Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to What Happens in Vegas. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create 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 (174.58.42.212) 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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on this page. Again, welcome!
Minima
c94 (
talk)
04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
What Happens in Vegas. There is a
Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.
BLGM5 (
talk)
16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
What Happens in Vegas, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered
vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
BLGM5 (
talk)
16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to the Bloc Quebecois article, I have reverted the because they are unreferenced opinions. Please take a look at WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Role Models has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaAtx4Jx7Y. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please stop adding minute and inordinate detail to this article. The plot summary is supposed to be just that, a summary, not a blow-by-blow description of the events of the film. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
The Blues Brothers (film). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
That edit summary was entirely inappropriate.
Millahnna (mouse)
talk
06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. —
GorillaWarfare
talk
04:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Re: The Blues Brothers (film)
I know you're impressed with the quality of my writing, and research. My summary was accurate, gave credit where credit was due, and was complete, having no more or no less content than required, in great contrast to the inadequacy that it replaced. You would have me write no more than "this is the film about those two guys in black hats and suits." Go back and compare the quality of my edit to the Plot section to what's there now. I even had other users complimenting the quality of my edit. You're being an officious intermeddler.
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Constructive discourse is not harassment. Surely there is room on Wikipedia for different types of people, with diverse viewpoints. I am a person of good conscience who simply wants to contribute constructively.
Decline reason:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were originally blocked for edit warring. As soon as your block expired, you went right back to the article and picked right back up with the edit war? Wikipedia works by consensus, not by reversion without discussion. I do not see a single edit by this IP to the talk page of the article in question. If you want to edit constructively, discussion is the first step. TN X Man 01:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't even know what "edit warring" is. It sounds like a bad thing. All that I was doing was advancing an ongoing improvement of the article. Intent is essential. This is supposed to be a collaborative and ongoing effort--not the destructive, and ultimately static, one, that your blocking of me has effected. This is because as a result of your action, the plot description remains the same--inadequate--and no positive advancement or improvement has therefore been effected. Is that what you want your function here to be? My intent was to be collaborative with others who have contributed to other segments of the article, and to advance the encyclopedia, by improving the article. I hold a doctoral degree--I know how to write, and I know how to collaborate. We have already agreed that the previous plot description was inadequate. Go back and look at my version--my plot description in the article was a significant improvement in fact, accuracy, and summation, and there was collaborative consensus with User Dlabtot. People of good conscience here edit articles because they care about the particular content. Stopping people from doing that, and justifying it by coming up with officious-sounding, but ultimately illusory, reasons that in truth diverge from those stated--for no other reason than that it has been placed within your power--is counterproductive, and have amounted, in this instance, to nothing more than personal attacks on me, and it should be intuitively apparent that your action has been detrimental to the advancement of the The Free Encyclopedia.
Decline reason:
If you don't know what edit warring is, then you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia, as you are unable to follow links, a basic skill of Internet users. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Okay, you don't get to the talk page until you get to the edit page. Are you telling me that I have to edit the talk page too, with a little missive justifying the edit, kind of like a written defense to a thesis?
Decline reason:
Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that after several hundred edits, you don't know what a talk page is...considering you are posting on one right now. Smashville talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Obviously, I now know what a ‘talk page’ is—it’s sort of a “bulletin board” where one posts messages such as this one. You erroneously think that all this esoteric terminology and its application is always self-evident to everyone. In asking “[w]hat is a talk page?”, the question is not intended to communicate that the issue is whether or not I know what a talk page is. The issue is what is the proper procedure for editing an article, obviously wherein a talk page is supposed to be utilized. Am I supposed to post a proposed edit on the talk page first?
Decline reason:
Your block expired almost 19 hours before you posted this unblock request. I will assume that this is a simple mistake, though your editing history gives the impression that sometimes you may just perhaps pretend not to understand when you do. A word of advice: I suggest trying to be as cooperative as you can, lest you find yourself blocked for a longer period. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You are really not getting it, are you? Assuming good faith goes only so far, and I now believe you are refusing to hear what you have been told again and again. Your vastly-expanded version of the plot violates WP policy. Reproducing it on the talk page and asking for comments, as if a popular vote would go your way, or would make any difference, indicates you are simply refusing to understand the multiple messages left for you above in regards to this matter. Please stop. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Billy Gardell has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billy-Gardell/20228115068.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
On Larry the Cable Guy, you added a citation needed tag to the birth location, which is fine, since it's currently unclear where he was born. However, in the edit summary, you used inappropriate language. While such language is borderline in some contexts, our policy on biographies of living people requires that we do not make negative unsourced statements about living people in any part of the project, including in edit summaries. Your summary was deleted by an administrator; please do not make such statements about living people again on the project. Continuing to do so may result in your editing privileges being blocked. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I undid your edits to this film although I believe they were made in good faith. The plot section is already too long; it needs to be 400-700 words. See WP:FILMPLOT. — Ute in DC ( talk) 09:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did with
this edit to
Sizeism, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Velella
Velella Talk
11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did with
this edit to
Weightism. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Velella
Velella Talk
11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to What Happens in Vegas. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create 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 (174.58.42.212) 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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on this page. Again, welcome!
