User talk:Tutelary/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tutelary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Timeline of the war in Donbass

For the sake of neutrality and honesty reports by Ukrainian and Western media should not be accepted as true by default. Incidents like the famous "bombed Russian convoy","ships attacked by helicopters", "rocket barrages fired from Russian territory" and many other stories who were reported worldwide without a shred of evidence. On the other hand large and easy to confirm events like the massive encirclement of the city of Mariupol and its 3 divisions or the conquest of the Luhansk airport are completely unreported by non-Russian media. If there are no serious evidence, even a youtube video from the ground, reports from Ukraine media can be considered false regardless of who reposted them. My main source of information is the website militarymaps.info which is maintained and moderated by the highly reputable site yandex.ru and updated it's maps every hour and only after confirmation. Other than that as a Russian speaker i can always enter youtube and quickly verify by myself whether a piece of news is true or not. For example the recent photos allegedly showing the burial of Russian soldiers in Pskov were completely unrelated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlaDlrE6nZc they were from a re-burial ceremony for WW2 dead. Next time before you delete an edit make sure that your own sources of information are backed by serious evidence. Unlike the US state department wikipedia must not allow itself to spread lies 109.64.12.164 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IP contributor, I usually don't like getting involved in highly conflicted and heated pages such as that--though I do do some semi-controversial page edits which are quickly reverted, it's usually of topics that interest or intrigue me. I looked over the page history where you changed 'Russian' to 'separatist' and reverted because separatist doesn't really tell me which side the person was on, and can be seen as a 'biased' word. That was the entirety that I was involved, and I have not been involved on the article's talk page or in the article's content either. If you're concerned about the neutrality of certain things, maybe you'd want to leave a note on the talk page giving your concerns. Tutelary (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary: The conflict is officially between the government of Ukraine and certain people in the two Eastern provinces of Ukraine who fight to secede -separate- from the central government in one way or another. The most accurate and neutral way to call these forces is separatists. Sometimes they are called pro-Russian rebels although they formed and officially independent Federal State of Novorossiya. Despite mountains of accusations that Russia has directly sent soldiers and military equipment to aid the rebels/secessionists/separatists Russia has not officially declared war on Ukraine nor Ukraine on Russia. Therefore saying that "Russian" and not "rebel/separatist" forces are active in the conflict would suggest that they are fighting with the official public consent of the Russian government- which is not true. A similar example is saying that people from western countries like USA and UK who fight for ISIL are an official military force of their respective countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.12.164 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, it looks like it was changed back to 'separatists'. Because I don't want to edit war, I'm not gonna revert it back. Again, I don't want to get involved in this topic matter. The only reason I reverted is because I was patrolling on Huggle and looked like a biased edit. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, my point is that ironically you did not realize that you have been biased yourself and made changes based on unverified information presented as fact by most of the world's media outlets. Just because a large majority think that something is true does not make it so. We here at wikipedia should report actual facts or at least the claims of both sides and not just the majority opinion. As the famous song says: "you better check yourself before you break (it) yourself".109.64.12.164 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 109.64.12.164 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nate Colbert - I am Nate's agent and the link I posted was for his new Fan Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogich24 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rogich24:, take a gander at WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Over the top

I don't take too much umbrage at the removal; it was over the top but at the same time, quite truthful. There's a smear campaign going on at that talk page that echoes what happened to the subject herself. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, in light of recent revelations, I take that back. Do not revert or alter anything I have to say again in this project; if there is something you have a problem with then bring it to ANI. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing

FYI, they went after you as well in that piece I spoke of on GamerGate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipediocracy_doxxing You should probably take a look at that. If you catch any RL flak for the doxxing, lemme know and I'll see what I can do to help. Stay safe. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor Strange

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor Strange. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your user page

Tutelary, I have removed some commentary from your user page--the section about your block. It falls foul of WP:POLEMIC, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." You may collect such material and interpretations in a subpage if you are preparing a case in some forum or other, but you can't put it on your user page. And I considered this to be an attack, since you claim that Dreadstar was involved when (I clicked through the diffs) it was pretty clear that they were enforcing the BLP by redacting inappropriate material. Dreadstar can't comment on those allegations since it's your user page, and since you made it clear, in your hidden comment, that you would pursue Dreadstar if they removed it. In other words, it's just not fair. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: would it be acceptable if I removed all mention of Dreadstar including the 'involved' and 'unjust' block bit? Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, that's a tough one. If you take out what I see as polemic there isn't much left but "I was blocked and then the same admin unblocked me". If you take out the name and replace it with, I don't know, "Darth Vader" the accusation still stands and your block log makes it clear immediately who's being discussed. I don't really wish to argue the rights and wrongs of this block with you--or make you relive painful memories since being blocked is no fun--but what I see as problematic is a. the charge that Darth Vader was involved and b. the charge that they abused rollback. If I follow you correctly, you're saying that the fact that they rolled back those edits makes them involved, but that is not correct--INVOLVED requires more than that, and an admin is allowed to roll back edits (or hit "undo", whatever) if, for instance, they spot a BLP violation or some such thing--in this case I guess the point is that it was a FORUM violation on a BLP-related matter--and then take action pursuant to that edit. I suppose all that can be phrased very neutrally, but I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Plus, I think that keeping that content might turn off some editors/admins, though undoubtedly it might generate you some support as well. But really, I think it would be wise, for various reasons (POLEMIC, but also a collaborative spirit), to not reinstate the material. For the record, I don't think I have had much to do with "Darth Vader" here, though I've made an edit or two (I think) on the Quinn article and/or the talk page. But I offer you this advice in all honesty, in hopes of future productivity and collaboration. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I have been working a little bit on the article that dare not speak its name, and found, in the history, something that puzzles me. First of all, I think this edit is far from an improvement--I mean, citing wiktionary in such an important article?--but secondly, I can't help but wonder what on earth you mean with that edit summary. Lightbreather shouldn't be editing that article why? because she's of the female persuasion? because she is a feminist, or not a feminist, or a feminist of the wrong kind? what could you have meant that doesn't smack of bad faith? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Check out the talk page, Drmies rather than an edit summary which I cannot edit. Tutelary (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I did, and I'm trying to wrap my head around what you said there. First, you said Lightbreather has a "WP:COI due to their established viewpoint of what had happened with them", which makes no sense to me, if only because the antecedent of "them" is unclear--the only possibility I see is it refers to "Lightbreather's edits", which makes no sense. Or, all of a sudden you're using singular they, and "them" refers to Lightbreather: so she would have a conflict of interest because she had argued against the use of the word "cunt" on Wikipedia, and "something" happened to her. Which also makes no sense. Then, when Gobonobo called you on it, you're attempting some sort of shift: "you of all people" is "against" her supposed COI (a ridiculous invention), not against her. That's rich.

Oh, edit summaries can be edited; it's best to do it beforehand. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to express what I felt at the time; You pretty much got it right, though. so she would have a conflict of interest because she had argued against the use of the word "cunt" on Wikipedia, and "something" happened to her. The something having had the word thrown at her. Though really I shouldn't have used the terms COI to describe it, that's reserved more for paid editing, what I should have said that the fact that Lightbreather would edit the 'Cunt' page to express the term's powerful meaning and even editing the lead to make sure that that was stated left something to be desired. This is due to her earlier affair with the word. I suppose that a good analogy for what I felt at the time is if I edited the 'doxing' page to include that it especially harms the person's ability to be interactive with other people and that it is oh so nasty. Well, you can see that I personally got doxed so that would be a bit difficult and leave something in my editing to be desired. So that's what I saw at that point. I can see how it was problematic, the edit summary was is a bit terse and succinct, leaving a false impression. Though that's also a bit of a flawed analogy considering that Lightbreather did have a source for it, so consider my example where I had a source for it as well. Tutelary (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:I looked at that and . . . I am not sure why you would say it was about a BLP violation. Dreadstar did not say it was about that when reverting or when reverting Tutelary and the comment did not seem to be a BLP violation. Saying Quinn was subjected to an unprecedented online misogynistic harassment campaign that is arguably more noteworthy than anything else about her is not really a BLP violation. That is an opinion about due weight. It is clear the editor who made the statement was sympathetic to Quinn and there were no other living people named in the statement. Any claim of BLP would be contentious in that situation even if it had been made. We had a huge kerfufflypse if you remember when an admin shouted BLP in a crowded editing environment while using the tools and did not explain it until days later with severe consequences resulting. An admin who does not even implicitly invoke BLP when reverting an action on a completely non-obvious case until after blocking the party on the other side of the edit-war is clearly not on the right side of WP:INVOLVED. Not that the WP:POLEMIC point about Tutelary's user page is not valid, but Tutelary's description of events is not wrong either way.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cookies!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks Lixxx235, it's really been a stressful week given I've been doxed, harassed, my name dragged through the mud, and everything else. Though cookies on a monitor may be just a silly thing to smile over, you can take solace that I did. Tutelary (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Test ?

