User talk:174.141.182.82

Welcome to Wikipedia!
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
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * 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 (174.141.182.82) 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Frustrating filter
What is a “Colton Cosmic” and why does that filter keep blocking my edits, like adding unsigned to an editor’s unsigned comment, or suggesting an RFC to discuss policy changes? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask an admin- that filter is private, as far as I know. I've changed the template to adminhelp, in case you don't mind. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 23:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, IP 174+ – this is Colton Cosmic, and here is a discussion about that user. Your IP address has been set to be sensed by a filter that is named for that user.  Hope this helps. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So I’m just in a bad IP range? Gah… would you happen to know what kinds of edits trip that filter? There were a couple of ones that I don’t even have any idea what the issue was. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it is not the kind of edit that trips such a filter. If an IP address is linked to a blocked user, then it appears to be that association that trips the filter. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  03:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weird, the filter usually leaves me alone. It lets me participate in Talk page discussions, but it didn’t let me add unsigned to someone’s post. So… I’m lost here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you deal with unexplained hostility?
An editor has made numerous generalized accusations about my conduct and my intentions, and has been entirely unresponsive when I’ve asked for details and civility. What should I do about this? I feel like “ignore him” is the correct answer, but I don’t want to just assume his accusations are baseless. (I’m not posting details here because I’m not looking for revenge or anything, just answers. Unless I should give up on getting those answers.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignore him. Do not defend yourself.  Read DefendEachOther.  If someone is being repeatedly offensive or unreasonable to you, and you continue to take the high ground, someone else will say something, and someone else saying is so much more powerful.
 * Also, consider registering. An advantage of editing from your own account is that, for better or worse, others will treat you more like you really are a person, and interactions such as you mention are much easier to track.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you should ignore him, because that counts as harassment and a personal attack if it persists. I would highly recommend creating an account, because it gives you more benefits and causes less suspicion about you making bad edits. Feel free to go to my talk page (click "bal") if you need any additional help. If I am not available, then try editor assistance. Good luck! JHU  bal  27  07:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh… all right, then. Thanks! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes"
Please dicuss matters on the article's talk page instead of edit warring and mis-appropriating WP:STATUSQUO. 08:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes to something that has stood for a year, while discussing on the Talk page. Isn’t that what WP:STATUSQUO advises? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Templates for kerning quotation marks
PS: I concur with people above that you'll fare better with a real user account (both in getting editorial respect, and in not being falsely flagged by vandal filters). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No offence taken
No offence taken, I'll try to do better in future. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

About your answering of questions
Hi! 174.141.182.82,

As a extra note, i would also suggest that you create an account before you go around hosting at the Teahouse, it in addition will help people track your editing and gives you access to some extra privileges, along with helping with people like me decide if you're a new editor or not. For all i know you could've been editing at Wikipedia for years! So sorry if i'm incorrect Lor Talk  12:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and I hope I’ve been helpful there! Please let me know if I’ve done the opposite. I never actually intended on “hosting”; I just had a question, saw a different question I could answer, and got stuck. And I have my reasons for continuing to edit anonymously, but I haven’t slept so I forget what they are. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No! It's fine if you want to Answer questions in fact! If anything that's just the old boilerplate template. If it's a good answer, and conforms to the Expectations of the teahouse, i see no reason why you cannot help around there. Quite a busy place after all! Lor Talk 13:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
'''Hello, 174.141.182.82. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. '''

Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by w.carter -Talk  23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

