But since you brought it up, you should know that I am literally a trans woman who edits anonymously due to anxiety over the possibility of transphobes harassing me for reverting them. I assure you, I do not support these assholes. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽05:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shatner actually did fly into space, technically. His Trek character has nothing to do with it. Granted, you can argue about whether flying into space truly makes you an astronaut... SarekOfVulcan (talk)03:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, any more than flying on a plane makes you a pilot.
edit: I did not read closely enough and thought you were the IP editor from that article. Apologies for the bluntness. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽03:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously meets the definition of Astronaut in the dictionary. He trained to go into space then flew into space. He is a astronaut. He was given his astronaut commercial wings from the FFA. He is also listed on the Astronaut wall at Houston space command. So if the FFA a branch of the federal government and Houston space command says he is an astronaut then he is. The star trek insult has no merit as Star trek was never mentioned in the dispute. Saying he is not an astronaut goes against the opinion of the federal government (FAA) and NASA space command. The idiotic comment about him being the equivalent of a passenger on the plane also has no merit. you don't spend a month in training give blood and skin samples to TWA when you board a plane. You also are not issued a space suit and oxygen bundle when you board a plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:A001:E9DE:345E:6FA5:9997:6F59 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Underground
Hi, I realized you have edited the information. I have added that I am not trying to goof off or anything. I am being serious about The Underground and it is real I am requesting that you change the edits back for the Wikipedia page to be more real and informational please and thank you. Alt is needed (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do, often. I waver on whether they're worth the extra couple of clicks for apparent one-off IP vandals, or whether outright WP:DENY is more effective. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they're always worth at least one additional action, either placing a warning or reporting the user. If they continue, having warned them before is almost always better than having no warning to point to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to be honest, soon after this thread I had a couple of instances of warnings actually working on users who I was sure were heading straight for a ban. I've since been handing out warnings a lot more often. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
Use common sense.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
You needlessly reverted my edit regarding the section's heading. It is essentially special prayers of those who belong to Shia faith. There is nothing non-neutral about it. It is simply an appropriate title.
And, "recognize" and "believe" can be used interchangeably when referring to a belief, since they both involve accepting it as true or valid.
And, "recognize" and "believe" can be used interchangeably when referring to a belief, since they both involve accepting it as true or valid. I don't think this is true. "Recognize", to me, sounds like Wikipedia itself saying this is true in addition to saying that Shia Muslims believe it is true. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽02:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. But if you content that is was not neutral, can you remove a biased sentence in Báb page third paragraph, The "When the smoke cleared, with around ten thousand watching, the Báb had disappeared, only to be returned and shot a second time. This widely documented phenomenon aroused even more interest in his message," contains language that is clearly intended to glorify the Báb and cast him in a positive light. The use of words like "disappeared" and "widely documented phenomenon" serve to create a sense of awe and mystery around the Báb's execution, which is not appropriate for a historical account. Furthermore, the phrase "aroused even more interest in his message" suggests that the purpose of the account is to promote the Báb's teachings, rather than to provide an objective retelling of what happened.
Instead more neutral wording, "There are conflicting reports about his execution but many agree that he survived the first firing squad, and was killed by the second," is a more accurate and objective description of what is known about the Báb's death. This wording avoids the use of subjective language and instead relies on facts and evidence to describe what happened.
My code of chivalry as a knight errant dictates I must protest this change. I have been raised to knighthood by Percival. I’m a general do goodie and maintainer of the balance. I follow the strict codes of chivalry. Cmgriffin001 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @3mi1y! I just wanted to let you know I have sent a response to your comments on Talk:WorldQuant where you kindly responded to my request a while ago. I have a couple of respectful objections to some of the judgement calls for made and if you could take a look when you have time that would be really appreciated. Thank you again for answering initially and I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Yuccata86 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yuccata86. I haven't been editing very actively in the last couple of months. You'd likely get more of a response by reopening the edit request and letting another editor take a look. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽18:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback on reverted vandalism
Hey there, I hope you're doing well. Just wanted to let you know that on the page Daniel Vasquez, you rolled back the vandalised version of the page to one that was also vandalised; in other words, you missed that the same editor had made 2 consecutive acts of vandalism. I've manually edited out the vandalism myself, so you don't need to do anything, but I thought I'd tell you about it so you can be more aware of stuff like this in the future. :) Take care HeyArtemis (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated Quadrapod for deletion on the premise that:
This word appears to only ever be used as a brand name.
I have investigated this and it appears to me that this word is generally and generically used by many vendors to describe equipment or robots with four legs, per:
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
.svg){kind=icon}