User talk:24.45.42.125 - Revision history

MalnadachBot: Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

2022-08-31T03:50:48Z

Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 03:50, 31 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Blanked IP talk}}
	{{SharedIP\|host=24.45.42.125}}
	==Your recent edits==
	] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button ] or ] 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 they said it. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Unconstructive; Mass reverts generally frowned on ==

	Hi; noticed your mass revert of several referenced and justified edits in the Sandra Fluke article. Also noticed a short edit history, so am assuming good faith, that you may be unfamiliar with WP process. It is not generally a good idea to mass revert, especially when individual edits are justified, as there is no way to know what editorial judgement you are contesting. Indiscriminately hitting the "undo" button, called reverting, is called edit warring, and can result in automatic bans. For instance, the biography section that was edited was clipped to remove sections that are poorly sourced, and thus not allowed according to BLP guidelines. This should NOT be reverted unless you have a good source to justify these sections. Reverting minor edits, such as specifying that Fluke was a law student when invited to Congress, can be seen as disruptive also, and subject to banning. Am going to undo your reversion of my edits; don't mind if you then make JUSTIFIED, stepwise alterations - it is understood that editors may disagree. I would however direct you to the rather extensive discussions on Talk (where discussions of edits should take place) where NPOV compromises were made, and from which I took several stable (ie agreed upon) descriptions. Good luck, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Thanks, but your changes were correctly reverted by someone else for adding bias. ] (]) 03:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Just to say... ==

	I loved your edit summary ] (]) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Thank you. ] (]) 22:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Good work on the zombies ==

	I liked what you did for p-zombies and physicalism, btw.—] 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	Oh ye of little faith... {{diff\|Multiverse\|501062942\|501049229\|06:41, 7 July 2012}} {{small\|{{gray\|''(Needs citations, not your memory.)''}}}}—] 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Thank you, and please don't take my comment personally. I was encouraging you to bring citations, not discouraging you from using your memory. :-) ] (]) 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

	::Not at all, I was admiring what you did for Qualia too... and lo! it's you: {{diff\|Positivism\|501062862\|501062278\|06:40, 7 July 2012}} LOL... well 125, all I can say is, I hope you'll ].—] 01:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Please respond to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Positivism#The_death_of_nuance ] (]) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

	== A false accusation by someone caught in a lie. ==

	] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

	To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Belch, you're not being very honest. First, I caught you removing a dollar amount that the citation supported by lying about the citation. Second, you're accusing me of edit-warring when you've repeatedly edited against consensus. Please, even a shred of logic is enough to show that an article on political activism shouldn't be about unrelated philanthropy. So, in conclusion, I'm going to take your warning with a few grains of salt. Thank you. ] (]) 04:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:No, there isn't. ] (]) 04:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	Ok, it is 'now', but it doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 05:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	:(Just realized you were still on my watchlist.) In general, you're expected not to make multiple reverts on the same article even if you're correct, and even if other people are doing it as well. You haven't violated the three-revert rule (see ]), but I understand fewer reverts can still be considered as against the spirit of the rule. ] (]) 06:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	:Also, to clarify Lionel's comment - you should probably either defend your edits as justified, or agree to try and avoid similar situations in the future. I don't know enough about the situation to comment on which is better, though. :-) ] (]) 07:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	::Arc, thanks for your input. As it turns out, I've been active on the article talk page, while Belchfire has lately just edit-warred against all four people who disagree with him and Collect. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rules, although I have to admit that the three-revert thing seems really ambiguous. ] (]) 07:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::Yeah, most Misplaced Pages policies, especially their nuances, are at least somewhat ambiguous (they're more broadly applicable that way). ] (]) 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	::::Well, I don't want to get involved in some huge debate, but I would think that, if you want people to follow rules, you need to make them clear enough so that we know if we're following them. Otherwise, you have to give us the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 08:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	== July 2012 ==

	<div style=clear: both></div>] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ] with <span class="plainlinks"></span>, did not appear to be constructive, and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 05:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry, but I don't understand your form letter or how it applies to me. Could you please me more specific? ] (]) 05:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::I responded . I have no objection to your removing this section and the warning it contains from your talk page if you desire to do so. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 06:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, but I'll let it stay. I don't feel comfortable burying my own history, and there's no shame in the two of us resolving this amicably. ] (]) 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I always feel bad when I see IP editors getting ] and ] repeatedly as if they are some inferior type of editor. I'm sorry for this, and hope you won't be too put off by it. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	:I agree with you in principle, but in this case the bite marks have very little to do with the lack of a login. ] (]) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	::Belchfire, you were part of the edit war, and looking at your talk page you have a history of edit warring as well. 125 has not been reprimanded, and furthermore the comments of the admin who protected the page appear to be in his favor. ] (]) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::Some people learn; some people don't. It's up to our friend to decide which group he eventually falls into, but what I've seen so far is not encouraging. Let's hope I am wrong. ] (]) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	::::I suggest you re-read my comment. You are not currently in a position to criticize. ] (]) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Repeating bogus 3RR charges ''ad nauseum'' is harassment, plain and simple. 125 summarily dispatched the prosecution based on simple policy, not some alleged misrepresentation of content issues and consensus. As for the , why would anyone care to sign up due to specious allegations on their user talk? The good doctor umpire might well have ''prescribed a strike out'' of the obligatory prelude to his false 3RR charges, so as ''not'' to mislead the casual reader... instead, he opted for uncivil nonsense about giving us "the finger"? ]—] 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

	Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	== October 2012 ==
	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 Hours''' for For violating your block as ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] ] 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
	:''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->

GB fan: You have been blocked from editing. (TW)