If you still want to know about WP:LQ
If you want to know more about WP:LQ, I could show you some of the relevant parts of previous challenges (the whole debate's huge; a bit much to absorb in one go). If you're still curious about my position, I could fill you in. I could even point you toward some of its less ...some of its more rational supporters if you want the other side of the story. BB's made it clear that the original question was about something else, though. Like I said, I brought it up as an example of a case in which "change MoS so that it matches the sources" was attempted and did not resolve the problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up my typing error at Wikipedia talk:Article titles! —BarrelProof (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote tags RfC
You are NOT entitled to close this RfC, because you are too involved in its discussion. Only uninvolved third parties may close RfCs. You may however request closure at Administrators' noticeboard/Request for closure. If you do re-close, I have no choice but to bring this matter to WP:ANI. 19:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not your determination to make. As I said on your Talk page, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you think the consensus could have been decided differently. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 20:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that, as an indisputably involved editor, you may not close the discussion. Please don't do so again, or you may be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve responded to that discussion. Please also see User talk:Edokter. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, 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. Chillum 15:50, 11 March 2015 (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.
 * Wait, where was this block discussed? I know User:Lugnuts violated WP:3RR at WT:NCF, but I stopped at 3. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You were blocked for edit warring, not for 3RR. If you agree to stop reverting I will gladly remove the block. Chillum 18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will I have a right to revert changes by others to my own comments? And will I have a right to ask how to do things on the appropriate Talk pages when guidance is unclear? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m not asking this as a condition. I’m asking so I know what’s acceptable and what’s not. To my mind, the latter should be an obvious right of every Wikipedia user; not sure about the former in this case. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on edit warring describes the exceptions to our edit warring policy. There are only a few. Thank you for trying to understand Wikipedia's policies, they are a bit complex. Chillum 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, I can agree to that. Thanks for being responsive to my posts here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have unblocked this IP. Good luck. <b style="color:OrangeRed">Chillum</b> 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * DO NOT post on my talkpage ever again. Please take your pathetic trolling elsewhere. Thank you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never trolled on Wikipedia. I suspect you don’t quite know what that word means (suggested reading: What is a troll?), or else you just don’t like to assume good faith. But I’ll respect your wishes and avoid your Talk page as best I can. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Opinion
The third opinion question did appear to be neutrally worded. On an unrelated matter, I will suggest, along with other editors, that you create an account. The benefits of editing under a pseudonym significantly exceed the perceived (mostly mythical) benefits of editing only from an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know there were any benefits to IP editing, mythical or otherwise! I dunno, I just don’t bother. I think partly I’m just trying to keep myself from getting too involved in Wikipedia again. Not that it seems to have helped. Also, if there’s a systemic bias against productive IP editors, that’s bullshit, so I guess this is sort of a quiet protest against that too. But thanks for your answer! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no actual benefits to IP editing. There are mythical benefits to IP editing, which are one reason why some unregistered editors persist in not registering, namely, that they think that IP editing gives them better privacy than registered editing with a pseudonym.  The other reason why some unregistered editors refuse to register is, as you imply, a protest against the bias against IP editors.  That bias is to some extent a stereotype, but it has a basis in fact, which is that, on an average, IP editors are less knowledgeable than registered editors, and that, while most IP editors are not vandals, most vandals are IP editors.  Refusing to register as a response to bias is a self-inflicted protest-injury.  Anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, didn’t realize that was a thing. But I’m stubborn when I’m feeling righteous, so I’m not going to stop editing from an IP address just to make people less judgmental. But thanks anyway. If that bias drives me and new users away from Wikipedia, so be it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
...for your edit to the Spacetime article! Just as a footnote, before I registered back in 2009, I edited sporadically as an IP for several years, mostly reverts of vandal edits and copyedits. I remember one really good IP contributor who asked me to find an appropriate image file for their situation (they, too, were not wild about registering and were tiring of others trying to get them to register). Since the IP seemed to be about to "explode", the image I found was: File:Bomba atomica.gif. Sincerely hope you never get to that point. – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b> 20:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Here's another good one:  File:Nuclear Blast Animation Rising Mushroom Cloud.gif. PS added by – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b> 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PPS. Wait! Now I remember – the IP had asked for a new user box, so I made this one:
 * Haha, thanks! Not sure I deserve the thanks for my edit there (the edit summary link is just all mangled now instead of being absent), and I haven’t gotten anywhere near that frustrated, but the userbox gave me a good laugh, and I’ll make use of it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that was a good edit. Suffering a "mangled" edit summary is a downside to anchoring within a subject header.  But it's a downside worth suffering for two reasons:
 * The benefit of the anchor, to fix links that are broken when a subject header is changed, far outweighs what the anchor does to the edit summary, and
 * When editors need to leave long edit summaries, all they have to do is erase the initial "mangled" part to get more room.
 * You did the right thing, the best thing. – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b> 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: starting an RfC
Hi, I responded. Lapadite (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Responding
First let me say that I respect your calm and considerate manner on my talk page, and I do thank you sincerely for that.

