User talk:Philipnelson99/Archives/2018/December

Progressive Adventism
My edits that were reverted were edits meant to take out what I felt were promotional in nature for the criticism in question. I also disagree with your use of rollback in such a broad way, despite the fact that you also reverted citation needed tags and other objectively good improvements to the article. - Erin Andy (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have reverted the page back to your edit. I'll be more careful in the future. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I'm new, so I understand seeing a lot of edits happen that way. If you have any specific issues, please let me know, and we can talk them through. :) - Erin Andy (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2018 (UTCeR)
 * Welcome! Glad to have you! Again, my apologies. I reviewed your edits and they seem fine to me! Thanks for contributing! ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury fight card section
Feel free to answer the fight card question at Talk:Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury. Naue7 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Munchkin, Inc.
Hi, you recently reverted edits that I spent a lot of time working on, without explanation. If I did something incorrectly, I would appreciate at least a short explanation of what was wrong. I am not a vandal, as vandals don't fix citations or correct formatting mistakes. I undid your edit, and I'm aware that that is not the best way to go about this, but I hope you'll understand and first leave me a message on my user talk page to explain why my edits should be removed. Thanks, and I appreciate your efforts regardless. - Ohjees (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , actually I'm glad asked me about it as I was just about to leave a message on your talk page. I slipped up and reverted the edit. My apologies. Thank you for your contributions! ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * wow that was a quick response. Thanks a bunch!
 * Of course!! Again, apologies, I'm human and I make mistakes but your edits are very much appreciated. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-vand warning concerns
Hello! Thank you for all the anti-vandalism efforts on Wikipedia. I have noticed many of your reverts do not lead to warnings on user talk pages. I see this has been addressed with you before as well. Often the people that you revert and fail to warn continue on with their behavior. While, I guess warning users is optional, this often leaves it to other patrollers to warn vandals as they continue. Is there a reason you are not warning users? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this actually, something seems to be wrong with my huggle configuration. I'm currently trying to figure it out... ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Please head to [|Huggle's feedback section] if you can't figure it out. Thanks again for the anti-vandalism efforts! Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of bogus content
Hi, You just restored some bogus content that I just deleted. If you are an expert in mathematical logic, then please engage in a conversation on the talk page, explaining why you believe that the deleted content is correct. From what I can tell, its just... insanely wrong, and never should have been added to that article in the first place. It seems to have been added by some undergraduate who, frankly, hasn't a clue about mathematical logic. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A-League
Hi, thank you for your feedback on my post on the A-League page. I see how it was judgmental and have now made it factual. Cheers, Vasili — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgiama (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course! ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Right wing virtue signaling
I notice you feel the need to revert my edits because apparently telling the truth triggers your Trumpy, Alt right sensibilities. I thought Wikipedia was about truth, not hate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B050:68:37BD:E76B:DE1C:FB06 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal
Since when is the addition of a clean-up marker considered as "removal of content"? It aims at removing or rewriting of content in the future in a consensual way, but that is the purpose of the clean-up marker and no reason to fast-revert it. This article has issues with Biographies_of_living_persons and Melvin v. Reid --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your Melvin v. Reid reference, I'd like you to take a look at WP:NLT. As for the article concerned if it has issues with WP:BLP, those can be discussed on its talk page before adding a cleanup template. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , this isn't covered by Melvin v. Reid; rather, it's covered by this pesky thing. Vermont (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Philipnelson99: The 1931 California appeals court decision Melvin v. Reid wasn't meant to be a legal threat, but as a legal guidance/hint. The power of such an old decision only relies on the merit of the reasoning. (There are quite a few very unreasonable Supreme court decisions of that time period.) --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Free speech and free exercise of religion don't give a free ride for stigmatisations. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" (Hillel, two thousand years ago)
 * And in case you don't like references to old teachings (too religious or so): think of the requirement of due process and the basic concept of the dignity of man/woman. If there is a conflict of rights then there must be consideration. What infringement is worse? Who is in a position of power that needs to be checked? --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And regarding the legal issues: She hasn't been accused of theft and welfare fraud but of theft by welfare fraud. I'm not a native English speaker and I read this article yesterday for the first time and found this error quite immediately. Bad fact checking, the article really needs a clean-up. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , see WP:BLPCRIME, whose exception is WP:WELLKNOWN, which she meets. In regard to your quoting of Hillel, I will note that you take that extremely out of context; it has nothing to do with ignoring people who commit felonies, or are accused as such. I will not go into that further as quoting religious texts has no bearing on anything done here for the vast majority of editors. Vermont (talk)
 * This article hasn't even got the simple facts straight. If I as a non-native reader find a significant error on first reading there will be many others, too. It needs a thorough clean-up. 2nd: Of course the Golden rule also applies to people who commit or are accused of felonies and misdemeanours. And BTW welfare fraud is like tax fraud, it can happen to many people who are not real criminals: Facing up to 15 years in prison for less than $9000 welfare fraud? That's excessive and a violation of human rights. Reminds me of the sharia. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not here to take sides. There are reliable sources stating she is being accused of sick crimes, and she meets WP:WELLKNOWN. Therefore: it’s included. Vermont (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the source that she is accused of a "sick crime"? Welfare fraud by lying about her income (and thereby possibly committing 2nd degree perjury) isn't a "sick crime". Look at how the "perjury" case against former president Bill Clinton has been settled or the recent word-pair of "perjury trap" that former prosecutor R. Giuliani used: Giuliani warns of perjury trap: 'Truth isn't truth' There is no rational basis to call her alleged acts "sick crimes". (Lying in court as a false accuser is a sick crime, though.) --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , my apologies. I hadn’t intended to type “sick crimes”; I meant to type “some crimes”. It was on my phone, so I probably spelled some incorrectly that autocorrected to sick. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)