User contributions for 174.23.111.247
For 174.23.111.247 talk block log logs filter log
23 May 2016
- 17:2717:27, 23 May 2016 diff hist +11 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 17:2617:26, 23 May 2016 diff hist +212 User talk:174.23.111.247 →May 2016
- 17:2517:25, 23 May 2016 diff hist +805 User talk:174.23.111.247 →Your Huey Lewis lead edit.
- 07:2007:20, 23 May 2016 diff hist −1 Talk:Dylan McDermott If you wanted the talk so badly, then YOU should've started it.
- 07:1807:18, 23 May 2016 diff hist −1 Lagoon (amusement park) Okay, you weren't trying to undo them all, but this one certainly wasn't one of them from after the block.
- 07:1507:15, 23 May 2016 diff hist −95 Lagoon (amusement park) Blocking rules do not include that you try to undo every edit they ever made.
- 07:1307:13, 23 May 2016 diff hist +654 Talk:Larry King It's better that readers know that this guy corrected himself and asked the question about why the note about the legal name change wasn't made earlier.
- 07:0607:06, 23 May 2016 diff hist −12 Ray Combs No edit summary
- 07:0507:05, 23 May 2016 diff hist −4 Ray Combs No edit summary
- 07:0007:00, 23 May 2016 diff hist +20 Brad Garrett Undid revision 721647751 by Ebyabe (talk)
- 06:5906:59, 23 May 2016 diff hist +5 Sinbad (comedian) You don't need to go to the stupid TALK page just to fix some dumb hyphens into commas, DUHHH!!!
- 06:5706:57, 23 May 2016 diff hist +11 Louis C.K. Can't trust me, can you? So I have to force you to see this link, huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names
- 06:5606:56, 23 May 2016 diff hist +252 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS! IF YOU THINK YOUR WAY IS "BETTER," THEN WHY HAVE THE MOS AT ALL?
- 06:5406:54, 23 May 2016 diff hist +38 Sony HDR-HC1 Undid revision 721559707 by Toddst1 (talk)
- 06:5306:53, 23 May 2016 diff hist −4 Sting (musician) No need, there's already an MOS that formats it THIS way.
- 06:5306:53, 23 May 2016 diff hist −17 Penn Jillette Such an "OWN"er, you are.
- 06:5206:52, 23 May 2016 diff hist +4 Pink (singer) It even includes this wikilink as part of the format.
- 06:5106:51, 23 May 2016 diff hist +8 Pink (singer) Pseudonym MOS wasn't made for nothing. YOU even pointed that MOS out yourself. It uses THIS format.
- 06:5006:50, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Jason Alexander Screen name because he's more on TV and in the movies than just on stage.
- 06:4906:49, 23 May 2016 diff hist 0 Martin Sheen Yeah, that's right, revert something to REINTRODUCE errors (a stray comma in this case). Really "smart"!
- 06:4806:48, 23 May 2016 diff hist −3 Kevin James Refer to pseudonym MOS.
- 06:4806:48, 23 May 2016 diff hist −30 Gary Valentine There's not a MOS that has it formatted that way for nothing, ya know.
- 06:4706:47, 23 May 2016 diff hist +4 Flavor Flav NO. It's in the MOS WITH the link.
- 06:4606:46, 23 May 2016 diff hist +11 Huey Lewis NO. The wikidpedia doesn't have have a MOS for nothing. Follow that.
- 06:4406:44, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Daryl Hall Besides, don't have an MOS if you think you don't have to follow it.
- 06:4406:44, 23 May 2016 diff hist +11 Daryl Hall Reverting editing done by a socker should only be that: edits since the socking; not ALL edits that person has ever done in that category that they started socking to continue.
- 06:4006:40, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Jackée Harry Besides that, WITHOUT the word "professionally" is how this already was for years. Why not just leave it less redundant?
- 06:3806:38, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Jackée Harry ...and I don't see YOUR discussion anywhere on the talk page. Why should I do it if you won't?
- 06:3706:37, 23 May 2016 diff hist −5 Jackée Harry NO need to keep breaking the MOS. Someone tried using "professionally" on another article and one of you fighters took it OFF because it was redundant. So why go back to that here?
- 06:3506:35, 23 May 2016 diff hist −4 Gene Simmons Why do we have a MOS about pseudonyms if you're just going to refuse to go by it? What makes YOU so "special"?
- 06:3206:32, 23 May 2016 diff hist +65 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!
- 06:3206:32, 23 May 2016 diff hist +29 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!
- 06:3106:31, 23 May 2016 diff hist +12 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!
- 06:3106:31, 23 May 2016 diff hist +56 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!
- 06:2906:29, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Dylan McDermott ...but because you guys are so stubborn and love ignoring MOSes, I still did discuss it there at the talk page.
- 06:2806:28, 23 May 2016 diff hist +53 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!
- 06:2706:27, 23 May 2016 diff hist +635 Talk:Dylan McDermott →FOLLOW THE MOS!: new section
- 06:2406:24, 23 May 2016 diff hist +37 Dylan McDermott He didn't change his name legally, or you should have written that as part of the article. No need to discuss the consensus that was ALREADY SET BY THE MOS. FOLLOW THE MOS.
- 06:1806:18, 23 May 2016 diff hist +680 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 06:1506:15, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 Louis C.K. It's unconstructive for YOU to render it back to the old way just because... OH, "changes that bring an article to MOS standards are.... BAD!"
- 06:1406:14, 23 May 2016 diff hist +10 Louis C.K. So freaking WHAT? What "harm" is there? And why is there even an MOS about it then?
- 06:1306:13, 23 May 2016 diff hist +1 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 06:1206:12, 23 May 2016 diff hist +68 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 06:1106:11, 23 May 2016 diff hist +90 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 06:1106:11, 23 May 2016 diff hist +549 User talk:174.23.111.247 No edit summary
- 06:0606:06, 23 May 2016 diff hist +37 Dylan McDermott Why does the wiki even have an MOS if stubborn editors are too self-serving to even abide by it? Why is it supposedly "better" to "un-MOS" it than to just leave it as MOS?
- 06:0106:01, 23 May 2016 diff hist −4 Sting (musician) Are wiki MOSes just good for nothing now? Why do you figure YOU don't have to abide by them?
- 06:0006:00, 23 May 2016 diff hist +5 Sinbad (comedian) No point in reverting something just because you don't like someone. You don't render all that person's edits invalid just because they warred with you later and you falsely erased their report of you because you didn't want to be reported.
- 05:5705:57, 23 May 2016 diff hist −5 Jackée Harry LOL, silly, you're reverting just to revert because you don't like the guy, while what you're reverting to is something that he added anyway. Why do that when you can revert to something from BEFORE that, which was already closer to the MOS?
- 05:5205:52, 23 May 2016 diff hist +10 Louis C.K. Stupid reversion against something that was not a harm but actually IS an improvement because it follows the MOS. Why even HAVE an MOS if stubborn editors are too selfish to abide by it?