User talk:RandNetter96

For an archive of past discussions, see here. UTC Time:

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

backdraft edits
last month you reverted my edits to Backdraft (film) about the proposed sequel.. While I did neglect to include a reference, I did manage to find one in a faster amount of time than it would have taken to revert my edits and add a message on my talk page... Google is at your fingertips....  Moreover, a citation needed tag on the actual page would have sufficed. --74.103.142.20 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained/unclear reversions
Can you explain your reasoning for this reversion? Your pro forma edit-summary for this, and several other recent and fast-paced, reverts does not make the intention behind the revert clear. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It had no sources. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources do you think would be needed to support inclusion of this photograph?! Please stop patrolling recent edits, and concentrate on writing or cleaning up a single article of your choice till you are more familiar with wiipedia policies. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I confused it for another revision. Sorry for the mistake. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to explain the reasoning behind this or this revert (both were done with non-informative edit-summaries)? Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the first is mos related, and the second looked strange at first glance. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this edit of yours on WP:BLP grounds . The IP is entirely correct, and the material does not belong in the article unless and until the allegations are proven in court. And I suggest you stop describing legitimate edits as 'vandalism'. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is properly sourced and is relevant. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither explanation make any sense. I noticed that you had previously been advised by User:331dot to "confine your editing to articles and not issue warnings to other editors(or even seek out improper edits)". And a condition of your recent unblock, which you agreed to, was to stay away from math articles that you don't understand. The next time you ignore either that advice or untertaking, you will be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will refrain from editing math articles. As to 331dot, that is advice not an unblock condition. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec)I would add that I don't think you should use any automated tools until you have learned more about editing. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and say that I am learning more, but I will stop editing math articles. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for continued disruptive editing
I have blocked you for continued disruptive editing. You are not listening to what other editors are telling you and your latest edits are definitely disruptive. It is not physically possible for you to have checked all the edits you've just reverted and many of them are incorrect reverts. As a result it's clear you don't want to listen to others and are not actually here to improve the project. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong reason for block, see userpage. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 01:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

ID
Btw I am User:ItsLassieTime an WP:LTA RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 01:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for fast-paced error-prone edits/reverts, refusal to heed advice from multiple experienced editors, and breaking condition of previous unblock. 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:. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Determinacy
Hi Rand. You reverted an edit to axiom of determinacy, here, with the edit summary Reverted 1 edit by 152.208.67.235 identified as test/vandalism using STiki.

I was on the fence about the original edit but I let it stand; I'll probably do the same with your revert. It strikes me as a pretty even call. The edit summary by 152.208.67.235 said that the set of infinite sequences of naturals is not "Baire space" until you specify the topology. That's true. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that it's helpful to point that out at that point in the text.

But I did want to let you know that the edit by 152.208.67.235 was not a "test" or "vandalism". It made a legitimate point. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, this user is now indef blocked and also cannot edit this page. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)