User talk:71.62.227.79

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Cannabis in Virginia. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (71.62.227.79) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ich&action=edit&section=new my talk page], or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Ich (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm Super Cyclonic Storm Corona. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Harper's Bazaar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. '' That's not what the message means. It means that you have to add the information back in yourself instead of reverting everyone's edits.'' ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The edits by 36.68.96.104 are, pure and simply, vandalism. Nearly all of this user's other edits have been reverted elsewhere. The edits contain blatant and unsourced inaccuracies, reinstate previous edits with bad grammar, and remove references, all of which are against policy. The problem is that they took a big dump all over the article, so restoring to the most recent working revision seems like the easiest starting point. Then I can add the other users' edits back in. 71.62.227.79 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nikkita Oliver, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 14:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Danish Girl
Hello :)

Thank you for reverting that transphobic vandalism that IP address made. However, I'd just like to clear up some misconceptions you have about what being trans is actually like: You said "their chosen gender identity". But - as a trans woman - I'd like to tell you that being trans isn't a choice. Trans women have always been female, trans men have always been male and non-binary people have always been non-binary. We're just a different gender to the one we were assigned at birth (i.e. the doctor said I was a boy when I was born - even though I was actually a girl). It's equally transphobic to misgender us when talking about before we came out as it is to talk about afterwards. I'd also appreciate if you edited the message you left on that IP's talk page so it didn't contain your misunderstandings. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make it clear that the user's behavior was particularly egregious, not that the other is okay. I've simply removed that bit from the warning I left. I was considering if I should ask you for a better elaboration, but it's not like that editor is going to get the point anyway. 71.62.227.79 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you weren't saying the other was okay. And yeah I get your pessimism about that editor. If it helps for the future, I think describing what they did as 'deliberately misgendering' would have been a good elaboration that highlighted the seriousness of their behaviour. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also agreed that "chosen" was a poor choice of words there, in any context. Sorry about that! 71.62.227.79 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for apologising :) 92.10.13.209 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)