User talk:CompliantDrone/Archive 1

Publicity photo problem
The problem is that in this wicked and litigious world of ours, we can't take it for granted that the e-mail you've gotten is legit. We need to correspond directly with the copyright holder of that photo, not with a third party. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you put me on your watch list, but what is the best way to do this? - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

CompliantDrone, thanks for being willing to do this! It shouldn't be too tough. First, upload the image on Wikipedia. Tag it with, giving as much information as possible. Also add to the image description page. Then forward the e-mail granting permission, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, telling them what the image name is on Wikipedia. Someone in our Volunteer Response Team will confirm. (Of course, it would be even better to do all this on Commons, if you're comfortable doing that.) You can find out more at Requesting copyright permission. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. I've followed your instructions; now let's see if it is speedily deleted! - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you let me know the file, I can keep an eye on it for you. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is Looks like it passed muster. Now to figure out how to crop it for his bio! Thanks for all your help. - CompliantDrone (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge content
I didn't see anything that should be merged but will have a better look. Thanks for pointing that out.Jamesx12345 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Merged, along with picture - enough? Jamesx12345 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi Compliant. FYI: any AfD !vote that does not include a policy-based rationale will normally be ignored by the closing administrator. Attacking the motivations of the editor who AfD'ed the article is not a policy based rationale for keeping the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pedantry! - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, bro. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved comment by ZenJospeh left on my user page
Dear Drone, I'm the author of the Advertainment entry that you have raised concerns about.

I can't find any other way to alert you, chat seems to not be working, but would appreciate clarity so we can make necessary refinements.

If Wiki has no chat, pls contact me at zen@zen-marketing.com

Cheers,

Zen Joseph

Dogtooth home schooling
Wasn't there home schooling in the form of the ersatz vocabulary lesson? It seems from that that they were being taught at home, even if it was a mockery of education. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Incest, domestic abuse, animal cruelty and even brainwashing are also strong themes in the film, and are far more heavily emphasized than the scene you describe. None of them are listed in the See also section. It seems like a cheap shot at homeschool advocates, honestly. - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yobol
this was a wise move. Yobol is a good and experienced editor on health-related topics. If he/she is disagreeing with you on some content, you would do well to engage in a good-faith discussion, and really listen and respond. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In this instance it appears the editor is a classic unilateral deletionist who has participated in zero discussions on the talk page of the article in question. - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yes yobol covers a lot of territory. i've not crossed path with you before but i have with yobol plenty, and i have rarely disagreed with his/her judgments nor (importantly) his/her explanations for them.  there are lots of editors who don't work much on health-related content and don't know about, much less respect, MEDRS, nor aware of and are aligned with the goals of Project Medicine, and go to the mat to retain really bad content... and who make it personal. I haven't  seen that you opened a Talk thread either.. :) (btw, i really disagree with your restoration here - that is way too much weight on a single clinical trial, and sourced from TV!  ugh! not what wikipedia aspires to be for health related content. (see what I mean?) but really, why the page is locked down, why don't you try talking about it?  that's what page freezes are for! Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Halfdan Long-Leg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sami. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ownership issues, much?
I'm not going to edit war with you over something so pedantic, but I think you should probably acknowledge that it appears you are not being NPOV on this issue based on your biases as a bike wrench. - CompliantDrone (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have made some hilarious accusations, but let's examine each of them in turn, just in case you were serious. To be clear, we are talking about this edit of mine, right?
 * You seem to suggest that I am somehow being pedantic, that is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or making an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.
 * I didn't add the odd detail suggesting that traditional pneumatic tire designs, which required a separate inner tube, are somehow specific to automobiles. I simply removed it with the edit summary "inner tubes not specific to automobiles." I cannot see how my actions can be construed as excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or how I might have made an ostentatious or arrogant show. Perhaps you are thinking of another meaning of the word "pedantic".
 * You appear to feel that I am somehow not editing with a neutral point of view.
 * What point of view exactly are you suggesting I am exhibiting? If anything, by removing the limitation that separate inner tubes are somehow specific to automobiles, I am actually demonstrating the most neutral point of view. I fail to see what my experience as a bicycle mechanic could possible have anything to do with allowing the description of tubed tires to include motorcycle tires, truck tires, tractor tires, etc.
 * You question whether I am exhibiting ownership behavior of the article.
 * I have made five edits to that article in the past year, out of 23 total edits, and none in the two years before that. You have made nine edits over the same three years. How anyone could construe that as me exhibiting ownership of this article is a mystery to me. On the other hand, I have done some research on tires, I have created several tire-related articles, and continually work to improve them. If you mean to accuse me of stewardship, then I take that as a compliment.
 * After careful consideration, I am afraid that your comments just sound like sour grapes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So you won't mind that I rolled back your removal of material. - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No. In fact I thought I had restored that NYT reference. That's why I wrote "NYT is a good source" in my edit summary. Thank you for correcting my mistake. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit & summary confused me. Sorry for being a ball-buster, man. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion?
A sock? 