It was not a test, I am accustomed to wikis. "Digest" is better than "Plot" for a book. --24.122.234.224 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, we use 'plot'. 'Digest' is sure to confuse some people. The reason why I marked it as 'test' is because I thought it was referring to stomach functions, so it didn't seem right for the article at the time. Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tutelary,

Thanks for undoing those unfortunate edits made to my talk page and user page. For what it's worth, I have no animosity towards the editor who made them. I understand their frustration, so hopefully it was just a one time blowing off of steam and will not be repeated. Despite how they may feel, I am personally not out to get them or any other Wikipedian. I merely began a discussion on a file whose copyright status I believed to be inappropriate. Regarding their "I'm gonna go through every single post you ever made until I find a copyright error.", they are free to do so. I am just as accountable for my edits as they are for theirs. Like everyone else, I make mistakes, but such mistakes, whatever they may be, are always made in good faith. I have no problem with anyone pointing them out and correcting them, as long as they too are acting in good faith. I've thought about posting something like the above on this editor's user talk page, but you have already warned them twice and I don't want to seem to be piling on. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eagles (band)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eagles (band). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

First of all, I said that it was my last revert. Second of all, you're edit warring as well, so you have no right to warn me. I only reverted twice in the 24 hour window, while you reverted 3 times. So there's no way I'll get blocked without you being blocked as well. JDDJS (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring to include BLP violations on a person's page when it's been made clear that consensus is in the other way. Tutelary (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Two editors is not a consensus. And the editor only said that it needs better sources. I am not violating BLP. It does not say to never include things like that. Just to consider not including them. JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if we continued this at the talk rather than here. Tutelary (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Skyler_Page, I know you'll want to weigh in on it. Hopefully more editors will join in so we can have a real consensus on the matter. JDDJS (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated speedy tag

Hello Tutelary, this is about the CSD tag you reinserted here after it was initially removed by an unregistered editor. Before reinserting a speedy tag, please ensure that you personally would stand behind the speedy deletion request. In this case, the article was previously deleted as a CSD-A7, and is not eligible for speedy deletion; the original removal of the tag by an unregistered user was quite correct in this particular case. I've declined the speedy, but if you still feel that the article should be deleted for other policy-based reasons, please start an AfD. Risker (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Note, I've just discussed this further with another editor, who has identified the key AfD relating to this; the article had a different title at the AfD so that would not have shown up using a template to create the CSD tag. In short, the policy-based reason was identified, and the article is now deleted and semi-salted. Risker (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Grewia (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn versus Skyler Page

For Zoe Quinn, you argued for inclusion of allegations that she cheated on her boyfriend (reliable sources were reporting on that allegation in the boyfriend's blog). For Skyler Page, you argued against inclusion of allegations that he sexually assaulted a co-worker (reliable sources were reporting on that allegation from the co-workers Twitter feed and elsewhere). These seem to be kinda similar situations, yet you arrive at different results. Can you explain why Quinn's allegations should be included but Page's should not? Kaletony (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tutelary but from a quick glance I can see a material difference. The fact that the allegations against quinn were of that nature was the spark that many claimed caused GamerGate they also didn't imply any criminal activity. With Skyler the implication is of a criminal act and it would make little difference to the content of the article whether it was that criminal act or any other or even if it was just a violation of work policy. SPACKlick (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there

Just wanted to pop by and say hang in there. I've no idea what it's like to go through the week (or two) you've been having but I hope it gets better soon. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, it's a hearty relief to a sea of vitriol still standing tall at WP:ANI. It really is awful. I've forced myself to scramble away from Wikipedia for some time due to it affecting my blood pressure and my heart rate. The day or so I've been off of it have been beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Kaletony has been identified as a sockpuppet and has been indefinitely banned

The SPI. The ban. Memills (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me in the loop, Memills. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't let the turkeys get you down!

Hi. Cheer up! Don't let them get you down!

(You asked HJ Mitchell "What the heck did that editor do?" and the response was (sadly, humorously) non-responsive. What was the topic? Thanks.)