2012-10-31T16:08:38Z

You have been blocked from editing. (TW)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:08, 31 October 2012
Line 68:		Line 68:

	Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

			== October 2012 ==
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 Hours''' for For violating your block as ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] ] 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
			:''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->

Machine Elf 1735: /* IPs are people too */ foul

2012-07-22T01:05:27Z

IPs are people too: foul

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:05, 22 July 2012
Line 65:		Line 65:

	:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
			::::::Repeating bogus 3RR charges ''ad nauseum'' is harassment, plain and simple. 125 summarily dispatched the prosecution based on simple policy, not some alleged misrepresentation of content issues and consensus. As for the , why would anyone care to sign up due to specious allegations on their user talk? The good doctor umpire might well have ''prescribed a strike out'' of the obligatory prelude to his false 3RR charges, so as ''not'' to mislead the casual reader... instead, he opted for uncivil nonsense about giving us "the finger"? ]—] 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

	Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

24.45.42.125: /* IPs are people too */

2012-07-21T23:34:13Z

IPs are people too

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:34, 21 July 2012
Line 65:		Line 65:

	:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

			Belch, I'm here on my own free time to help out a few articles that are in need. I'm not interested in playing this like a video game. I'm doing my best to follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, rather than gaming them by stopping just short of being reportable. And unlike you, I refuse to lie about contents of a cited article to justify my edits. If, despite all this, I get blocked anyway, so be it. Remember, I'm here to help Misplaced Pages. If it won't allow me to help, that's its loss, not mine. ] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire: /* IPs are people too */ Reply

2012-07-21T20:52:32Z

IPs are people too: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:52, 21 July 2012
Line 63:		Line 63:

	::::I suggest you re-read my comment. You are not currently in a position to criticize. ] (]) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		::::I suggest you re-read my comment. You are not currently in a position to criticize. ] (]) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

			:::::Oh, but I am. I took my medicine, and learned from the experience, and in this instance I stopped reverting before it became reportable. OTOH, Mr. IP here refused to read and learn policy even after it was pointed out to him; misrepresented the status of the discussion and the events in the article history at the ANI; and stated openly that he didn't care one way or the other if he got blocked. He basically gave the finger to the rest of the community. Now I've said that I hope this guy finds his clue and becomes a more collaborative editor, and I mean that. But until that happens, you are totally off-base trying to stick up for him. Good day. ] (]) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunrise: /* IPs are people too */

2012-07-21T20:39:56Z

IPs are people too

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:39, 21 July 2012
Line 61:		Line 61:

	:::Some people learn; some people don't. It's up to our friend to decide which group he eventually falls into, but what I've seen so far is not encouraging. Let's hope I am wrong. ] (]) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		:::Some people learn; some people don't. It's up to our friend to decide which group he eventually falls into, but what I've seen so far is not encouraging. Let's hope I am wrong. ] (]) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

			::::I suggest you re-read my comment. You are not currently in a position to criticize. ] (]) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire: /* IPs are people too */ Reply

2012-07-21T07:51:00Z

IPs are people too: Reply

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:51, 21 July 2012
Line 59:		Line 59:

	::Belchfire, you were part of the edit war, and looking at your talk page you have a history of edit warring as well. 125 has not been reprimanded, and furthermore the comments of the admin who protected the page appear to be in his favor. ] (]) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)		::Belchfire, you were part of the edit war, and looking at your talk page you have a history of edit warring as well. 125 has not been reprimanded, and furthermore the comments of the admin who protected the page appear to be in his favor. ] (]) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

			:::Some people learn; some people don't. It's up to our friend to decide which group he eventually falls into, but what I've seen so far is not encouraging. Let's hope I am wrong. ] (]) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunrise: /* IPs are people too */

2012-07-21T07:12:19Z

IPs are people too

← Previous revision		Revision as of 07:12, 21 July 2012
Line 57:		Line 57:

	:I agree with you in principle, but in this case the bite marks have very little to do with the lack of a login. ] (]) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)		:I agree with you in principle, but in this case the bite marks have very little to do with the lack of a login. ] (]) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

			::Belchfire, you were part of the edit war, and looking at your talk page you have a history of edit warring as well. 125 has not been reprimanded, and furthermore the comments of the admin who protected the page appear to be in his favor. ] (]) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire: /* IPs are people too */ Comment

2012-07-20T20:38:48Z

IPs are people too: Comment

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:38, 20 July 2012
Line 55:		Line 55:

	I always feel bad when I see IP editors getting ] and ] repeatedly as if they are some inferior type of editor. I'm sorry for this, and hope you won't be too put off by it. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)		I always feel bad when I see IP editors getting ] and ] repeatedly as if they are some inferior type of editor. I'm sorry for this, and hope you won't be too put off by it. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

			:I agree with you in principle, but in this case the bite marks have very little to do with the lack of a login. ] (]) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Awilley: /* IPs are people too */ new section

2012-07-20T15:07:11Z

IPs are people too: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:07, 20 July 2012
Line 51:		Line 51:
	::I responded . I have no objection to your removing this section and the warning it contains from your talk page if you desire to do so. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 06:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)		::I responded . I have no objection to your removing this section and the warning it contains from your talk page if you desire to do so. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 06:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, but I'll let it stay. I don't feel comfortable burying my own history, and there's no shame in the two of us resolving this amicably. ] (]) 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)		:::Thanks, but I'll let it stay. I don't feel comfortable burying my own history, and there's no shame in the two of us resolving this amicably. ] (]) 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

			== ] ==

			I always feel bad when I see IP editors getting ] and ] repeatedly as if they are some inferior type of editor. I'm sorry for this, and hope you won't be too put off by it. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)