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd really be surprised if it wasn't. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Same here. Given the time frames and exactly similar reverts...I guess we can hand a bit more rope before opening an SPI. Edit: btw, moderators usually don't link IP adresses to accounts, so we need the sockmaster of this person. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is edit warring, I'm fixing what needs be fixed, why do you care so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs)


 * CompliantDrone, aaaaand there we go again. [] They still don't understand that the word has a totally different meaning in Dari as compared to Western Persian dialects, "Iranian Persian", Tat, etc. Batttleground edit summaries tell more than enough about how this topic is perceived amongst those people. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit; CompliantDrone, feel free to join the discussion he just opened [here] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - India, Pakistan & Afghanistan
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Harald Fairhair
Why did you remove pop culture from Harald Fairhair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.197.101 (talk)
 * Because it is promotional in nature and not notable. Please take it to the talk page of the respective article to discuss with other editors before you unilaterally re-add the material. - CompliantDrone (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

your reversion
You reverted my edit (" Infections with toxoplasmosis usually cause no symptoms in humans ") ostensibly on the grounds that "source says 'there can be severe consequences for the unborn child, such as diseases of the nervous system and eyes " (-your edit summary), however your revert returned the sentence to an equally incorrect (according to the content of your edit summary) statement (i.e. "Infections with toxoplasmosis usually cause no symptoms").

Rather than reverting my edit, why not address the issue that your own edit summary raises?-- Ty rS  02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm too busy IRL to follow the breadcrumbs of edits apparently - it was an error, disregard. Sorry about that. - CompliantDrone (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Back to Sleep for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Back to Sleep is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Back to Sleep until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oak Forest, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guadalupe River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 32.218.46.128 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain?
Wondering why you deleted key information on this article: Wolves of Vinland You eliminated references to hate groups and to white supremacy, and as you could see by the data and the discussion in the article's talk page, these references are necessary for the article to stand as genuinely dispassionate. I would appreciate your explanation. Thanks. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  04:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What information are you referring to? Look at the diffs, I think you are mistaken. The second sentence says verbatim: "while journalists associate the group with white supremacists and the Alt-right". I went and read every single source from beginning to end, and didn't remove any of them? I did consolidate much of the content and pruned info which seemed to be more promotional than encyclopedic. - CompliantDrone (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are referring to. I re-added that bit. I think an Op-Ed from the Daily Beast isn't the most NPOV source, but I don't feel the article meets notability standards anyway. - CompliantDrone (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. I see the differences better now. The Daily Beast article is actually not bad. But news alone do not make the best set of reliable sources for this article. I appreciate the tags. Thanks for your answers. Cheers, Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  05:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Admin Abuse
Thank you for reinstating my edits but they have been removed again.. I am considering warning Valamond(?)on the love jihad page of admin abuse, but wanted to know your thoughts on whether this is justified as yet. They have misattributed my stance, are inconsistent with their reasoning for enforcing deletions, and refuse to acknowledge that their understanding of the matter is incongruent with expert opinion. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Tags
You cannot engage in drive-by tagging. The edit summary sounds like a conspiracy theory (which it is) and you need to evidence a consensus at talk-page, in your favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since you had inserted the tag unilaterally, had an equal right to remove it unilaterally. Snarking him to be the owner of the article might not steer clear of WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at User talk:CompliantDrone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)