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor's first edit was to Jimbo's talk page and was subsequently hard blocked (no email, talk, a violation of WP:HARDBLOCK) by HJ Mitchell. I asked the admin about it and as you can see the response, he's not responded to the hardblock violation. Though it really is low on my list of priorities, it's disheartening to see. Tutelary (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ganguli page

He's not notable. How can I nominate him for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.100.106 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ursinus College page

I once again changed the Ursinus College page to reflect Terry Winegar as President. Your recent change to Ursinus College page is incorrect as President Bobby Fong has died already. I have cited my source. You can revisit that wikipedia page to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.246.57 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IP editor, the source is all that was needed. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia updated. Tutelary (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Go Eun-bi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Go Eun-bi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Horses look like vader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.213.144 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed] Tutelary (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, I don't know if you read my comments at ANI, but either way I apologise for them. I now appreciate they were unfair, considering the limited amount of information I had looked at. And in fact, having looked more I've come to appreciate my older comments could easily be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Events at the 2014 Asian Games

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Events at the 2014 Asian Games. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I started an Ani thread regarding Neotarf and I also mention their recent disrespect to your gender. You do not need to comment but because I mentioned you I should at least alert you [[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

answer

I actually received emails from more the just one user. As these were sent to me privately I will not reveal the contents of those because I think it would be the most cowardly way of evening a score and it's just not in my character to be that underhanded. That being said I think a lot can be manufactured on the internet, I have no idea what to believe. This is one of those times that I wear my own rose colored glasses and not want to believe people are that dishonest. The only reason I backed out was with what I was provided and the total lack of care the rest of the community has arb's included. Sadly this means that either they believe the allegations about you but can't prove it so they have to sit on their hands or they frankly just don't care period. Those who know my opinion on arbcom likely know which way I lean. I'm sorry Tutelary, I wish I could help but I don't know where to even begin. I am surprised and somewhat disheartened to see how seriously people take this wikipedia business, separate websites and such. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response with it, I do appreciate it and I also appreciate your efforts. Tutelary (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from National Cartoonists Society  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I had in fact explained my action with a not very clear ">Division Awards" message. It meant I had moved this section to National Cartoonists Society Division Awards where it is supposed to be. Encolpe (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So I undid the undoing Encolpe (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like you were just blanking the content and not explaining why, so I reverted. I accidentally also reverted just now (but rollbacked the warnings and my own edit) so yeah, sorry 'bout that. Tutelary (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst

Users are continually removing Sgt. Pepper from this list on the grounds that the Beatles are beyond criticism. You yourself were involved in restoring this material after a sweeping deletion. Can anything be done to stop this happening? Thanks.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Tutelary. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A page you started (Fire challenge) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fire challenge, Tutelary!

Wikipedia editor MelanieN just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article - well written and well referenced - about a disturbing subject. Is there a category for "Kids these days!!!" ?

To reply, leave a comment on MelanieN's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Please comment on Template talk:Citation style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria Football Federation

I change I made of the name of the President of the Nigeria Football Federation is correct. I just don't know how to cite source but the information is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.120.199 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

The ANI discussion has been closed, cheer up dust yourself off and move on. ='^-^'=

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology

The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for adding to the article's Talk page. It gets very heated in there with the regulars, so "outsider" voices, who tend to have more perspective and distance, are always a welcome addition, for me. Thanks again for contributing. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for your concern. Maybe you can help me? Walter O'Brian. is a true Phony.. I know him personally but i do not want to make a big deal of it I would just like More Truth Brought to the Wikipedia page. Most of his claims are completely un varied. and I know many facts about Walter that Say Most of what he has posted is Untrue

So How would one go about bringing this to light?

Your help would be much appreciated  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Syros (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it

I'm not even sure how it got closed and didn't create an edit conflict when I did my post, as I'm pretty sure it hadn't been when I started typing. That's what I get for taking too long. Don't worry about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Helpful

	Reasoning and calm presence in talk pages
	as a newer editor, I am just trying to figure out how to navigate here. Purplerhinoceros (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sam Brownback

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sam Brownback. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Seth Fleming

The content is too short to make any solid judgements about it; it's not hurting anything at the present time, as far as I can see. Such an extremely vague and unhelpful criterion should never have been enacted, and now that we're stuck with it, it should not be used in anything but the most egregious cases, e.g. ongoing onwiki games. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My page

