2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Tony Tan · talk 07:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 23:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Oh, I always use the preview app whenever possible.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Victoria (TV series) title.

Sorry - missed your message on my talk page for some reason. I think THIS is the discussion you were looking for. --woodensuperman 12:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Mexico national football team. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. No matter how right you think you are, reverting other editor's talk page responses that you don't like is disruptive and edit warring. Continuing to do this will almost certainly result in blocking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Mexico national football team. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that your authority is being challenged then you mseem to misunderstand just what the meaning is of consesnsus. You have repeatedly refused to understand the situation and instead seems gunho on imposing an English grammar on a Spanish language. The title of the team comes from the Spanish translation not the other way round. It is an Institution of mexico that does not require nationality as a Mexican to be a member, only to represent the country. It is unfortunate that you feel the way that you have reacted and instead of coming to a mutual consensus decide to through warring into the matter. I am willing to go by what WP decides what should be done about this e=terminiology, not merely what is your from the hip decision. That is the WP way.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to communicate effectively on the English Wikipedia, especially when making bald statements about grammatical correctness, it helps if you can demonstrate competent use of English. I shouldn't need to say this, but the above and your other comments do not demonstrate such competence. Please read WP:CIR. Whether you agree or not, you can't either remove comments from other editors just because you don't like them or engage in an edit war. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What did you do to my comment that followed your last response? Talk about removing statements from talk pages? And you do it yourself activitly. Will my question in tea house also be removed?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I did nothing to your comments. Your last comment is this one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that was not my last statement before being b=notified about the warring activity. BTW, have edited your libel article on Yorty/Chandler. They seemed appropriate and in due course. I guess we write differently herein Los Angeles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5ba4:7db6 (talk) 01:47, January 18, 2018‎

I welcome your typographical corrections. I linked you to the last comment saved on that page. If you had intended to say something further, it is possible it was not saved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact of thre matter remains that your actions made it disappear.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: ). Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Regarding this - no, just no. As this is the English-language Wikipedia, users must have enough proficiency with the language to communicate effectively with fellow editors in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Citation_and_verifiability_maintenance_templates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Citation_and_verifiability_maintenance_templates 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

{{better source}} would be used for something where we need a better, or a more reliable, source. If the link is dead, use {{dead link}}. There are bots that will attempt to add archive links to dead links, and I believe they use that tag as part of their work flow. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked for assistance and this was the outcome. Maybe, the more senior editors at WP should take their commitment to cooperation to heart.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 21 (UK)

Hi, WP:RFPP is not the place to make edit requests for protected articles. To make edit requests to protected articles, see the guide at WP:EDITREQUEST. Thanks. Iffy★Chat -- 08:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) That is all interesting but I followed WP guides and that is where it took me. You will have to deal with it as I o not know about what you propose. All the best.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Talented Mr. Ripley (film), 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. Thank you. HanotLo (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

It is every bit constructive as left marge to live in Rome could mean that he is letting Marge live in Rome.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Talented Mr. Ripley (film), you may be blocked from editing. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

You seem upset and should refrain from this type of reaction. Marge did not intend to live in Rome. You must be confused.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Old Jacobite_{The '45} , when someone wants to "shut you down", there is something amiss. There are better uses for disruptive editing than to address those that you want to shut down. You may be a senior editor at WP and you may know your way around WP but abuse of that is what gives WP a bad reputation and further incites people to really be disruptive and destructive. I hope that in future there is a better application of such warning than merely what appear to be actions to shut down someone.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

recovery of erased info

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive120&action=edit&section=23 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse - hatted discussions

I've hatted the discussions at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not the appropriate forum for hashing out your disputes with other editors. There have clearly been several misunderstandings that have exacerbated the disagreements and disagreeableness. You know about WP:ANI and WP:DR, so that's what you should be using instead of the Teahouse. I fully support your ability to edit as an unregistered user and I understand how some of the responses you received may have justified a certain prickliness. But if you're not asking a question as a new editor about how to edit WP, you're unlikely to get satisfactory results at the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There was every opportunity for the senior contributors at WP to have directed me to the appropriate app but that was not done and instead the discussion continued at Teahouse. If i was aware the appropriate place then it would have taken place there and the persons involved in the matters would have received an official reprimand including a penalty. I do find it interesting that one of those involved basically has sought to erase the matter from his talk page so that if someone was not aware of the action involving him would never know that there is a pattern to his reverting unilaterally with the weakest of justification--and this is from someone that has such a long string of accolades issued to them by other senior editors. It can only be assumed that oldjacobite's behavior is unofficially endorsed by many in the senior editors of WP. That is unfortunate. At least it is noted his involvement in harassing other editors.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to ANI noticeboard

