User talk:TheValeyard

My talk page!
Here I am! TheValeyard (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know? &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have tried to fix a typo on your userpage. Please forgive me if I was wrong, that happens once in a while. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine thanks, was typing it from memory of the old 10th doctor episode. TheValeyard (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverse psychology
Thierry Legault does NOT want an article on en.wikipedia.org! https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Legault

Jam Baxter does NOT want an article on en.wikipedia.org!

I do NOT want an article about Tyromancy - http://www.occultopedia.com/t/tyromancy.htm & http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tyromancy

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Less Than Jake
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Less Than Jake, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Josvan  Talk  03:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if you don't know much about a band, then you really have no business editing it. That the band is named after a dog has been in the article for years, some random user changed it to "a parrot". I don't have to provide a source to revert an erroneous edit. TheValeyard (talk) 03:19,  5 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh
Re, the edit summary said "assume AGF", etc, which was the opposite of jerkwad. Beware jerkwadness when accusing others of it. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The jerkwadishness was in the fact that the user deleted my comment while restoring his own, when they could have just as easily simply added re-added their own and left mine intact. It was an act of spite. Also, without even the courtesy of a ping of notification. I had no idea what happened until reading the section and puzzling over why I didn't see my comment there. TheValeyard (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your editsum said, "no need to be a jerkwad via edit summary". That sort of implies that the jerkwadness was in the edit summary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I took umbrage at the "They may try again" bit, finding it to be childish and belittling. Now, can you kindly, move on? TheValeyard (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But of course! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident
Hi!

The book given as "source" is a fiction, a sci-fi and there is no trace of the "story" in Hungarian. So this is a hoax, please accept this.

Thank you. --peyerk (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident


The article Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Nomination of Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident 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/Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident 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. Norden1990 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Castroism in the list of Marxist-Leninist tendencies
Hi. Do you think that Castroism should go into the list of Marxist-Leninist "variants" in the Marxism-Leninism template? 109.64.39.167 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

EC
Sorry about that. This is like the 3rd time in 6 months that I've wound up deleting someone's post with an edit-conflict I had though was resolved. Only on my phone; I don't think I've ever had that happen when editing from my PC. I'm almost tempted to err on the side of caution & just restart the phone next time it happens. Do you know what I need to do to restore my original post? Is it even possible? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just look at the revision here, you can click and drag to highlight your text on the left, and then enter it in again. TheValeyard (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did try that, but in preview-mode, it appeared to still remove the others' texts. I'm sure the error was mine; as far as computers go, I've been about a decade behind the times for as long as I can remember. In any case, Mandruss was kind enough to step in and fix it for me. Sorry for creating extra work for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

GAGA
Valeyard -- On August 3, 2017, you deleted my edits/revisions of the article about the dodgeball-like game Gaga, citing "questionable sources, poor writing." I had edited/rewritten the existing version because it was rife with unsubstantiated claims and unsupported details. And yet you deleted that improved version and reinstated one that you, perhaps, believe to be more accurate, but is, in fact -- by the most basic journalistic standards -- extremely flawed. Please qualify -- with specifics -- why you questioned the sources I included in my version, and why you claimed it to be "poor writing." Also, please let me know what your association is with Wikipedia (e.g., Are you a volunteer? Are you an editor?) Full disclosure: I am a national newspaper columnist who has often written about Wikipedia. I will be writing a piece about this experience, and intend to use whatever response you write here -- along with your Wikipedia name (Valeyard) and your self-description ("Timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly") -- in whatever I choose to write. Bruce Kluger (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The existing version cites Michigan Live and the NY Times, sufficient to support the game's Israeli roots. I realize that it is pretty trendy these days to be anti-Israel, especially among academics, but you will have to find more than a single writer at a single magazine to support your "I'm debunking it" attempts.
 * Regarding "my association with Wikipedia", if you're such a hotshot investigative journalist, then surely you'd know by now that all editors are volunteers.
 * Regarding "full disclosure", yes. Mr. Kluger, you aren't terribly hard to find when you make your Wikipedia username your real name. I've read gems like At 'Playboy,' I wrote perfect words for perfect bods; glad to finally meet the literary genius behind all those "I'm 34DD and love long walks at the beach" blurbs. Christmas Crisis: Santa Laid Off!, bad photoshopping and all, reads like something submitted at the last minute to a student newspaper.
 * Regarding "I will be writing a piece about this experience"...where will this appear, exactly? Doesn't seem like something that USA Today or even HuffPo would be interested in. Will it appear on your own blog, brucekluger.com ? The blog that doesn't get enough traffic to garner an Alexa ranking?
 * Finally, regarding the "I will be writing a piece...along with your Wikipedia name...and your self-description" threat (and yes my dear, it was indeed a threat of retaliatory exposure, allow me to clue you in on something; I am a Doctor Who fan. The Valeyard is a character from The Trial of a Time Lord, and "timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly" is a line from the episode Blink (Doctor Who). So, good luck with writing something meaningful and tangible about me based on that, sport. Anything further you have to say about the Ga-ga article can be said at Talk:Ga-ga. TheValeyard (talk)

