User talk:24.7.14.87

READ BEFORE COMMENTING:

"You didn't explain your changes.": Please make sure. If I did explain and you didn't read it, I'll probably just restore my edits.

"You must discuss your changes": Maybe, but one editor can't make a discussion. You must be ready to participate. Consider my edit summaries as a starting point.

"Popular culture" edits: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mass media concordance. I search for and remove pop culture examples of the following forms:

The example merely states that something was "mentioned"/"referenced"/"said"/"appeared" and the like, without describing its significance in the work. These lazy examples do not improve understanding of a subject and therefore do not advance Wikipedia's goals. They are nothing more than an online game of punch buggy at readers' expense.
It provides insufficient detail to verify, e.g. a subject was mentioned in "an episode" of a TV show, without saying which episode.
It is not from popular culture. It involves factual events, not creative works.
The article subject is not explicitly involved in the work, and the example relies on the editor's speculation (however reasonable).
It is merely a coincidence of names, without further relevance to the article subject.

This is a very low bar for popular culture examples. Please consider whether defending such examples is the best use of your time.

August 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm CommanderOzEvolved. I noticed that you recently removed content from Champagne cocktail 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. Stub article that needs to be expanded further. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my edit. Yes, it's a stub, and that is all the more reason not to drown the descriptive content in pop culture trivia. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked out the notice after checking your edit history. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (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.

September 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to World Trade Center in film. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to World Trade Center in popular culture, you may be blocked from editing. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at World Trade Center in film. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2018 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

24.7.14.87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits were disputed content changes (per verifiability and original research policies), not vandalism. The edit that Jerodlycett cited as an example of "vandalism" is the removal of one item from a long list where I had a specific doubt about its accuracy, and Jerod has not responded to my doubts. I had initiated a discussion on the article talk page as Jerod requested, but being blocked makes it rather difficult to follow through with that. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I missed your opening the discussion on the article talk page when reviewing your contrib log, so I am going to unblock you on that basis. Please refrain from any potentially controversial edits w/o seeking consensus first. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo[edit]

[1] 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.