Minima
c94 (
talk)
04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in
What Happens in Vegas. There is a
Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.
BLGM5 (
talk)
16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
What Happens in Vegas, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered
vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
BLGM5 (
talk)
16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to the Bloc Quebecois article, I have reverted the because they are unreferenced opinions. Please take a look at WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RS to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Role Models has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaAtx4Jx7Y. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Please stop adding minute and inordinate detail to this article. The plot summary is supposed to be just that, a summary, not a blow-by-blow description of the events of the film. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
The Blues Brothers (film). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
That edit summary was entirely inappropriate.
Millahnna (mouse)
talk
06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. —
GorillaWarfare
talk
04:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Re: The Blues Brothers (film)
I know you're impressed with the quality of my writing, and research. My summary was accurate, gave credit where credit was due, and was complete, having no more or no less content than required, in great contrast to the inadequacy that it replaced. You would have me write no more than "this is the film about those two guys in black hats and suits." Go back and compare the quality of my edit to the Plot section to what's there now. I even had other users complimenting the quality of my edit. You're being an officious intermeddler.
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Constructive discourse is not harassment. Surely there is room on Wikipedia for different types of people, with diverse viewpoints. I am a person of good conscience who simply wants to contribute constructively.
Decline reason:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were originally blocked for edit warring. As soon as your block expired, you went right back to the article and picked right back up with the edit war? Wikipedia works by consensus, not by reversion without discussion. I do not see a single edit by this IP to the talk page of the article in question. If you want to edit constructively, discussion is the first step. TN X Man 01:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't even know what "edit warring" is. It sounds like a bad thing. All that I was doing was advancing an ongoing improvement of the article. Intent is essential. This is supposed to be a collaborative and ongoing effort--not the destructive, and ultimately static, one, that your blocking of me has effected. This is because as a result of your action, the plot description remains the same--inadequate--and no positive advancement or improvement has therefore been effected. Is that what you want your function here to be? My intent was to be collaborative with others who have contributed to other segments of the article, and to advance the encyclopedia, by improving the article. I hold a doctoral degree--I know how to write, and I know how to collaborate. We have already agreed that the previous plot description was inadequate. Go back and look at my version--my plot description in the article was a significant improvement in fact, accuracy, and summation, and there was collaborative consensus with User Dlabtot. People of good conscience here edit articles because they care about the particular content. Stopping people from doing that, and justifying it by coming up with officious-sounding, but ultimately illusory, reasons that in truth diverge from those stated--for no other reason than that it has been placed within your power--is counterproductive, and have amounted, in this instance, to nothing more than personal attacks on me, and it should be intuitively apparent that your action has been detrimental to the advancement of the The Free Encyclopedia.
Decline reason:
If you don't know what edit warring is, then you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia, as you are unable to follow links, a basic skill of Internet users. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Okay, you don't get to the talk page until you get to the edit page. Are you telling me that I have to edit the talk page too, with a little missive justifying the edit, kind of like a written defense to a thesis?
Decline reason:
Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that after several hundred edits, you don't know what a talk page is...considering you are posting on one right now. Smashville talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
174.58.42.212 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Obviously, I now know what a ‘talk page’ is—it’s sort of a “bulletin board” where one posts messages such as this one. You erroneously think that all this esoteric terminology and its application is always self-evident to everyone. In asking “[w]hat is a talk page?”, the question is not intended to communicate that the issue is whether or not I know what a talk page is. The issue is what is the proper procedure for editing an article, obviously wherein a talk page is supposed to be utilized. Am I supposed to post a proposed edit on the talk page first?
Decline reason:
Your block expired almost 19 hours before you posted this unblock request. I will assume that this is a simple mistake, though your editing history gives the impression that sometimes you may just perhaps pretend not to understand when you do. A word of advice: I suggest trying to be as cooperative as you can, lest you find yourself blocked for a longer period. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You are really not getting it, are you? Assuming good faith goes only so far, and I now believe you are refusing to hear what you have been told again and again. Your vastly-expanded version of the plot violates WP policy. Reproducing it on the talk page and asking for comments, as if a popular vote would go your way, or would make any difference, indicates you are simply refusing to understand the multiple messages left for you above in regards to this matter. Please stop. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Billy Gardell has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billy-Gardell/20228115068.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared
IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
On Larry the Cable Guy, you added a citation needed tag to the birth location, which is fine, since it's currently unclear where he was born. However, in the edit summary, you used inappropriate language. While such language is borderline in some contexts, our policy on biographies of living people requires that we do not make negative unsourced statements about living people in any part of the project, including in edit summaries. Your summary was deleted by an administrator; please do not make such statements about living people again on the project. Continuing to do so may result in your editing privileges being blocked. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I undid your edits to this film although I believe they were made in good faith. The plot section is already too long; it needs to be 400-700 words. See WP:FILMPLOT. — Ute in DC ( talk) 09:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did with
this edit to
Sizeism, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Velella
Velella Talk
11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did with
this edit to
Weightism. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Velella
Velella Talk
11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |