User talk:76.189.111.199

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 (76.189.111.199) 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Aspell

Thanks, Martin! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're awesome

I was just viewing your comments at the ANI discussion and I had to let you know you're awesome. Ryan Vesey 02:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ryan. It was really nice of you to say that. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 76.189, you give IPs a good name. At some point, if I can't find evidence of an existing discussion, I might ask you for comments on unregistered vs registered users and why some people don't want to register. Not having a pop, genuinely interested. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie. When I read your first sentence, it immediately made me think of a Bon Jovi song. :P If I get to the point where I feel a strong passion for editing on a long-term basis, it'll be much more likely that I'll create a registered account. It's great dealing with friendly, helpful, and supportive editors, but can be rather frustrating when doing so with those who are not. Thanks a lot for your nice comment. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your hard work on articles, the help desk and BLP/N. I hope you stick around, account or no. Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FRF, thank you so much for your kindness. I really appreciate it. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. Everett Koop

Please stop restoring unreferenced material to the article. As expressed in the article's talk section, this is a matter of sourcing and it's interfering with a nomination for Wikipedia's front page. Any further restoral of unreferenced material will be reported as edit warring with no further notice. Feel free to source and restore any material you can. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Hi Medeis. Actually, I subsequently removed the unsourced content at 23:04, 26 February 2013,[1] and also commented about my agreement with you in the talk page thread you started.[2] I also posted this comment on you talk page, which explains why we have one Career section with the three applicable subsections. Also, if you look at my participation in the article you will see all of the content and cites I have contributed over the past couple days. So I think it's clear that I am here to help improve the article, just as you are. You have also reverted content multiple times, but I know your intent is not to be involved in an edit war. By the way, I would suggest reading WP:NLS regarding your signature. Thanks for all your help on the article and have a great week. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.

Thanks for the notification. I just noticed it since it was not placed at the bottom of the page. I'm sure those at the noticeboard will review both of our histories and decide the appropriate outcome. If I have made any inappropriate edits, I welcome the feedback and will do my best not to repeat them. I hope you will do the same. I'm sure we have the same goal, which is to improve articles to make them the best they can be. Please sign your posts in the future. Have a very nice evening. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 76.189.111.199!

Thank you very much for notifying me last week of the "Help desk discussion about List of production battery electric vehicles" at the help desk and (a day or so later) the additional conversation that started up on Village Pump. You correctly noted that although my name was mentioned in the discussions, I had not been notified. I really appreciate that!

I took a look over there, at both discussions, and it seems that 95% of the discussion stayed on the "help" and "policy" question issues, and on that there seemed rather solid consensus that the editor who brought the matter up could usefully learn that the edits in question were both policy appropriate and not disruptive. Since nearly all other editors who weighed in were making the points I might have made, I thought it best just to sit it out since I was involved in some of the edits which were questioned, as well as in a small amount of the phosphor spilled (say, less than 5%) even borderline accused of possibly disruptive editing behavior.

You thoughtful and policy-consistent apologia of my work, and my record/reputation, did not go unnoticed and was much appreciated.

Thanks for making editing Wikipedia a better experience for all editors with your contributions, and for making the encyclopedia better as a result. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, N2e. I'm glad I was able to help and that we were apparently able to come to a (relatively) peaceful and productive resolution. ;) Best regards. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you have been asked twice now not to violate WP:SHOUT.[3][4]. Also, placing false warnings on a user's talk page is a violation of WP:HUSH. Relax, my friend. Please don't take everything so personally. Have a good night. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editing other people's comments. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please don't edit other people's comments on talk pages, even if you disagree with their formatting. Incidentally, bold text is generally used for emphasis, rather than shouting (we have CAPS for that!). Thanks. An optimist on the run! 12:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Optimist. Yes, bolding should be used on for emphasis, but not for shouting. Per WP:SHOUT, "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice". I think most editors reading Guy's comment would reasonably conclude that he was shouting, not to mention uncivil. I certainly understand his frustration because he had quite a rough time in the Village Pump discusson (and help desk discussion), but as I've discussed before, he should try not to take friendly disagreements regarding his editing views personally. In any case, I had already apologized to Guy if I hurt his feelings with my Shakespeare reference, which was intended as friendly humor. However, I'll stick to my day job and steer clear of standup comedy. :P In any case, I will be more delicate in handling comments that I feel are shouted or uncivil. Personally, I believe it would of great benefit to Guy not to post energetic comments like that as it may not be helpful for one's wikireputation. Thanks for your comment and please have a good rest of the week. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, none of the above justifies editing another person's talk page comments. There are other ways of dealing with what you believe to be misbehavior by another editor. The specific situations where deleting/editing someone else's talk page comments is allowed are listed at WP:TPOC. If another editor breaks a rule (including WP:SHOUT and WP:CIVIL), you are not to edit or delete that person's comments except where WP:TPOC specifically says you can. Do you agree to follow that guideline? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I would suggest you sincerely consider why you would even want to post comments that editors can easily perceive as shouting and uncivil. I also hope that in the future you will accept consensus in discussions about an editing issue, particularly ones that you initiate. I'm sure you're a nice fellow, but I think you'll find that it's much more productive not to discount consistent feeback on an issue from so many editors, nor take any of their comments so personally. Because I don't see any reason to pursue this matter any further, I'll ask that you please not post on my talk page again. But I wish you all the best in your editing. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here, Guy Macon just leave the IP alone. 87.232.101.49 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. An optimist on the run! 23:11, 27 February 2013 (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.