Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I noticed you left a talk page message notifying a vandal about how you had reported them. Now I'll say up front that this is just how I feel about it, but I don't think it's a good idea.

Firstly, it's not something you're required to do, unlike the administrators' noticeboard. Second, it could serve to agitate an angry vandal and open you up to abuse. And finally, I feel it goes against WP:DENY by giving the vandal extra attention. I also just noticed you're replying to their questions about why they were blocked. Again, I feel DENY applies here, and I very much think they are intending to waste your time, considering the bad faith of their edits. If they want to appeal, then they should follow the instructions themselves and an administrator will look at it.

Other than that, I'm glad to see another editor working against vandalism! TheNerdzilla (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, thanks for reaching out about it. I'll stop - I think they've learned their lesson. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate getting template messages that make false accusations against me. If you want to say something to me, write your own words, and don't make false accusations. 31.222.81.248 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any false accusations against you - for this edit I do not believe that a sentence having the wrong tense is sufficient reason to delete it entirely as opposed to altering it to the past tense instead, unless you deleted it for another reason. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with the reason I left. You may not falsely claim that I did not leave a reason. Don't post on my talk page again. 31.222.81.248 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim that you did not leave a reason, I thought that it wasn't sufficient enough. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't even understand the templates you are leaving, you should not be using them. What exactly made you think that leaving a dishonest template was a better thing to do than writing a message in your own words? 31.222.81.248 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template in question says "without adequately explaining why," not that you didn't have an explanation at all. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the implications of the template you are leaving. But ironically enough you don't feel that you need to give any reason at all for trashing my edits. Templating and warning seems to be basically all you do. It might make you feel important; it does not do very much at all to build an encyclopaedia. 31.222.81.248 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user 31.222.81.248 is a sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BKFIP and hence not acting in good faith. I have reported them to WP:ANI accordingly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that! Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate - why you reverted the edit The AP (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this for better context The AP (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean by User:2409:40F2:3F:62A6:89EF:BE19:B68E:75E9, it was because the capitalization of "Muslims" was incorrect. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't muslims be capitalized and written as Muslims per MOS:GOD The AP (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should - that's why I reverted the edit so "muslim" would be changed back to "Muslims" - the edit I did should be on the right side of the screen. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're right I don't but why my screen showed you reverting the edit to "muslims" - As of now I cleared the cookies - and now it seems right The AP (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it works correctly now! Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heythereimaguy,

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

If I see correctly, you had restored a birth date removed "for privacy" reasons in the article about Nancy Torresen without providing a citation. Are you sure that the information has been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public as required by WP:BLPPRIVACY, and would you mind citing the source you used when restoring the material?

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ToBeFree, I restored the birth date as part of a revert of a wider edit that removed other, publicly-available, information. I found a source merely stating that she was born in 1959 with no specific birth date. I'll add that in, thanks for informing me about BLP policy. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Wikipedia is supposed to be free of biases, paid edits, or other conflicts. Please refrain from reverting attempts to make an article more objective, as you did at Wikipedia:Unnecessaryhealthcare. The edit was proper and objective and not controversial, so no need to immediately revert it.

Also, please refrain from exaggerations on talk pages, such as the claim that my edit at Unnecessary Healthcare was unconstructive.

In the event you have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia would require you disclose it and limit editing.

Thanks!

205.132.40.198 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add your edit back in, but as I said in my edit summary, it's best to discuss this on the article's talk page first, since to others it may be a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violation.

Happy editing! Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 208.76.191.118 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) LEAVE ME ALONE[reply]