User talk:86.151.246.175

Talkback

Hello, 86.151.246.175. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nczempin (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 86.151.246.175. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nczempin (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 86.151.246.175. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
Message added 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi 86.151.246.175, and thank you for your contributions. However, the content you added to Christoph Waltz was unsourced. You'll need to find an RS (any will do) to support this statement. You should also change the phrasing to indicate that the film hasn't been released yet (as of September 2012) but is expected to be released in December. As it is, the text is problematic and doesn't quite work. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Robert Keiden (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lazy Bast*rd.

Instead of removing 'good faith' edits, why don't you rephrase them yourself? Pure laziness and a counter-productive attitude way to do things. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Before we take this discussion any further, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with a few of the principles of Wikipedia, starting with WP:CIVILITY. Then, note that by simply re-adding the content I removed (because it doesn't conform to other principles of Wikipedia, which I mentioned in the edit summary), you are projecting the impression that you want to start an edit war. If your behaviour indicates an unwillingness to behave according to the five pillars, you are risking your IP address getting blocked. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't address the question I proposed, and your attempts to smear me as a belligerent are unfounded , unnecessary and rather pathetic. Can you clarify why you have time to revert edits and threaten others with suspension (!) but cannot address the issue at hand, i.e. why can you not be bothered to add to the article instead of taking information away from it? It is surely easier to click a button and remove an edit another has made in good faith - yes - and also has the presumed benefit of tickling your ego a little, but it doesn't help the community at large. Pray tell? Perhaps I too should join in with this wilful self-delusion that removing helpful edits is someone benefiting others 86.151.246.175 (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How I spend my time is none of your concern. If I merely revert something that doesn't befit the article there is no reason to start a discussion on my motivation or my priorities. You don't seem to be capable or willing to fix the problems I pointed out (and incapable to follow or understand Wikipedia guidelines), so if no-one else will fix them, eventually I may do it myself. Note that just because you put a question mark at the end, it doesn't mean "why don't you..." is a real question (i. e. not merely a rhetorical question, which you even decided to answer yourself); don't assume you are somehow entitled to an answer. And, boy, you are taking one little revert awfully personally. I guess that that one post is a large part of your overall contributions to Wikipedia so far (as far as anyone can tell, since you're either hiding behind an IP address or don't even know how to get a username). Oh, unlike you, I did not call you names or judged you in any way (unlike what you did to me); I merely pointed out to you what the possible consequences of some of your actions may be, since you seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. -- Nczempin (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So the conclusion we can draw is that you cannot be bothered to edit articles correctly, but you are happy to entirely remove an edit made by someone else that is (by your own admission) accurate and make in good faith. You are too lazy to rewrite that small sentence to fit your own narrow self-appointed regulations but are happy to idle away the day arguing the toss with me here - what a worthwhile contributor you are. At least we have it in writing now for all to see. By the by, I didn't request a clarification on your (presumably rather dull and pathetic) life outside of Wikipedia, it is not my concern in the slightest (most can easily draw conclusions from the way you've handled yourself in this episode) - but a word to the wise, if you are going to attempt (and fail) to patronise someone's lack of understanding of "rhetoric" then it's certainly advisable that you first have a grasp of the basic concepts yourself. Get back on your "high horse" in your own little kingdom where your contributions to Wikipedia are clearly vastly overstated and don't reflect reality, since that's what makes your pathetic life feel more wholesome and complete. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate; what you're saying is fascinating. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that moment when you realise you're way out of your depth. Take this as confirmation that you have no interest in answering my questions and are acting on dubious self-interest only. Another 15 year old self-appointed-expert-on-nothing Wikipedian. Good luck with your edits, how fulfilling your life must be. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't ask any genuine questions. You did make a lot of assumptions, such as my age. Your hit rate is very low, unfortunately. BTW what is the ratio of constructive posts vs. talking about other Wikipedia editors in your history so far? -- Nczempin (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG, I am so out of my depth. I concede. Your depth > my depth. Can you leave me alone now? -- Nczempin (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that demon amongst men, the IP address user who won't sign in or sign up, a common phobia here on Wikipedia and the bane of so many Wikipedians existence. How tragic! Your hangups over my lack-of-username are immaterial though, so I'll assume you genuinely did miss my question earlier (maybe you were sifting through other edits and reverting them unnecessarily?!?) Hmm, whatever. Let's start over. I will ask the question again, let's sit down .... let's take it nice....and....slowly this time. Here's the question: "In what way is it beneficial to the Wikipedia community to remove a "good faith" edit entirely? If you have the time to do that, and have the time to write a description about why you removed it, then surely you have the time to correct the original edit?" If there is a reasoned response to this, I would be most gracious if you can provide it. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it beneficial to the Wikipedia for you to keep posting on my talk page? It's an obvious rhetorical question (one to which the asker does not expect an answer), loaded with strawman assumptions, one (actually a bunch of them) that I genuinely decided to treat the way it (they) should be treated. If you decide to post as an IP although you are an experienced user, that makes your behaviour even more pointless. Now kindly just leave me alone. Surely you have the time to correct _your_ original edit? -- Nczempin (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you knew the first thing about WP:CIVILITY you would not call someone lazy, let alone a "bast*rd" (and then somehow expect a serious answer???). Stop trolling me. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question: "Instead of removing 'good faith' edits, why don't you rephrase them yourself?" , your attempts to dismiss it are telling. It is a shame you could not answer it Nczempin. I see from your Talk page that there are others who you have treated in the same self-righteous, condescending and unhelpful manner. I will refer your edits to a moderator or admin user who can investigate further. 212.105.160.222 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refer my edits to "a moderator or admin user" as quickly as possible. Shall I point you to the right places, in case you don't know where to file complaints about other editors? For clarification, are you the same user as 86.151.246.175? -- Nczempin (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Your obnoxious attitude is unhelpful though. 212.105.160.222 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Basterds

comment Thanks both of you, for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, as entertaining as it may be for uninvolved editors, this dispute doesn't seem very substantive or useful. You, yourself, can be civil, even if the other guy doesn't seem to want to be.

