User talk:66.74.176.59 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.74.176.59 (talk) at 07:46, 7 December 2014 (→December 2014: spam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:46, 7 December 2014 by 66.74.176.59 (talk) (→December 2014: spam)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!Last edited:
Last edited by:07:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
66.74.176.59 (talk · contribs)

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account!

Your IP address, 66.74.176.59, is registered to Time Warner Cable and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. 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 you may want to consider creating 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 (66.74.176.59) 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Africa Movie Academy Awards

Do you have proof that some of these categories are going to be discontinued in 2013 and 2014? FYI, the article has a section for discontinued categories. You cannot add original research to articles on Misplaced Pages per WP:OR. 00:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Where does common sense tell you that original research is being involved when if there is a category for something such as an award that has been given out over time and someone has vreated such an article of section for that award yet no where except by going into the article is there any indication of what years span there is covered by that article or section. That is not original research. That is "X" article or section has "X" information. What point is there to making two moves when one will do? When I am searching out information the last thing I want to have to do is look at EVERYTHING to find out just where I need to look when all it takes is a competent compiler to indicate just what is in the article/section. You do not create an article on "Mental capability" leaving it to the reader to have to go to EVERY article/section on MENTAL CAPABILITY when if there is a "yours" article, a "his" article or a "mine" article. It does not matter when an award was started or when it was discontinued. All that matters is a centralized source of information or routing through that article.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, how do you know that some of the current categories were discontinued this year or last year? If you want to help improve the article, you can include the year in which the AMAA started handing out awards for each category in the current category section. Use the Academy Awards article as a guide. If you choose not to do so, your revision will be reverted sooner or later. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When your article uses indefinite language it is best to describe year span.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you add a timespan to each category in the said category, you are implying that the category started X year and ended X year. The categories in the current category section are ongoing. They have not been discontinued and won't be anytime soon. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And when you use indefinite language you are stating that is could or it could not be there?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. Let me ask you a simple question. How would you interpret this statement: Michael Jackson's recording career: 1967–2009? Versace1608 (Talk) 01:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

66.74.176.59, stop making copyedits to articles and in the process distorting the meanings or committing grammatical errors.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not an indefinite statement? What is your point of using a wrong example to state your point.

The following is the use of two examples of indefinite language. If you are unable to see that and the confusing that can result when someone is seeking out particular year range(s) of information then I really do not know what I can help you with?

"As of 2014, the Africa Movie Academy Awards have approximately 26 categories. Some of these include:"66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If the use of "approximate" and "some" are good indications of what is there then I must have missed a day or two of composition. That is not appropriate to WP standards.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly referring to AMAA article. I mean everyother article you're editing; including I'll Take My Chances and "Cinema of Africa".--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there some type of African continental English or Nigerian English as after reviewing some of the cited sources the publishing was in British spelling but sometimes of a composition style that was absent words to be found in the other types of publications. And then I read the plots iin the film articles and there seems to be something up with those expressions, including capitalization of pronouns, etc that seems rather unexplained from what I have read. Is this common and could someone suggest a master's thesis or dissertation submitted to an African University in English that I could read to get a better understanding about the writing style?66.74.176.59 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at Africa Movie Academy Awards, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

When did bullying become an accepted form of saying you are right and others are wrong. The very use of use a tactic shows that you are point is baseless. Stick to the question at hand.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@66.74.176.59: User: Jamie Tubers just made the right edit to the page. This is what you should have done instead of adding a timespan. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The need to change it was recognized and it has been done. My job with that is probably over. Move on please instead of evoking that "you do everything wrong" stance. Okay? I never asked to be your flavor of the day. Just when was it implemented that your decision was right and that it was not necessary for you to change what had been proposed but criticize someone was doing something that in the end was accepted? Your attitude is not appreciated in a cooperative environment.