August 2017
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason why you're lying, cid? I left a rather lengthy edit summary when I tossed your bad edit to the gender dysphoria article. TheValeyard (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling me a nerd is a fair grounds for calling your edit summary inappropriate :) ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop it
I see you removing my edit on Unite the Right rally. But yes, it has to do with the subject and frankly I think you should add it. Read the article, while it may be negative towards conservatives, it is telling the truth and should be added. What we are experiencing is a prelude to the nearly there war or maybe it already began. Civil war is here or almost here. And this time there's no hope, no surrenders. 117.225.152.36 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * An article talk page exists to discuss matters directly related to editing the article. What you're posting is your opinion on present-day white supremacists and their roots in the Lost Cause. I don't disagree, but this isn't the venue to discuss it. TheValeyard (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft
read the links please learned court prosecutor earliest use 2015 https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your sources are blogs and Facebook groups. In other words, your sources suck and have no relevance to the Wikipedia. TheValeyard (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

but i have here primary sources they are relevant because they directly contradict the media see the altleft exists i posted the links it goes back to 2015 but there is a media blackout on it and you just cant admit that you were wrong on the altleft talk page the altleft is real its real irrespective of what the media says to quote you , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#many_scholars The citations quote 3 reliable sources which relay the opinions of a cultural critic for Vanity Fair, an analyst for the Anti-Defamation League, and so on, all agree that the "alt left" doesn't actually exist. IMO, the wording is fine, and does not necessitate an edit-through-full-protection request. TheValeyard (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"all agree that the "alt left" doesn't actually exist. " they may agree with you that theres no altleft but they are wrong i have the facts 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see how far you get with blogs and Facebook pages. Godspeed. TheValeyard (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)



please just read the links the altleft exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Dude, I play guitar on the weekends with a local band when they want to do a few song that calls for another guy. The band exists, I can verify that with my own fingers. It doesn't mean they are worthy of a Wikipedia article. TheValeyard (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

several is three
That article floods enough unsourced severals as is, no need to build on the problem with hazy edit summaries. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what meaning this sentence was intended to convey. TheValeyard (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You wrote several people disagreed with me on an issue. Only 3 objections were made. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 is quite enough, bro, virtually no text you have ever tried to jam into the Unite the Right article has stuck. You interpret policy badly, try to force your bad interpretations upon others, try to edit-war to get your bad edits in, and filibuster the talk pages trying to get your way. TheValeyard (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring the issue here. Why did you feel the need to say "several" instead of "three"? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Addressed by my self and others on the article talk page. TheValeyard (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop.
Please do do ping me after I have withdrawn from a discussion and announced that I am unwatching the page. I deleted the notification of your ping without reading whatever it is you wrote. Please don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh Give me a break... you manufactured the drama on that page Guy, it's pretty ridiculous to turn around and act like the victim (or like you're somehow above it all). And I'm sorry, but if you're not willing to actually suggest edits then you've got nothing to complain about. It's not our job to rewrite the page for you to better suit your point of view. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Macon, you absolutely read what I wrote. Someone who makes dramatic exits from a half-dozen pages over the last few years cannot resist the attention. TheValeyard (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No. I absolutely do not read pages after I have unwatched them. This avoids the temptation to respond. You have been informed that I don't want you pinging me; do it again and we will end up at WP:ANI, where you will find that the administrators rather like it when someone realizes that a discussion is not benefiting the encyclopedia and withdraws from it. I do not want to have any further interaction with you. I am unwatching your talk page now. Again, you are free to reply, but I will not see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I only pinged you once, bro, so you'll find that lie of yours easily debunked if you choose to file fall grievances. And yes, you'll read this too of your own volition. :) TheValeyard (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich
Please read the cited article. Just because you don't agree with the point of view of the writer of the Newsweek article doesn't mean you can incorrectly cite a quote. I verbatim copied the words of the article. This was the findings of an 80-page report. Please stop censoring quotes that you disagree with. Your "correction" was in fact incorrect. Please read the second paragraph of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysev1 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring. Tsk. TheValeyard (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

your use of template:Archive top
special:diff/800161051 you added this to a conversation. I notice the guidelines for this template say:
 * When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.
 * It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

