User talk:74.46.16.86

Use Of Talk Page(s)
While the rapid complete removal of a very longstanding topic and restriction of the use of the main talk page here was used as what is a better way to improve the article somehow, again with this example of rapid removal and restriction use against the quandary of last edit into the article made prior to their enactments I think a solid attempt at welcoming discussion is the Wikipedia rule being ignored that these new editors here disregard completely when they've personally chosen to abandon that process and with no recourse yet even perceived by them as possibly needed against their editing ability? For example, no serious discussion by them will be found yet to first support all their perceived broken Wikipedia rules most likely even at this latest attempt here to welcoming it on this IP talk page as the way to rationally engage them in such a well-known strategy for improvement and having better transparency for their process to all observers/participants. 50.107.136.78 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course Wikipedia also admits its tagline encouraging boldness at potential editors as highlighted in some argument of theirs to so that go easy on their efforts if somehow taken up on it, in their rules section that is put together interestingly? A reply to this question in the proposed as welcoming discussion here that makes sense would seem there's comprehension of this stuff too along with the needed ability to actually pull it off?  Something along this kind of reasoning still being attempted for those editors here that however seem not only basically irrational in short but apparently also unable to comprehend it around themselves at times such as what could be their assumed response for some to this quandary of why not just allow that the proposed as laudable as used within the article and as has been set out of "is now a museum piece" during this actually being welcoming attempt to get it into the article using Wikipedia rules to boot that is being addressed against at them now, for at least their final statement of their usual lack of comprehension of what's going on, so I'm right assume - you know nothing of what is going on here with these rules we are following and knock it off as you've become a vandal to Wikipedia of which we are the example of proper use of course when it comes to editing for its improvement, brings it to a close as your victory again as at least something for us all for having tried to be bold in what they do here, maybe from you?  I think none will even give it that much at this point and that will be that for another of my edits into the article and any kind of a discussion like this for a while. 50.32.100.212 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note the quick second of support of the removal of the first and only so far edit using the pending changes technique here and how this support did it with no note of why, in the end of it here also, for what's the first example of quickly successfully rejecting a pending change under the rules these three editors are using as being that of Wikipedia using being banned as a vandal next for its discussion of it by its third latest participant? If you don't follow the reasoning so far presented by that group, that's still it for the discussion part also, I guess, is how it managed to have worked for them? 50.32.100.212 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So to keep my side of what's Wikipedia's rules on an edit war, obviously I just liked that one there. 50.32.100.212 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, their perceived misuse of a talk page can also get you banned by them but like was conditioned into us from this sort of interaction we should get something of that out of them of great disbelief for something actually going on first so this stuff still being here for some reason that they must know of could be explained welcomingly for us all to include in this context of dispute resolution for Wikipedia users, those boldly engaged in attempts as reasoning it out fairly after all for Wikipedia's sake or maybe its rules? It must still be on topic enough for them but still a lost cause if you try to put even as pending "is now a museum piece" into the article, as this assumption I understand of yours is correct and might just get you banned in something new to us all (maybe)? 50.32.134.217 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like an improvement to the article. 50.32.134.217 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)