Open main menu

Contents

Welcome!Edit

Hello 98.194.39.86! You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.194.39.86) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! - theWOLFchild 02:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

July 2012Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Yitzhak Shamir appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yitzhak Shamir. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The supposed "support" I express for Shamir is your own imagination. The fact is that your additions to his page did not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and were reverted for that reason. As you can see, there was already a discussion on the talk page about this. You are free to have your own opinions, but this is an encyclopedia and operates by consensus. In the meantime, please don't accuse me of having biased editing. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jprg1966 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

January 2013Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bubba Blackwell, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


My edit did not invoke any "original research" - it is a fact made by observation, that any casual observer could make. The existing article, as currently written is false, and includes a misrepresentation, since the bike mentioned is NOT an XR-750. It has been modified, as stated. There is no need to invoke research when something IS. It is as simple as stating an apple is red, or the daytime sky is blue. No research is required. It simply is. Same here. The so-called XR-750 used by Blackwell has been modified from the original, and this is evident by LOOKING AT THE MACHINE. No further research, other than eyes, is required.

Recent edit to A.1. Steak SauceEdit

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, A.1. Steak Sauce, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to find the proper citation. I'm an avid ingredient reader, and OCD-type person, so that won't be a problem. The original wasn't properly referenced or cited, but apparently no one minded that too much. Ok, I'll cite my sources. I stand corrected. TJP in Houston April 22, 2017

November 2016Edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Christian Bale. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

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. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:12, 3 November 2016 (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.

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Responsive web design. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your test before you revert it. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2016 (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.

Talk page usageEdit

Hi there, with regard to some of your talk page comments, please note that talk pages are intended to be used to discuss specific improvements to the article, not for general chatter[1] or pointless zingers.[2] Please see our talk page guidelines. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider my comments 'general chatter' or pointless zingers. My zingers always have a point. I am a professional engineer and writer. Therefore, when you reply, please take that into consideration. I am an expert in the field of computer science, technical writing (by education and experience), and aviation, among others. I understand that polymaths like myself may intimidate the average "author" (so-called) here on WP. Truth is, you need more people like myself who can comprehend a complex topic AND put it into words that the average person can comprehend. Simple, plain English. << (And yes, I know that is not a sentence.)
I have been complaining about this for some time now, and I feel that if something isn't done to change the quality of WP articles, ultimately, it will fail. Why? Because the average user can't use it. An author can be "smart" - and still write an article at a 9th or 10th grade level. In fact, that's the trick, isn't it? To take something that is inherently complex and turn it into something the "Average Joe" can get his head around. Think about it. I've been an avid reader and (sometime) contributor to WP since its inception. I have watched as the articles become more akin to college texts than something the average person can make sense of. It reminds me of too many of my old college professors, who were much more interested in hearing themselves speak than in teaching. Teaching. Imparting knowledge.
Otherwise, what is the point? Awaiting your reply. TJP in Houston 4/22/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjp1962 (talkcontribs) 06:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017Edit

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

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. PepperBeast (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

July 2017Edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Karl Pilkington. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

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. PepperBeast (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

First off, "unconstructive" is not a proper word. The term you are looking for is "non-constructive". And I completely disagree with you. The article was incomplete, and I added some indisputable, useful facts that should serve as "stubs" for other people to build on. Hopefully, those fragments (would have) encouraged people not to write one-line bios in the future and fill in actual details. I have not read the remainder of your comment, but I have skimmed and then ignored it. I have no interest in your rules. When I feel I can improve an article, I will. The end. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oxford and Merriam-Webster seem to disagree with you. "Non-constructive", with a more prominant alternative meaning, is actually "nonconstructive". - SummerPhDv2.0 05:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, all you're doing here is stalking and provoking. This talk page is mine. If you're going to try to correct me, at least learn to spell. Better yet, stick to articles and talk pages that concern you. This one does not. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Editors are welcome to comment on other editors' pages. If you disagree with the responses, that's your business, but SummerPhDv2.0 hasn't done anything wrong by responding to your comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I've just looked closely at his/her talk page, and I see the nature of the problem - I'm not the first person to comment on it (not even the first this month). While I am not an Administrator here, I am an occasional editor and financial donor. In my opinion, this person is walking a very fine line between making comments and acting as a "bouncer". I will have to take it up with higher-level folks here if it continues. Passive aggression is still aggression, no matter what's it's called or how ambiguous it may appear on the surface. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
And while I'm on this subject, may I ask how this incident came to your attention? I certainly didn't report the editor or call anyone in for mediation. I think that sufficiently makes my point. Instead of responding to my original comments on the article's Talk Page, the editor came here to my talk page, threatened me ambiguously, and then went to you for "back up". Meanwhile, I entered my response here and was perfectly willing to let the incident be forgotten. My view is that the editor in question has a track record of doing this, and it's not helping WP in the least. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
To answer your question, this talk page is on my watchlist, per a February 2017 comment I left here. It is customary for editors to watch a talk page for responses. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Your touble understanding critical receptionEdit

I have just responded to your question at Talk:War for the Planet of the Apes.[3]

You seem to have been similarly confused about Wonder Woman[4] and Starship Troopers.[5]

Given that you've gotten pretty much the same response three times now, is it starting to sink in or are you going to ask the same question a few more times? If your plan is to keep asking the same question, I can assure you it won't end well. Please ask for clarification here before continuing. Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


DO NOT THREATEN ME! Not now, not ever. To say "I can assure you it won't end well" is a direct threat. Do it again and I will report you to the authorities.

I meant what I said. Keep your opinions and threats to yourself. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But thank you for proving my point about certain editors "hovering" over that article. Point made. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Most active, registered editors have Watchlists. I have 13,000+ articles, talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, and Wikipedia pages watchlisted. Watchlists enable people who are interested in a subject to "hover" over that subject. That is the intended function of a watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that certainly explains a lot. I really don't have time to devote to discussions about WP movie article talk pages. This has already gotten far out of hand. And this is why I use WP about 1/20th as much as I did 5 years ago. Too many cooks, IMHO. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

I forgive you. Go in peace now to love and serve the Lord. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ban me, or give up. I can do this all day long. I have a script. Grow up or shut up. Pick one. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to monitor this page indefinitely ... and it had better not change. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

. . . . .

  Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Main Page have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (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.

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Main Page. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2019 (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.

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Main Page, you may be blocked from editing. Mr Xaero ☎️ 02:09, 23 January 2019 (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.
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2019 (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.

You people bore me. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Tamarind. SummerPhDv2.0 18:24, 18 March 2019 (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.
There was nothing inappropriate in my discussion. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But I disagree. From where I sit, your opinion is without merit. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comments were completely unrelated to improving the associated article, the purpose of article talk pages. Another editor reverted your comments at Talk:Boeing 767 for the same reason. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you are uncertain here.
I also reverted your unsourced additions to A.1. Sauce (actually, that whole sentence was unsourced analysis). Finally, at Bain-marie you confused two unrelated appliances. In both cases, WP:OR should be helpful.
You've had these same problem previously. If you'd like, another block can be arranged to help you remember. Alternately, a brief discussion with administrators might be useful to see if more substantial measures would be more appropriate. Rest assured, I will not be commenting to you in the future. Cheers. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You all are nothing more than Cyber-bullies. My advice is: Get a Life. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "98.194.39.86".