User talk:24.28.72.167

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! —Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Ghost Ship (2002 film) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been contributing to Wiki for years w/o the need for a username. A simple one variable change should have been pretty obvious for this edit. Since it wasn't, I went back, fixed it again, and specifically spelled it out. You're welcome. 24.28.72.167 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit was subsequently reverted by another editor, so clearly I'm not the only one with concerns regarding what your goal is/was. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * is it really that hard to follow the chain of changes?
 * 1) changed to LBS, using built-in code, no reason given but then changed back by you since you couldn't understand just by looking the change from TONNES to POUNDS. (really? do you measure everything you weigh by hundredths of a ton?)
 * 2) so I fixed it and gave a concise reason why with an example as to why
 * 3) unbelievably, another editor reverted that change and then proceeded to pedantically point out "overdetail, and it was wrong anyway".
 * 4) I reverted THAT change and pointed out that the overdetail was there in the first place before I ever edited to begin with, AND that it was wrong but that was because of the code on the WIKIPEDIA end, not my end! yeah, the conversion code of ounces to pounds on wiki's end is wrong. and that idiot of an editor didn't even recognize or acknowledge that fact. which tells me that if they can't even pick up on the hint after being told of the reason in the previous edit and looking right at the code, they're not qualified to be an editor at wikipedia. they're a complete embarrassment.
 * 5) and here it is being questioned again with "I still don't get it" with the justification of the other unqualified editor not getting it either 24.28.72.167 (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * btw, DonIago, nothing against you, but the other editor's actions are exactly the kind of garbage that annoys those of us who do contribute to Wikipedia.
 * I'm done here. 24.28.72.167 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you care, and it's fine if you don't, I've started a conversation at the article's Talk page regarding the situation in hopes of getting a broader consensus as to whether the Plot section should be discussing the weight of the gold, and if so, what the best option is, if any, for including a conversion. You're welcome to participate, or not. I somewhat agree with the other editor's feeling that ultimately the weight of the gold isn't particularly relevant to the plot, but it's not ultimately my decision either.
 * For the record, no, I didn't understand why you made your initial change from tonnes to pounds. If you'd expressed your rationale at the time via an edit summary as you did here (though perhaps less snippishly), I probably wouldn't have said anything at all. Editors are well within their rights to seek clarification as to why you're making an edit when you've provided no explanation for it, even if the edit was something as basic as reverting vandalism. It's (hopefully) always obvious to an editor why they're making a change they're making, but one should assume good faith of those who simply say, "Hey, I didn't really understand why you made your edit, and I'm not saying it was wrong, but I do think it needs an explanation, so I've reverted it for the time-being." Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * YOU may have had that right but then after giving a detailed explanation the other editor jumped in and to avoid dealing with it at all, he just deleted it instead of reviewing the immediate past history. THAT editor is still an embarrassment to wikipedia. And while I may be 'snippish' as you put it, how do you expect one to feel when someone randomly reverts because in THEIR OPINION it was irrelevant? Especially after I pointed out the broken formula conversion code? If that other editor can't even stop to think "I wonder why they are doing this?" then they're not qualified to be an editor. You at least did that, they did not. And furthermore, wikipedia exists to supply information. Who the hell is this other editor to decide what information is relevant and what is not? Obviously overstepping the boundaries. And please, don't even start about how being an editor is a thankless unpaid job. Don't like it, then move on to other things, but don't whine about it. The worlds not going to end because some unqualified editor did in-appropriate editing on a wikipedia page gives the plot of a movie. geezus. 24.28.72.167 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Without hearing from the other editor, I don't think there's much I can say here. Given your evident frustration, you might try reaching out to them if you haven't already, but I also understand if you'd rather just move past this. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, General Motors LS-based small-block engine, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)