Hello I am trying to update my OWN wiki page since the information is out of date. I was contacted by you because you said my editing was not a "neutral" point of view. I am simply putting in my newest accomplishments which are all valid and true. I notice that someone has updated my marriage information and included that I have a child..I didn't do this..and yet I can't change some of the information that is no longer correct?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.70.25 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved your comment to a perspective section. If the information that the page is wrong, then it should indeed be removed. But what you attempted to do was not remove anything, but to add your own personal spin on the article. I invite you to read WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI. It is very relevant. You have a conflict of interest with the article because you are the subject. You can make requests on the talk page that something be changed, but you shouldn't be editing the article yourself. Tutelary (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading the "Plain and simple" page you supplied in this thread and re reading my wiki page, I think that it is fair to say that it now reads only facts and does not strive to "sell" anything about me but only to inform and update. The article that was published on this page was out of date, and written in 2002. I have not put my "own spin" on this by removing some of the information. I have removed incorrect and no longer relevant information(upcoming albums and studio time with producers from the early 2000's is no longer relevant - especially when written as if it is happening now) I would hope that your writers/editors/contributors would actually want wiki pages to be up to date, if this is where people are to come to find out information about a particular subject. You can read the updated information that is on this particular page and if you still find it to be an example of anything other than factual information, please explain how one is to go about getting accurate and up to date information entered into your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.70.25 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Ridge

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Ridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Case.23Review_of_policy_that_led_to_the_blocking_of_Carriearchdale_in_order_to_avoid_repeat_2

Case.23Review_of_policy_that_led_to_the_blocking_of_Carriearchdale_in_order_to_avoid_repeat_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aes Was wondering why you removed the message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.41.67 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate-related ANI

Not sure how to message you but u just removed my edits from Grant Showbiz's page that were 1} factually accurate as he did pose nude on a record at this time and 2} helpfully evocative of his attitude at this point in his career - in fact they still are. You seem very sure of yourself but I think I know the man............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.140 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit, you just about gave me a heart attack. My account has also been dormant for an extended period and it's entirely possible that I've told people whose names I don't remember to fuck off the last time I was around. I was halfway through a comment saying 'Yes, but...' and then I went 'Waaaaait. September!' Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that it appeared I was calling you a sock

I really did not think that having two accounts was sufficient to consider being a sock. I thought it also required cross advocacy, which you were not doing.

I also did not want to attack any person, except to attack untruths directly. But you were awesome in the process, and I really appreciated your involvement. I set up the two Danielle accounts next to each other because I though you might be the same person, and I wanted to be inviting to the conversation. I got forced to admit I thought you were the same, and did not want to seem defensive. But I can tell you were upset, and that is my fault, and I will most certainly "knock it off".

Thanks for you involvement. I was trying to help the project, and maybe in a small way I did.

Thanks

BOb GoodwinBob the goodwin (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it could've happened to anyone. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet

Thanks for your comments on ANI.

Per WP:VALIDALT:

• Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY:

• Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts.
• Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny.

Check the logs. I notified ArbCom long ago, and was CheckUser'd. I've also been "outed" and subject to attack pages by a group of cyber attackers, so I've been through Oversight too.

Here's the bottom line: I'm not a sockpuppet. Any claims that I am need to be backed up with diffs. Otherwise, they're just harassment. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FOR, understood. I'll probably add this background informatino to one of my posts at this point. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Grant Showbi

Not sure how to message you but u just removed my edits from Grant Showbiz's page that were 1} factually accurate as he did pose nude on a record at this time and 2} helpfully evocative of his attitude at this point in his career - in fact they still are. You seem very sure of yourself but I think I know the man............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.140 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We need sources, especially because it's a BLP of him posing for anything naked. We can't rely on someone's own testimony when it regards BLPs and sensitive issues. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tutelary. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Garbage (album)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Garbage (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot image on Hatred

Undue weight because this is one single reviewer, and having an image contributes undue weight towards that single reviewer. Images should be reserved for a multitude of sources.
— your edit summary

Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.
— WP:PERTINENCE

Can you please point me to where images must reflect a multitude of sources? When a respected critic makes an aesthetic comparison, it is pertinent to illustrate that aesthetic, especially when the primary source is fair use-only and we have free use images available for illustration. This is the standard for all sorts of Reception sections. Additionally, the image description also clearly explained whose opinion it was and made no generalization of all critics. Please revert your edit czar ♔ 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Due weight policy. Having an image when only one source have contributed something visual is undue weight. There's not any one policy or guideline that says it, but DUE is the main thing here. Having an image makes reader's eye go to that image, and as a result, that viewpoint is garnered more due weight. By the standard that one source = one image, we'd have about 8 on the page, one about political correctness, one from GTA, one about vivid color, and one about the 1st amendment, and so on. I just don't believe an image is necessary. Polygon's comments on matter is fine, but they shouldn't be given an entire image because they are only one source. If you wish, we could discuss it on the talk and see if another editor could be sympathetic to your or my thoughts on it. Nonetheless, you're doing good work on the article in expansion and the like. I just don't agree with this one thing. Though as a counterpoint, if maybe another two sources said that it reminded them of Slipknot, then yes, I'd feel an image is appropriate, but I don't feel like with just one it is. Tutelary (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with how due weight works. If your stance was that it made the section non-neutral or that it overemphasized an unpopular/fringe belief, then I could see an argument for due weight. Some illustrations are only going to illustrate a single sentence from a large article (this includes several of my FAs), and that's fine. It doesn't make sense to illustrate GTA or political correctness in this article in the same way. I really don't think this instance is a big deal and I hope you'd agree that it's a logical and reasonable illustration czar ♔ 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is not a "blog"

You may want to re-check the definitions of words. An editorial by the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is not a "blog", is a reliable source for its opinions and does not fall under any BLP exemption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

North, read BLP. Opinions have absolutely no belonging in a BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. Tutelary (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, read RS. An unsigned editorial by a newspaper is not a self-published source, and there is no general prohibition against using editorials in BLPs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page.

Please stay off my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but this also prevents me from attempting any type of background compromise with you regarding issues with you. I may go straight to WP:AN or WP:ANI or even ArbCom if I have a problem with you, because of your request. As a result of this request, I'll stay off your talk page but do be aware of it being a double edged sword. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Persib Bandung

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Persib Bandung. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Posting this as an excuse to post on your talk page to ask you to come on IRC sometimes and help out on #wikipedia-en-help. ;) Cheers!

Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lixxx, I really need to take a break. This is all starting to get stressful again. Tutelary (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Clooney

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Tutelary. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

P.S.- I had to send it twice since the Wikipedia system had an old inactive e-mail address on my account. The 2nd e-mail is from the current correct account. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryūlóng needs to go to ANI

It is clear that the articles Ryulong are posting are just not acceptable in any form and he is violating every policy to post them. Look at this [2]. He needs to go to ANI and be blocked. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

He actually was kind of boomeranged in his proposal to topic ban all of those users, 70% of which were erroneously considered SPAs. Why Future closed it is beyond me. I'd hold off on actually asking him though. He'll look at your contributions and probably consider you to be somebody editing 'while logged out' (like I see Ryulong did on WP:BLPN) and may not take too kindly to it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained? Tutelary (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I may consider that because no IP editor on their first edits zeroes in on BLPN like he did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well particularly it does look kind of suspicious. But with a contentious issue this wide reported, it's surely plausible. Especially if they get linked to your contributions off site. Tutelary (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well these people should know that jumping down the throats of the participants here who in good faith are just trying to get an outside opinion on things doesn't help their cause. Also are my contributions linked directly or through Archive Today?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. I removed the link I originally posted because it was from 2012 and about something unrelated. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that thread still alive? And how did you pull that Rangerboard thread up though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IP editor on their first edits? Ryulong, if you weren't so obsessed into putting libel against users on Wikipedia, you would have seen that I am on a cell phone and edited that same page that you were begging for support on. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I cannot see your previous edits because it is a brand new IP address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I apologize but I've reverted this IP's personal attack on me. He is free to say what he wants without making it personal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to. IP, just be civil. I know in your eyes they've done such corruptible acts, but civility applies no matter how much you dislike a person. Tutelary (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Incivil? By pointing out that he is clearly lying? It is really easy to see what my IPs were on that page and there is no possible way Ryulong couldn't know. He is clearly stalking, harassing, and bullying. [3] I enlisted help by coming here to you, Tutelary. Yahoo says that is how you deal with toxic people like Ryulong. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[4] The guy can't take a hint. That clearly violates the rules and he just keeps it up. Can you start a ban discussion because a block is just not enough. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was reverting the edits of a vandal. As an IP address you have no rules protecting the user talk page. Register an account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No means no. You had no right and you know that. You are a harasser. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't state such things on wiki. 'Lying' or 'deceitful' or 'full of shit'. It's ambiguous, and to my complaint I've made such that some insults that are more longer and euphemized aren't removed but blatant ones are. I can't do much to help you if you're going to call him insults. Also, what he's doing on your IP's talk page is unfortunate but mandated by our policies. WP:3RRNO. He can revert infinitely banned users and sockpuppets, of which that user appeared to be one. You -can- however, blank it but can't restore any edits of sockpuppets or banned users. (but that's been a bit contentious because what if the user did a good edit?) In this case, restoring pictures of fruit is...obscure and your IP editor's talk page isn't your own. Tutelary (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please inform him of this on his talk page because he's already been reverting me replacing his talk page with the shared IP template.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm new to Wikipedia and can't figure out where to go or what to do to get Ryulong banned from participating in the Gamergate controversy. Can you explain to me how to go about doing so? Thanks. I've looked around but I don't see a course of action. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess there really isn't any doc that explains it. From my experience, it has to be community consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI, whichever one works. Only reason Titanium got his outside of that process is due to the fact that it was under BLP discretionary sanctions, which administrators have a big sort of leeway with and can use that to topic ban or even block editors. I'd gather up a bunch of diffs of any evidence you have before you start one, and maybe email it to me; I've known from experience that what appears to be bias to editors involved with it, actually won't carry any weight. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I already have those collected. How do I send them to you? Should I just post the links here? Edit: I don't have article diffs, I have talk page infractions of him being abusive, engaging in bad faith, etc. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer you email me them, as I'd like to speak freely and bluntly regarding it. Tutelary (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see an email address anywhere, so I went ahead and posted it all under Ryulong's request, and asked the admins to give them a lengthy ban. Thanks for offering to help, anyway. Sorry for wasting your time. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you explain to me how to email someone from Wikipedia for future reference? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed:, For users that enable it, it's on the left hand side, titled under 'tool's and remarked as 'Email this user'. Sorry for getting back to you this late. I've been disillusioned in a bunch of aspects on Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lip sync