Do you consider yourself an uninvolved party when it comes to Talk:Unite the Right rally? I ask because you have repeatedly participated in discussions on it, checking the archives. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For the greater good of the Wikipedia, I closed a disruptive topic that met with unanimous opposition and had zero chance of acceptance. TheValeyard (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment : Probable Sock
You might be interested in this edit after seeing this edit by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F. This seems some how to be associated with IP 141.131.2.3, as it seems they signed them both as "MC", immediately suggesting a sock. Further evidence in article with this revert in history here. Considering 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F has made just four editsSpecial:Contributions/2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F on the one day, suggest this is highly likely. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, my technological knowledge about this stuff is limited, thankfully I have relatives to bug when I need tech support, haha. I know that those are a new kind of IP6 address, but what it means and how to connect one to another is way beyond me. TheValeyard (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed noticeboard report
I removed my report because it appears you may have believed my post about political affiliation had discussion to do with the far right. It seemed as though you were trying to invalidate my discussion by bringing in another discussion that I did not see as having anything to do with this one. When you followed up with the issue about the page name not making sense even though there was an anchor (even thoughout this is done wikipedia) it seemed and still somewhat seems like you were just attempting to derail the conversation and not dispute the point at hand. Maybe this is true but removed it anyways and will assume I should have communicated further. Please be civil and read through if you are gonna make an accusation. Contentcreator (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)
I would just like you to know why I kept reverting your edits. Firstly, Alex Jones's website is known as Infowars.com, and not InfoWars.com. Secondly, it is still debated whether Infowars.com is truly a fake news site or not, as while it is considered false by liberals, conservatives may see it is reliable. I personally have no opinion on that topic. I would like you to allow me to make these edits. Every875 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) The site name is styled as "InfoWars" in sources.
 * 2) Many sources describe the site as fake news. Personal opinions of conservatives are not relevant. TheValeyard (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Officially, the site is known as "Infowars".
 * 2) Once again, I personally have no stance on the topic of whether it is fake news or not, I would just like to keep the article unbiased. While liberal sources say "fake news", conservative sources say "real news". This is not a personal opinion. Every875 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Officially, the site is called "InfoWars". You can continue to be wrong if you like, that is your prerogative. Being "unbiased" does not mean that one gets to add up a number of perceived liberal sites and perceived conservative sites in equal measure and then write an article. Articles cite reliable sources, period. The reality of the world is that most conservative sites have piss-poor reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and are overall barking mad, so they cannot and will not be used. The handful of conservative leaning sites that aren't insane, e.g. the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, are ok to use. TheValeyard (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can visit the site itself if you like and see that it says "Infowars". I'm not taking stories from their site, I'm just taking their stylization of their site's name. Also, when I say "conservative outlets," I am referring to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. Stop acting like only liberal views are true. Both sides must be added into a page. Every875 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The prevailing opinion of reliable sources is that the site is fake news, that is the end of this discussion. TheValeyard (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All the sources in the page's citations say "Infowars". And, most news outlets in the U.S. are VERY liberal-leaning. Liberal opinions are not the only facts in the world. Learn how to write without reflecting only YOUR opinion. I'm not a conservative or a liberal, but I can see that you are the stereotypical liberal conservatives talk about. Every875 (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion here. If you have concerns about Alex Jones, then air those concerns at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). You only have an audience of 1 here, and I don't want to continue to hoard your...unique...point of view all for myself. TheValeyard (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Diva
It’s not a diva exit or entrance. It’s to let people know in case they have a problem with it. There was an ANI thread about it, and I don’t want any misunderstanding about it, hence the FYI. The name calling is unnecessary, BTW.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It has nothing at all to do with the article topic, hence the removal. If you feel that there actually are editors that would care about your majestic return to the page, then let them know individually rather putting Talk:Donald Trump on blast. This is, like, Mariah-level diva-ness, that you'd be advised not to restore. TheValeyard (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * People put administrative notes at talk pages all the time, e.g. pointing to related discussions at other pages, etc. I don’t have the slightest interest in restoring it, because it’s enough that I made the effort and can prove it.  And with that, I humbly take my leave, your majesty.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution Filing
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the regarding. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. Equilibrium103 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