• 86.151.246.175: Even WP:Good faith edits can be problematic, and sometimes need to be reverted. I'm not too concerned by the WP:CRYSTAL issue, but you posted it without a source citation, which on a biography of a living person needs to be immediately fixed or removed. Some editors principally add content, some editors principally revert. Some editors do some of each. All of these are essential to the Wikipedia ecosystem. Being reverted isn't very much fun. I'm sorry it happened to you, but it will probably happen again some day. It happens to everyone. Try again, after fixing the problems people have suggested, or use the Talk page to discuss why it is correct as given (or why there is no need for a citation). Laziness is a problem, but you can't solve it by forcing other people to work. You can sometimes help by demonstrating unlazy behavior yourself. Good luck, and thanks!

• Nczempin: No need to defend yourself, but biting the "trolls" isn't polite either. You aren't obligated to help editors in distress, but mocking them (while fun!) doesn't build encyclopedias. And IPs are human too. Thanks to you as well. --Robert Keiden (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Robert. If you point out where I was biting, I'll try and not do it again. Do you mean my calling him a "troll"? At that point it was my only remaining explanation. I tried to be helpful to a purported newcomer despite him calling me names, he interpreted it as being condescending. Once he had implied that he was not a newcomer, I could only conclude that he was trying to troll me. Or did you mean the "please send an admin as soon as possible" comment? I do not mock anyone on Wikipedia "for fun"; I try to help newcomers in particular; normally they are glad that someone is trying to help them. Here I really don't know what happened; I made a (IMHO) harmless revert, and the guy won't leave me alone. So, please let me know what I could/should have done differently, so I avoid it next time. Thanks. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert, I disagree and I think you are twisting Wikipedia policy, possibly accidentally. An edit that adds something to the article (i.e is accurate and relevant) is a good thing, reverting that entire edit because of a grammar/punctuation issue and removing it entirely is counter-productive and is a very bad thing. I understand Wikipedia is having problems attracting new editors. This situation gives a reason why, ie. it sends out the perception that Wikipedia is a cliquey, closed secret society with obscure "anything goes" rules and regulations. The editor would have been better advised to, instead of reverting the edit slavishly and making snarky comments, improving the edit further. After all, if s/he was able to identify something wrong with the edit, s/he presumably has the ability to improve it. Nothing is gained by removing accurate content from an article altogether simply due to punctuation/grammar issues, to claim otherwise is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.160.222 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We have no shortage of new users who think that because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" that they can do whatever they like. We do have a shortage of new editors who are willing to embrace the five pillars, or even any of the guidelines that the community of editors haved created over the years, such as WP:CIVILITY. This particular "new user" seems to be unwilling to even read those guidelines, and instead insists on me explaining why I chose not to fix his one edit myself and instead I reverted. Since apparently nothing I say will change his attitude towards editing or reading the guidelines, please take any further discussions to the articles' talk pages and off my personal talk page: I have noted your concerns, 212.105.160.222, and I have nothing further to discuss with you. Feel free to answer (if you feel that you must) on your own talk page; I will consider any further edit from you on my talk page in the next seven days to be disruptive. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I did embrace the 'five pillars' and made an edit that I considered (and still do consider) added something to the article that was lacking. There was no mention of the upcoming film. The fact you reverted the edit because the case/tense was wrong and found this easier than just correcting it, says a lot about your own editorial skills. I note you are German so perhaps your pigheaded attitude is to be expected however on an English Wikipedia you come across as self-righteous. I am sorry that you would rather censor your critics than engage them in a conversation, can you think of any others in your history who have done the same I wonder? And by the way, the "Basterd" reference seemed to have cause offence, you completely missed that reference but I'm glad at least Robert figured it out. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP is here for fun and games. We don't add a "citation needed" tag when introducing something here.[1] The burden is on you. Stop bothering these people. Doc talk 08:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I do apologise. Another edit made in goodwill that has been frowned upon because I am using an IP Address. Yes, "fun and games" the definition of which is surely interacting with a bunch of condescending know it alls. A fine example of Wikipedians right here. No wonder the ship is sinking? 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your motivations are clear. You go away now. Doc talk 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, caught red handed. My motivations are obviously to ruin Wikipedia one edit at a time, by adding a tag where it doesn't need to be placed (yet?). That, and adding new content in some sort of mixed future/present tense. You have rumbled me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Don't add stuff you can't back up. To add unreferenced content with the tag - clearly disruptive. Find another IP and go elsewhere. Doc talk 09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, or could it be because I don't know how to link to an reference/URL correctly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadhurst , http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8090896.Jeff_Beck__insures_fingers_for_millions__after_accident_at_Sussex_home/ There are plenty of references from verifiable / reliable sources. All it takes is a little bit of research on Google sweetie. But if it's easier to be dismissive and assume an IP user is only ever going to be a vandal, then that's fine, you're the one depriving others though, not me. 86.151.246.175 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)