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lip sync. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I ask at the tea-house about this kind of behavior?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

May I ask how you found this dispute [5]? This appears way out of your area of interest, and the only way you could've all of sudden become interested in it is if you've started following my edits for some reason. Volunteer Marek  20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, description of the changes is sufficient: WP:BRD. Your edit was the bold one. Article was stable before your edit on October 17th. You can not push a new version if is very controversial, and reverted by another user, see BRD. Simply. Franek K. (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes and you shouldn't be creating bad faith theories that somehow I'm following your edits. Additionally, appealing to WP:TEAHOUSE is kind of useless because I really don't comment there spare once in a blue moon, and really only check it out once it's been linked in Wikipedia-en-help. Not to mention that they don't have any authority for me or my edits. But if you're meaning getting a second opinion, I'd love for them to tell you all about WP:BRD and how you made a bold edit and you yourself should get consensus for it. Which is true, you made the bold edit to the otherwise quiet template on October 17th, got reverted, continued reverting and reverted it again today. You're in the wrong regarding the 'edit warring' going on. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Out of the hundreds of recent changes you somehow pick one of mine, and jump into an edit war. And you revert per... per nothing really. It's not like you've been involved in this topic, not like you've discussed anything, not like you've shown interest. Your edit summary basically says "I'm reverting you because you reverted someone". That is a text book definition of edit warring.

And there's not a single policy on Wikipedia which privileges the status quo. Who cares if the page was stable before? And in fact, it wasn't. Franek K has been been edit warring on that and related pages for a few years now. Always going up right to the 3RR limit then backing down, coming back a few days later to continue. But like I said, "page was stable" is NOT a reason to revert somebody. Especially on an article/page you haven't edited before. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Nobody continued to respond to any talk page stuff in the earlier version and the edit was thereby gained consensus, there for a month and a half without any trouble at all. I recommend you seek dispute resolution rather than continuing to edit war. You did a bold edit, again and got reverted. You don't get to renistate your preferred version. Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... I did talk. I'm on the talk page. Are you? No? Then why are you edit warring? And if sources support me, then yes, I do get to reinstate my preferred version.

And let's be honest here. All kinds of junk makes it into Wikipedia articles all the time. Often because some tendentious user with an agenda manages to get it in there. And very often it stays in there for months if not years. Just because something idiotic manages to go undetected for a month and a half absolutely does not mean it has "consensus". And the idea that "page was stable" is a valid reason for reverting is fundamentally against Wikipedia's very nature of an ever evolving and improving encyclopedia.