*yawn* socking
This is User:Kingshowman. Take it easy, and merry Christmas and all that! Drmies (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Figures. Thanks. TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikitribune
Can you provide me examples of other editors objecting to my edit? If there seems to be a consensus against it I'd be happy to go with it but at the moment I only see your objection. Thanks! Volt4ire (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jimbo created Talk:WikiTribune for discussions like this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

ZeroHedge
I'm surprised that Zero Hedge diff isn't on our blacklist, it's that unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a literal blacklist here that can prevent sites from being used, or is this more figurative like the Daily Mail ban? TheValeyard (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there really is:


 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/About


 * On occasion I have needed to use a blacklisted URL, and in such cases one must request permission. For example, on an article about a website that happens to be blacklisted, one MUST use links to that site, and, with limitations, they are allowed in the article itself. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for the info. TheValeyard (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , you know fancy stuff--is that ridiculous site listed/blocked, and/or how can we get that done? Thanks Dirk, and zalig kerstfeest! Drmies (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don’t blacklist ‘’because’’ of unreliability, except if there is a significant community consensus exists. We blacklist because of abuse (Broadly construed).  Guess this was not abused, only misused (which is generally not enough).  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown is the woman's name?
You claim: “Sarah Jane Brown is the woman's name”.

What makes you think that? —В²C ☎ 05:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My dear sir, I read through several of the past name discussions, where you name is so prominent that one cannot help but trip over it in nearly every facet of the discussions. You are boorish, bullying, rude, absolutely obsessed with this topic to the point of absurdity, and I will not entertain side discussions on my talk page with you. I entered an opinion into the discussion, have un-watched the page, and that is the end of it. TheValeyard (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. You have been asked on that page to clarify, "un-wokest"?  Typo? At any rate can you go back there and clarify? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you, like, 50? Do you still MySpace? un- + wokeness. TheValeyard (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's useless for you to clarify it, here. If you want the closer to ignore your !vote because you did not know you were asked to clarify it, fine. It's not my question, it's just that your !vote happens to be just after mine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I went and told him off, it isn't my job to explain a damned thing to someone whose own opinion on the matter is so blatantly patriarchal-perpetuating. The "wife of" option currently stands at +5 to Oppose, so I'm not at all worried about what a closer will or will not take into account there. I'm like a Jill Stein voter in Rhode Island, a safe protest vote :) . TheValeyard (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScratchMarshall promoting conspiracy theories. - MrX 🖋 18:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich / Hillary Clinton
You closed this talk page thread, and the editor pushing for inclusion of that material is now forum shopping it to Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016. Might need to close that too? I WP:INVOLVED myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's interesting. I actually didn't close it, looks like User Calton converted my parting comment into a hat/hab thing. Which isn't bad, just unexpected. :) I'll take a look at the other one, sure. TheValeyard (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I should've looked at that diff closer. Anyways, it works effectively. Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky
You reverted some edits on Jerry Sandusky because there was 'no consensus' in this discussion. The discussion, which was originally about the defunct 'Case for innocence' subsection, seems to have died down without reaching an explicit conclusion. Now what? Aerkem (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Find something better to do than defend a pedophile child rapist would be rather delightful. TheValeyard (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Beyond Mr Sandusky's case, there is the broader issue of the use of repressed memory therapy. But my motivations for editing this article are irrelevant. Do you have a good reason for censoring this edit? Aerkem (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. '' Warning is in regard to these two changes/reversions:  as well as this edit summary "oh yopu [sic] can go pound sand here, bro.".
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Stop being disruptive. Your latest actions seriously look like you're intending to act like a jerk. Enough, already. Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about improving the encyclopedia. I suggest you get to doing that, instead.'' -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, if you feel badly abut your bad edits, feel free to strike them, like this . My critiques of of your nomination will remain on the discussion page, unaltered by you. TheValeyard (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)