Jump to content

User talk:24.7.14.87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.96.113.119 (talk) at 05:00, 19 August 2017 (c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made on Multiplexer. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. 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 without logging in, but many editors 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 (24.7.14.87) 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! Jeh (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Kaobear. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Render unto Caesar has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. Kaobear (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Ernst Röhm

If you have references of the sentence you mention, include them in the article instead deleting parts of it. That would be very relevant information. - Skysmith (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any history of the Night of the Long Knives that you care to look at will say the same thing: Rohm was offered suicide, refused it, and was shot. The idea that there is a dispute over the manner of his death is a figmment of one recent editor's imagination, cited to a NYT report which would be strange if it existed, because the paper had no means of second-guessing the Reich government's public statements. But according to a discussion currently at the top of the talk page, the NYT report of July 1 doesn't say that he committed suicide anyway. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put something on your User page. Gets the red our of your edit summaries. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 12:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 19:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of WP:Edit warring and are about to violate WP:3RR Consider yourself warned. 7&6=thirteen () 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Please don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. 7&6=thirteen () 20:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliches, in 1956 FA Cup Final

Hello. I'm well aware that the sentence you removed is a cliche, and that encyclopedic prose shouldn't be full of cliches. Removing cliche from the prose of our pages is an exercise worth pursuing (sorry that sounds patronising, it isn't meant to). But this wasn't in the prose. It was contained appropriately in a citation in the references section, as a quotation from an informal piece of writing that illustrated the particular relevance of a song in the history of one of the clubs involved in the match. Not all writing is encyclopedic, and we shouldn't have to censor informality when we quote it. As an aside, the article 1956 FA Cup Final is a featured article, which doesn't mean its content should be set in stone, but it does mean it's been through a review process which ought to include an assessment of both content and style. You're correct that it can be removed, but its being at the end of the quote isn't an argument for doing so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm Babymissfortune. I noticed that in this edit to Hearts, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Babymissfortune 05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

May 2017

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Carry On Wayward Son, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I'm not concerned with the removal, but it's the unexplained nature of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Information icon Hello, I'm Cahk. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert Bork 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. Cahk (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You need to show the information you removed are indeed incorrect. The information as is currently is well sourced. Cahk (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lumberyard

Please follow WP:BRD. You've boldly made edits, and have been reverted. Please use the talk page to explain the changes you want and reach a consensus. So far, nothing you're saying disagrees with the original text. The engine is free to use, with limitations already noted. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, No-fault divorce, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking

LBJ is a major historical figure, and having an 'in pop culture' article for him is pedestrian. Not having sufficient sourcing is not a grounds for redirecting the article. You appear to have done the same thing to other pop culture articles. Please stop doing this. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not redirected any other pop culture splits back to their main article. I have and will continue to clean up pop culture sections and articles by applying standards of notability and sourcing. That includes removing an entire section if nothing meets those standards. There is no wikipedia guideline AFAIK that pop culture material gets some extraordinary benefit of doubt. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking you to please not blank an entire article due to insufficient sourcing, unless it is a BLP which does get special treatment. I'm not meaning to make this personal. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]