I don't get you. The changes you made to the article were not right. You were reverted on three different occasions. I asked you a simple question which you refused to answer. No one is trying to evoke anything here. FYI, if an edit of yours was reverted by another user, you must either leave a note on the article's talk page or the user's. If a single user reverts an edit three times in a span of 24 hours, that editor can get block for breaking Misplaced Pages's WP:3RR. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a cooperative effort? If so then stop the attitude and recommend to others what would be appropriate instead of a revert and then move on. You both decided to challenge instead of assist. If you know netter then use that to the benefit of WP. Again, the attitude? That is not needed in a cooperative effort. Reverting is an attitude. It does not take the best to make the article better for WP's sake. Instead it presents your views and actions as mandatory as to be part of the WP community. It does not work that way. Sorry if you feel differently but that is to be expected from those that have worked often and long in that manner in the WP effort. So please, I have moved on because what I encountered has been clarified. Can you move on? Otherwise, you have a problem that the solution of which is within you. MOVE ON! Merely by the perception that you have more experience and/or knowledge or status (within WP) does not mean that you can bully others. Reverting without taking what is good to make the article better is an aggressive move that is tantamount in psychological terms as bullying. The outcome of situation shows that there was a problem with the article, I provided a suggestion and you two reverted w/o taking the good that eventually evolved out of the situation. So. can you see that there was a problem, there were solutions proposed (according to the WP cooperative effort), they were shot down and yet what happened--there was change that supported my original position. You can say and do whatever you want about how you REALLY d=feel about the actions and views of others but I will not stand for being bullied. No person in their right mind would do so. So maybe it best for you to understand that I am not one to let bullying persist. If I see an example of someone being reverted and there being even one gob or usefulness to the proposal of the other I will in most likelihood support the person that has been reverted. That is the WP way of a cooperative effort. Sorry if you disagree with this very fundamental principal of WP. I take the time to work with people, not against them. For me this activity is not for power play. And I will never be treated as someone's flavor of the day.

Your response at the Teahouse

...was probably how I should have framed my response. That said, the editor appears to have expectations about what Misplaced Pages is about and goals that are not easy to dispel, as they've asked repeatedly about whether they can write about themselves. Tonality and negativity are important factors, but the expectations of the editor and their willingness or ability to reevaluate those expectations are also fairly important in appraising what is really going on. I, JethroBT 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

J--I'd like to say more but no problem with me and no need to explain. Hindsight always shows that there can be no problems in the world.66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits

You've been making nonconstructive edits on wikipedia for the past few hours, please stop!!! You need to realize that you only make copyedits not just because you can, but to correct grammar (not to introduce more errors like you do) or to make sure sentences conform more with the citation given (and not make it deviate more from its source like in your case). You can also make copyedits to solve ambiguous statements and present a more explicit meaning (not make it more ambiguous). It's like you are doing the opposite; recently you edited Desmond Elliot and removed "10th" from it without even confirming if there's actually a 10th edition or not. You need to realize Misplaced Pages is not suppose to contain "what you think", but what can be sourced. sometimes too, you replace appropriate sentences with sentences with bad grammar. If you think your edit is proper, discuss it with other editors, instead of readding your reverted edits. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and not a one man's show. If you continue vandalizing articles, your IP may be blocked from editing wikipedia.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did confirm that there is not a 10th edition of a ceremony especially if it was established as an annual event in 2005.66.74.176.59 (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you did, cos the 10th edition is on wikipedia here, so it's not even far fetched! Anyway, Just take note of what I've said and let's make wikipedia a better platform together. Regards--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, if a ceremony is said in the lede to be "annual" and was started in 2005 then it cannot be an "annual" ceremony therefore the lede is incorrect. That is logic. Sorry if you disagree but is not that the point of correct grammar--logic. And of course facts are logic. One or the other or both are incorrect. I will leave that determination up to you since you have cast yourself in the role of decoder.