In response to your post there quoting my reference to you as “Someone who has accused other editors of making up a longstanding problem" and your comment, "I’m still pretty sure I’ve never done that," I would say that the boldfaced and italicized demand "Name one [example to show such a problem exists]" at 03:00, 6 May 2015 strongly suggests that you did not believe the editors who were saying such a problem existed. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but the boldfacing and italicizing, which is a form of shouting, suggests that.

In any case, you can see I haven't even been on Wikipedia for two or three days. This RfC has been wearing on me. The idea that a WikiProject Film article should include every single award issued by anybody anywhere seems so clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE that how this is even a discussion is frustrating as can be. However, unless someone addresses me specifically in that RfC, I'm going to try to continue to keep from contributing to it. I can't imagine you're any less worn out from it than I am. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on your Talk. (But you knew that already.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Excellent edits at Grace Gealey. I've added an archive link for the Lumiere cite, and used it to cite other things in the article as well. Thank you for finding it. What are the odds we'd run into each other twice in one day in two unrelated circumstances? : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually got there from your Talk page—noticed the section immediately after mine and figured I’d try and help out. Does that count as talk page stalking? I hope not; that sounds creepy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All good, brother! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now this is true talk-page stalking. I've always thought that the tps template could be taken more than one way, and that it often seemed creepy.  That's why I added the "b" parameter, as in, which I used here.  At least it does not give the impression that one is accusing someone else of being a stalker.  Joys! – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  15:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   12:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I was actually trying to discuss on the article’s Talk page to avoid edit-warring. My last edit to that article was two days ago, and in fact I think it’s been resolved, so I’m frankly not sure what you’re reacting to here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You were discussing whilst reverting. If the matter has been resolved, then there's nothing to discuss here so this exchange is over.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would, please review the recent revision history of both the article and its Talk, and tell me how an EW template was warranted and what I should have done differently. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You really took this problem too far and to be honest, I applaud your obsession: Just because I said it made no sense to redlink an article when it doesn't exist, you you REALLY HAD TO MAKE A HISSYFIT on Ace Combat, AC3's page, and my talkpage for weeks, crying and whining about the supposed validity of your edits. You could have stopped after I said it, but you just had to throw tantrums to show how butthurt you really were. You say you tend to be stubborn when you're being self-righteous and if you think current editing attitudes will keep anon editors like you away from Wikipedia, so be it, that's cool, we don't need [NPA term] like you. Get lost, I have little respect for anon editors anyway. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You frankly seem to have little respect for anyone. But I thank you for deigning to actually communicate with me. It’s entirely possible to disagree with someone without resorting to immature personal attacks, by the way, and there would have been no “hissyfit” if you’d just done that from the start. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pity I didn't see this personal attack earlier as I would have blocked instantly. Please carry on IP, as I'm sure you are, and take no notice of this immature comment. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * to whom are you referring? You might also want to elaborate on how the IP should " carry on"? Breaching WP:3RR is certainly not the way to be carrying on.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing even approaching 3RR, unless you want to back this up with diffs and I'll take a further look. Furthermore the IP was attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page, but no one really replied. I do not honestly see any problem with this editor's actions. For clarity I was referring to Eaglestorm whom I am currently monitoring, but your own comments and tone have not been optimal either. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't start inferring UNCIVIL stuff with me. I was making sure you were aware of the issues which sparked all this off. Also, your last post was ambiguous as I wasn't sure to whom you were inferring.  It's very easy to assume good faith you know.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the editors who have commented on this page would do well to read WP:HUMAN. The behaviour of the sysop below is disgraceful. Alakzi (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please cease
Your comments on my talk page are unwelcome. Please cease.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. I just thought you’d have wanted to know about a discussion directly relevant to your complaints. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)