User talk:Outedexits

Vandalizing
Hello, thanks for vandalizing my user page and also for changing the counter when you did it. 22:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually just updated the counter, but if you want me to actually vandalize it to make it legit, just let me know. Also, you should user a simpler signature. Yours is currently too long and disruptive. Outedexits (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You think my sig is too long? You should see some suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper long ones people have. By the way, why did you even update my counter? My user page hasn't been vandalized yet...lol, if you want to vandalize it, you can so the counter is actually correct. 22:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ We are working on a shorter sig now. :) --Thehotwheelsguy99
 * Who are "we"? Are you more than one user? Outedexits (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We" can be used as one person. --Thehotwheelsguy99
 * I fixed my signature so it is only 5 lines :) Thehøtwheelsguy99 | Talk?Sign!! 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dinkleberry


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Dinkleberry, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Sleep‎, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a referece to replace the citation needed that. What's the problem exactly? Outedexits (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Somnolence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. 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) 10:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm Gilliam. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sleep because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark?
Are you Tetra quark? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, is that another user on wikipedia? If so, no. Outedexits (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I'm curious. Why did you ask that? Outedexits (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Relativism
I suggest you read this essay which quotes the policies showing that it is not a relativist project WP:NOTRELATIVISM, Second Quantization (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark sock puppet investigation
I am informing you that I have opened a sock puppet investigation of you at. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be Civil and don't Edit War
Hello Outedexits. I appreciate that you have a strong opinion regarding the choice of lede image on the Muammar Gaddafi article, but that doesn't give you the right to be un-civil and rude (see Civility) or to engage in flagrant Edit Warring. I cut you some slack because you appeared to be a new and inexperienced editor, but you are being persistent in your incivility and refusal to play by Wikipedia policy. As per the BOLD, Revert and Discuss cycle, you (not I) are expected to open up a discussion at the Talk Page to present a case for your proposed change. If you like, I can put in a Request for Comment and get more editors involved, but please ensure that your future behaviour is more in line with our policies here at Wikipedia. Thank you, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, let's make a few things clear. First, I'm aware of the three revert rule, and I am within its limits. I did not edit war. Second,as I said in my edit summary, you are the one who has to seek consensus to change the image. As I said, you were bold in adding the new image (or old? It's from 40 years ago), I reverted you, and now you should open a discussion in the talk page. That's exactly what WP:BRD says. Outedexits (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not simply about the Three Revert Rule; you were edit warring but had yet to breach the Three Revert Rule, at which disciplinary action might have been taken (against us both, incidentally). Moreover, I am not the one who initially incorporated the 1973 image into the lede. That was done by another user, and it remained in place for some time. On occasion other editors would change it to the 2009 image, and it would get reverted (including, at times, by myself). In the most recent instance, it is yourself who have been BOLD by removing a longstanding lede image and replacing it with your choice; I then reverted you, to which you embarked on an edit war. Anyway, I'm going to take this to RFC and see what comes of that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just start a discussion in the talk page. I'm still waiting for you to do that. Outedexits (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation
I am informing you that I have initiated a sock puppet investigation concerning you:. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)