And like I said. You didn't comment. You didn't discuss. You just jumped and started edit warring because... apparently just because I'm the one who made the edit. Not nice. Not tea-house nice at all. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer Marek, look at the facts: for a long time there was a version of the article (commonly called a "stable version"). This is not my version, this version was before my coming, see history of changes. One day you come and change template: very controversial change. Other users - in this case, I'm - reverted this very controversial change according to the Wikipedia:BRD and you begin edit-war. So, this is unacceptable. Franek K. (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not listed on the Teahouse's host list nor do I intend to represent myself officially with the Teahouse in any sort of capacity. The only thing I mentioned is that I saw the post at WP:TEAHOUSE and decided to act. It's an open forum, mainly for helping newbies to Wikipedia, anybody can comment, lurk, act on posts made there, or anything of the sort. The insisting that this is somehow related to the Teahouse is absolutely out of the question. Then why are you edit warring? And if sources support me, then yes, I do get to reinstate my preferred version. Kind of funny that phrasing. "Why are you edit warring?" while saying that you can edit war if the sources are in your favor. No, you don't get to edit war in any type of situation (barring any WP:3RRNO scenarios). I don't care how many sources are in your favor, you don't get to edit war it back in and that bright red line is at 3 reverts. Though you can be blocked for simply edit warring, which I think any reasonable person would see on the page that that is occurring. All in all, please stop fretting because I decided to revert your one bold edit which you sought to reinstate continuously. Tutelary (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I have been discussing the issue on talk. You haven't. I have provided sources. You haven't. There's a difference between someone who reinstates a version which is supported by sources after discussion, and someone who just out of nowhere jumps in to edit war for no reason except that they apparently dislike one of the participants in a dispute. Or even just because they imagine themselves to be some kind of "BRD Police", so they go around reverting people nilly-willy on articles they have no interest in or knowledge of. Volunteer Marek  21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You really need to stop with this behavior of following my edits around and jumping in to revert me whenever I'm in a dispute, on articles you have not edited ever before [6]. Volunteer Marek  21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could elaborate on why you saw fit to exchange Vladimir Putin's headshot with some image of him getting nice and cuddly with a Dolphin? Tutelary (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. As soon as you explain why you're following around my edits and jumping in to revert me whenever you get the chance. Grudge or something? Not nice. Volunteer Marek  05:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 172.56.6.43 (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

... Which was immediately closed as "no one cares." Please ignore this IP troll. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:France

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:France. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

I note that you didn't similarly warn Diego, who is also over 3RR. Your bias in the matter is apparent. I don't need warnings from you and I formally request that you not post on my talk page again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't really file a report for edit warring if the person hasn't been warned. Consider that your warning for that, then. That's all well and good, but since you're essentially booting me off from your talk, any issues I have with you will then be posted to a noticeboard rather than trying to work something out; that's the nature of your request, and kind of iffy because I just posted a notice but whatever. Tutelary (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Care Bears

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Care Bears. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

NPA on GG

Regarding this edit, that's incivility, not a personal attack. I've learned this the really really hard way after dealing with Corbett and GGTF stuff. Tarc is calling the edit bullshit, not the user, and uses a plural in the last sentence, making it a general statement. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

When a person calls another editor 'man children' and saying that the article will not be dictated by them is absolutely a personal attack. It's battle ground behavior, too. Tutelary (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe they are referring to GGers in general. It's incivil and BG though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well

This was strange.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mind the bot

Careful of reverting bot archiving (as you did in this edit) please. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:What I've Been Looking For

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:What I've Been Looking For. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Control (Garbage song)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Control (Garbage song). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE

You are confused about how AE works; ArbCom members don't take action at WP:AE, admins do. And did. Considering that in the short term, Tarc will not participate in the ANI thread anymore, and in the long term, he has filed a clarification request at WP:ARCA, there's no benefit to an open AE request, nor a noticeboard thread complaining about the closure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was under the misunderstanding that AE was only meant to be dealt with by the fact of the arbitrators. Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prostitution in South Korea

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prostitution in South Korea. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit War on Assassin's Creed Unity

Hi Tutelary,

Just FYI, you could be liable for sanction under WP:3RR over your repeated reverting on Assassin's Creed Unity. The IP hadn't violated Wikipedia:VANDAL, so warnings to that effect were somewhat misplaced. The IP did, however, violate 3RR and should be punished for doing so.

Not saying that you should be sanctioned (as I'm not an Admin, it's not my place to make that call)... just saying that you need to watch our for 3RR...

Have a great day!

--Booksworm ^Talk? 21:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. They were repeatedly inserting a factual error into the text. I have the assertion that my edits were qualifed under WP:SNEAKY. I do however appreciate your concern. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vietnam War

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vietnam War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)