You still don't get it, do you? No one cares about your logic. If wikipedia was operating on personal "logics" of editors, there will be so many unnecessary conflicts of interest. Like in your case; your logic is unreasonable. Now, calm down and start counting one after the other the number of ceremonies that can be held; with the first ceremony holding in 2005.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I get it when a statement is wrong. You may not like it being pointed out but there are many things in life that we do not like and seem to live on. Again, "annual" ceremony started in "2005" and it is "2014". You cannot have 10 annual ceremonies in 9 years. It would seem appropriate that there be an explanation so that at some point if there is a discrepancy it is on record.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since you seem lazy to do what I asked you, lemme do it for you:

2005 - 1st ceremony
2006 - 2nd ceremony
2007 - 3rd
2008 - 4th
2009 - 5th
2010 - 6th
2011 - 7th
2012 - 8th
2013 - 9th
2014 - 10th

I hope you can now see how skewed your "logic" is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing what has been pointed out about something being wrong. You seem to be fixed on 10 ceremonies and I have raised the question that the lede of an article says that something is annual and it started in 2005 that you cannot have 10 ceremonies without there having been more than one in any 12 month "annual" period. Therefore if there has been a ceremony in a period of time less than 12 months then it has not been annual? Successive, yes, but not annual. Please keep on point and not confuse what point is being made. If the lede in the article says "annual" then that is incorrect. It is difficult enough to explain and have someone understand that there can never be a first annual ceremony of anything because such an event can only become annual with a successor event. Is there at all the possibility of this ending as it is just becoming very much the carousel ride of going up and down and all a round and getting no where. Now it is day break and I am about to get on with watching my flicks which I annually do so on the anniversary of 9/11.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't "fix" redirects

Re: Your recent edits changing links to Biafran War to Nigerian Civil War, please read Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. "Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental". DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

IP user identification

PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Helpme tag

Do you still need help, or is it taken care of? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. The person in question has decided to come to the realization that their action was a knee jerk persistent reaction without realizing the content.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your help in fixing typos in various lists of shipwrecks. It is appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; no problem. Just trying to get to those articles that ordinarily do not get reviewed or the content is so tight that people just do not notice it. The only problem I am encountering with the wrecks articles is that it takes such a long time for the acceptance to go through as compared to other articles but I think that the delay is caused by the amount of content. But have yet to finish so there will be more. I just pick a word and go through my formula to catch them.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's down to article size. I'm not sure that splitting would be good though, as individual months do not have the losses that occur during the WWII months. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

José Rizal

Hi, thanks for all your work fixing spelling mistakes. I saw you're edit request on the José Rizal; if you let me know here what the misspelling was then I will fix it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"pubilshign" both the jose and the Philippines locked articles have it. Thanks.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have now been fixed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I attempt to find some of the more imaginative spellings that ordinarily seem to not make it into the everyday edits--probably since they may be in articles that do not get much traffic or in the coding sections. I do my searches across WP instead of on a single article. It helps to know where on the keyboard are the intended characters and just what gets hit or in a different order.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Zenaida Manfugás

Hello! The article you Zenaida Manfugás you indicated that required citation quotes, originally had it, but another user corrected the spelling of the article, but not copied the addresses of references, but only the numbers that appear in the same article when this was already saved. I got my latest edition of the article but correcting the spelling of the same basing on the modification of the author mentioned. By the way, when you indicate something about an item, indicate only talk page.

Regards!--Isinbill (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to List of Unfabulous episodes

 Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the List of Unfabulous episodes article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Misplaced Pages and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness you found only one of my many acts of vandalism.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cluster munition. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Altairisfar (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Altairisfar You will need to be a bit more specific about what it is that you jump to conclusions as to what has been "vandalism", a very recurrently and common message sent to many people from what I see. I would suggest that if there is an issue that needs to be addressed that more than just a "hit the button" response be sent and it appear to be a knee jerk reaction. Editing is not a do as much as possible in as little time as necessary with as little interaction and information transfer to the intended. That just makes any message become redundant and equivalent to spam.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2014 (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.