User talk:92.27.20.76

March 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Andy Scott (guitarist)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2018 (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.

Hi, user:Shellwood.

This was the extent of the personal life section:


 * Scott lives in a converted barn near Devizes, Wiltshire.


 * In September 2009, Scott was diagnosed with prostate cancer; following treatment, he is now in remission.

The first sentence is uncited.

The second is from the Mail which is generally frowned upon in BLPs. There is a Guardian source one could use, but I would argue that getting cancer in old age is a relatively common occurence; it may be worth mentioning, but best incorporated into a career section rather than floating strangely in space. Scott's cancer happened many years after the end of his career, so I would probably leave it out. --Mike 92.27.20.76 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thought this might lure you out from your hole, Mev! I didn't realise they were still going. If you want to put the Maul back in, I'll look the other way -- its a quite incredibly detailed article and almost lovingly depicts the aggressive walnut-sized tumour that had broken through the ­covering of the prostate gland. Plus it has a nice quote you could add... ‘But at least I can still do scissor kicks if the mood takes me.’  --92.27.20.76 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As you know only too well, "so-called Mike", the putrid and repulsive Daily Mail is in fact the work of the devil. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. As fun as this internet stuff is -- maybe time to find myself another, more welcoming, cult. --Mike92.27.20.76 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That vicar looks strangely familiar. But if I were you I'd steer clear of Prince Philip's risky movements. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 (2)
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you recently removed content from Karen McDougal without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Meters (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (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.

Hi user:Meters. The following is overkill, no?:


 * She also professes to be a chocoholic and junk food junkie, despite otherwise seeing herself as a "health nut". In her spare time, she works out 5 days a week to stay in shape. When she was Playmate of the Year of 1998, she had a healthy BMI of 19. She is an animal lover and owned two cats: Brittany and Brandy. McDougal has two tattoos, one is a tattoo of a cat on the second toe of her right foot to honor her cats, the other is that of a cross behind her right ear as a reminder of her spirituality.

And this bit just seems kinda weird:


 * As of 2007, McDougal resides in Los Angeles and Phoenix, Arizona. In March 2008, McDougal appeared in a topless pictorial and interview in Spanish magazine Interviu in which she discussed her relationship with Bruce Willis at the time.

As of 2007? And what did she disclose about her relationship with Bruised Willies in that "topless pictorial"? That is was purely platonic? We don't know. --Mike 92.27.20.76 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You are cutting large chunks of sourced content out of multiple BLPs, often with cryptic comments about insufficient sources. Several of the ones I have looked at seem to be adequately sourced. If you think the content should not be in the articles then justify.your statements that the sources are not adequate. Meters (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely it is on the reverter to justify restoring trivia and the like? See this from Cindy Crawdord:


 * By appearing in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? in 2013, she discovered that her ancestors included English nobility and continental royal families of the Middle Ages and that she was descended from Charlemagne.

Maybe some of these Middle-aged noble ancestors are worth mentioning, but it is pretty well known that virtually everyone of vaguely European extraction is related to Charlemagne! --Mike 92.27.20.76 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, statistically that is supposed to be true. Not many of us go on TV and have it proved though. If you want to remove that sourced content it it's up to you to justify it.
 * And yes, I am aware that The Daily Mail is not a RS, but that's not the only source you seem to object to. If Wikipedia has also decided to exclude those other media sourced please provide a link to the discussion. Meters (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not so much the sourcing (though when it comes to "Good" or "Featured" articles about pretty young actresses or models, the sources are nearly universally primary and sub-standard), it's the utterly tedious trivia and waffling nonsense one has to wade through because, with these sort of articles, especially "keen" editors love to add any old tat they can find via google. --Mike 92.27.20.76 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 (3)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Eric Musselman, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry? There was an explanation given: "irrelevant, too much detail, and who are these 'experts'? kingsfans.com/forums?"


 * According to experts, Musselman, who is 5-foot-7 and weighs 150 pounds, was "one or two drinks over" the legal limit.


 * This deadlink source seems to be from a forum.


 * At the time, Musselman said, "Alcohol has never been a big part of my life. I don't allow it in my house. My sons have never seen me take a sip of anything." According to Ailine Voisin, a sports columnist for The Sacramento Bee, "[Musselman] "


 * "drinks so infrequently, in fact, that he can count the number of beers he consumes per month."


 * What exactly is this supposed to mean? It's nonsense. --92.27.20.76 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies. You are correct; you did provide an explanation and I'm sorry for the removal.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries. :) Shall I re-revert, or is that editwarring? --92.27.20.76 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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 a named 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

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (92.27.20.76) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. 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! ThePortaller (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 (4)
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * I'll recognize this style in the future, Who is the master? Meters (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Neil N  talk to me 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for block evasion. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 19:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.