she didn't have a story about Harvey Weinstein and the New York Times?  That sounds like nice, juicy Breitbart red meat, to me.  Do you understand now just how much worse you're making things for yourself and your benefactor?  Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you suck at the game you're playing - University of Alabama 156, Columbia 0.  If you're going to continue editing, can you please work on making yourself a little less obvious, a bit more subtle - it takes the challenge out keeping the Vandals and Visigoths from sacking Wikipedia.  Take it easy, Terry Foote (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I get it
Let's see, you make a simple, proper, uncontroversial edit every 5 or 6 days in the hope I'll eventually forget. Then, when your benefactor needs some SEO by having a link to their article on Wikipedia, or you need to put your benefactor's slant into an article, you can put one in with impunity. You've stepped up your game a bit, but this ain't gonna happen. Do I have to come right out and tell you how to cover your tracks better? Terry Foote (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Nora Ephron, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Stilton
So, explain. How do you figure that a single passing reference to a person eating a cheese constitutes stilton having a notable influence on that work? The other examples, that you appear to think are equivalent, are a poem written using stilton, its character and its place of origin as major themes; a significant recurring character in a series of books being named for the cheese; a fragrance designed to evoke the specific scent of the cheese; an entire episode of a sitcom on a major national TV network centred around the cheese and its production; and an assessment of the cheese's place in British cuisine made by a major cultural commentator of the 20th century. Got to say, the 007 passing reference does look a lot like trivia. Pyrop e  00:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Now it's Andy Borowitz
So what's with you? Either your employers want a more negative take on Andy Borowitz, or another journalist whose name you like to drop has an article you're trying to give some "Google love" to by linking to it on Wikipedia. Either way, well...........you know what I'm going to say. I have a grudging respect for your persistence, but ultimately you're wasting your time, as usual. Stick to commas and changing passive tense. If your Wikipedia edits are any indication of your overall life, your parents must be despondent about how much of their hard earned money was funneled to Columbia University. Terry Foote (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK then
Please then, will you explain how your edits on the Andy Borowitz article are necessary for a better understanding of Andy Borowitz? Were your Sharon Waxman edits constructive, along with a whole host of others too many to count? And "threatening" tone? Please. Where have I threatened you? I'm not even really going to give you hostile - you're the one who insists on making dodgy edits. Ad hominem - guilty as charged. I simply don't like you. Like I've said, judging by your edits, you're one of those Ivy League attendees who have to remind people every five seconds that they attended an Ivy League institution. Here's my unsolicited, graduate from a state run university advice from a state #1 in obesity, diabetes deaths, incarceration rates, and a whole lot of other things in which you don't want to be #1 - ACT LIKE YOU ATTENDED COLUMBIA! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNTRY'S ELITE, LEADING US. Not making transparently hostile edits about various people on an online encyclopedia noble enough to welcome everyone - and I have plenty of evidence for these claims. Terry Foote (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edits really are very low quality, just one notch above someone writing randomly in an article "Eric is a fag!!!" I've done some researching of Andy Borowitz and most everything about him is positive.  I've long been familiar with his satire column on the New Yorker and found him very clever and witty, and someone too who wouldn't throw around words like "threatening" like a hysterical mother at an Irish wake.  You could learn a thing or too from Andy, good sir/ma'am - you take yourself very seriously.  Stop it.    I'll leave you with a challenge - if you can demonstrate in any way whatsoever how your edits add to the article, I'll let them stand.  Just keep in mind, just because someone wrote a negative article about a famous person and doesn't think a humorist is very funny, that does not mean it warrants even a mention on the article.  Come on Philo.............I'm giving you a chance.  The Philolexian society is a *debate* society after all.  How are your edits at all helpful, rational, with good intentions, towards a public figure?  How is this information helpful to the reader?  Terry Foote (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so by tacit admission, the edits on Andy Borowitz were not only not helpful, not informative to the reader, but they were placed in the article in bad-faith for the purpose of making Andy Borowitz appear less humorous and successful than he is. In other words, a malicious edit. You have a long history of these, despite your attempts to hide your checkered past with edits to commas and passive tense (I suggested this to you.  You're welcome). I've clearly demonstrated about two years ago that you take directions from outside interests - this is absolutely uncontroversial at this point.  Anything you have to say about me, again for the unsolicited advice is grow a pair.  I haven't snitched on you, although I could very easily.  This is between you and me.  Since you're a member of a prestigious debating society, I'm rather disappointed that you will allow such questions of your intentions go completely unchallenged.  I will ask one more time - please tell me how anything you had to offer in the latest edit was at all helpful to the understanding of Andy Borowtiz's career?  Someone wrote a snarky article about him and had a negative opinion - so what?  Terry Foote (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Epilogue
Alright Philo, have it your way - I can't instill in you an appropriate level of empathy and shame. Personally, I would feel very uncomfortable being an intruder in any type of community, whether in the real or digital worlds. I will tell you this - every day that I'm in front of a computer, I am checking every single edit of yours. It took hours of work to undo from your previous IP address your vandalism of various writers and journalists who are on the hit-list of whomever it is you take your instructions. Maybe it comes from you, who knows, who cares. And the days I'm not in front of a computer, I will check those when I'm back. Every useful edit will stand and has stood, so your accusation of maliciousness and ill-will is specious. Got it - every single edit. Every one of them. P.S. I just looked up the cost of tuition at Columbia - $52,478!! Was it that much in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation? I hope to hell not. Terry Foote (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC) (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Pyrop e  21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, including edit-warring on several articles. For the present the block is for just two weeks, despite the fact that your disruptive editing has gone on over a very long period, including in some cases returning to an edit war after several months. That being so, I regard a two week block as a token warning that continuing to edit contrary to Wikipedia policies, and ignoring the concerns expressed by other editors, is not acceptable. I hope that this short block will be enough to prompt you to think carefully about changing your approach, so that it does not become necessary to block you for substantially longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to Columbia University traditions
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Columbia University traditions, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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. Thank you! PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)