You are invited to this section of the ANI noticeboard, regarding TheOldJacobite's behavior. Thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Where's the typo?

You said that there is a typo on Minecraft's Wikipedia page-WHERE IS IT THEN?!

P.S. I'm not mad at you-just wondering. CrazyMinecart88 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What date was that?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That was corrected on 2/14? See the talk page.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Racial slurs are not acceptable. "Caucasian" is not a racial slur, and no where near equivalent to the N word. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) It is unfortunate reacting to something when you are unaware of the nuances involved. "Caucasian" is in every bit as effective a slur as any other although some bty all means mean to have within a lesser audience an affinity. The attention paid to the matter at hand shows that "Caucasian" can and has a slur value that has to be understood and could have been if the source of the word has been reviewed. It was not before your action. Yet it seems within those in the WP community that find it a potential slur are looking at remedies to the situation. One of the problems of WP will be the trigger factor of some editors. Many groups of people that have found as their nemesis in the past non-ethnics have used the word Caucasian in less than admirable terms. It will continue to be used regardless how many of us would rather avoid the situation. A racial slur is not so much a racial slur as it is an example as to just how nuanced can a racial slur be over the head of the intended. We have to be very careful about that especially when people accept one writing as one representation of something and yet a greater understanding of that same writing just very well may be a very clever and understated racial slur. You may find this subject disagreeable and distractive. An encyclopedia cannot hide from the existence of racial slurs in history and call itself an as much unbiased encyclopedic a=work as possible without them being reviewed and understood. And quashing discussion is not going to make racial slurs disappear.2605:E000:9143:7000:3814:E722:AE2A:FB8F (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Caucasian is not a racial slur. Even if you want to deny that, it's use in an article doesn't justify using historically more extreme slur. Your use of the N word was not part of the existence of racial slurs in history. And even if you weren't completely wrong about Caucasian being a racial slur, your removal would be an example of trying to hide from the existence of racial slurs in history.

And what do you mean by non-ethnics? Even viewed as a social construct, everyone has an ethnicity.

In short, your position is extremely WP:FRINGE and the more you try to operate from that perspective (especially force it on the encyclopedia, especially using undeniably disruptive racial slurs), you more you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not responsible for your weltanschauung and unable to distinguish what is something leveled as a racial slur and using a racial slur to emphasize a point. You would have us change the flavors of all the ice creams to vanilla just so that it appears nice. As much as there is disagreement over Caucasian being a potentially racial slur brings to fore that the use of the word British by natives of a colony implied a derogatory point of view in what was being discussed--that definitely is a slur because the British did not consider themselves worthy of the implication. I grew up in a society that commonly used slurs to identify people and their presumed views. No less than 50 years ago they were using the slurs pinkos and commies to distinguish just who was not pro-establishment. History shows us that slurs can come and go in popular usage and in private they may never have left. We may not identify with thre slurs used at us but that does not mean that they should be forgotten as less than advantageous means of communicating or getting across a point of view when the subject is slurs.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spy Game. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

You know that these edits are not disruptive if what they do is correct inaccuracies. Anyways, you prevent unregistered user from commenting on your talk page. Only you know the purpose of that. That is not being sdisruptive; that is making WP what it should be--without obvious inaccuracies. You know plain well that a WP user is not required and it is endorsed by WP to use IP's ad user id's even if they are not registered. I am not responsible for what you seem to believe is that IP users are not as qualified as registered users. This is against WP policy. You know that and should wprk with it. Yoy seem to not want to work with it because at every opportunity you seem to bring up registering an account. I choose to follow what WP endorses--using my IP, whatever it might be given me, as my user ID.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---