User talk:Titanoboa Constrictor

reverted
I reverted your edits at Timothy McVeigh‎ because the article does not bear out those categories you added. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for any miscategorization I may have made. At the time I thought these views were 100% backed up by evidence and remembered reading on Wikipedia and sources it cited that McVeigh was tied closely to a white supremacist organization, albeit not directly, and wasn't aware of any potential murkiness of these explicit categories. I will say though that while it's uncertain and difficult to prove if he was a neo-Nazi despite harboring similar views, McVeigh definitely appeared to have been some type of white supremacist and I have made my case for such on the talk page as you've suggested and cited evidence from the article itself to support it. Thank you for your time and guidance. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pete Halat, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey there! To my knowledge at least, I did provide sources that I believe to be reliable because they were news articles in major mainstream publications that to my knowledge are considered reliable sources, the Washington Post and the New York Times, reporting on the information I added to the page on Pete Halat at the time these events occurred and were actively in the news media. A lot of my information also came from an article on Pete Halat and his exploits with the Dixie Mafia from The Sun Herald which was already cited more than once in the article previously. I should mention the only reason I did not name the authors of the articles is because due to how both NYT and WAPO's archives work, no authors were listed and any attempts to find out who originally wrote the articles did not come up with anything when I tried, so I simply credited the publications themselves to play it safe. My apologies if any of this was incorrect editing conduct, I am still relatively new to editing Wikipedia and I'm still actively reading up on policy and doing my best to learn the ropes and make good contributions with my edits. I should mention as well that everything I had gotten from my sources was also information discussed in the 1999 FBI files episode on the Dixie Mafia and the murder of Judge Sherry and his wife.


 * If my sources were not reliable, feel free to tell me how they were and where I can find more reliable sources with the information I found on this subject.


 * Personally I would like to restore my edit, but before I do so I want to make sure we can both agree on it first, and if we do, we can both help improve and expand the article together. Thank you for your help and concern!


 * P.S.: Regarding the photo of Halat I added, I believe it was a mugshot of him from 1997 after he was arrested when he was found guilty at his trial that same year and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Since it was a police mugshot and therefore a government source, I think that would make it fall under public domain and be safe to use here, right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for engaging. I'm not much on mentoring (others are -- see WP:Teahouse for some of them).
 * I did miss your response here on my user talk page ; my watchlist is a pretty busy place, and it probably got lost in all the other activity there. I'm also pretty busy outside of WP, and tend to try to pack more activity than I should into the time I do spend here.


 * I looked back at my revert, and I see that I apparently reverted a string of edits by you and that my edit summary includes an auto-inserted bit saying (HG). You probably did not key on that, and there is no reason that you should have, but it indicates they I made that edit from WP:Huggle. Huggle is an anti-vandal tool which assists an editor in reviewing a large number of edits by others as they happen in real time with the objective of spotting problems and fixing them on the spot. I don't remember making that particular revert, but I would have made it based on what I saw in a few seconds looking at just this one particular edit through a porthole which showed only a few lines of the diff. Perhaps I should have dropped out of Huggle to take a closer look, but I don't think I did that. I probably did not notice that edit being the most recent in a string of edits (that was my failing) and my reversion of that one edit reverted the entire string instead of the most recent edit in the string (that is my choice of Huggle behavior; it is usually the correct choice, but it is not the correct choice 100.00% of the time). This particular case is one I would have handled better if I had taken the time to look more closely, but it came up in the middle of cases pre-screened as possible problems in an environment conducive to making disposition on each case in just a few seconds and getting on to the next case. If I mishandled this case, though, that's on me -- not on the tool I was using, and not on you. Looking at it retrospect, I would say that I did mishandle this case -- this was an error on my part, and I apologize for having made that error. I have undone my revert.


 * Sorry for the error, which was mine and not yours; apologies for having made it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Petehalat 1997mugshot.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Petehalat 1997mugshot.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 23:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Petehalat 1997mugshot.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Petehalat 1997mugshot.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC) My bad for mis-categorizing it as being by the federal government. I just thought since it was done by the state government of Mississippi, that it was the only one it fit. I didn't see an option in the drop-down list for the state government or individual police departments. Is there any way for me or someone else it a correct category of this nature? Thank you for notifying me of this.

Speedy deletion nomination of Manny Pardo (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Manny Pardo (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ... disco spinster   talk  17:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's and its
Hi Titanboa,

In this edit, you have added apostrophes in the wrong places, changing the correct spelling to incorrect spelling. The word "it's" means "it is" or "it has", never "belonging it it". Hope this helps. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  14:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I had assumed it was the correct spelling when referring to an organization or an entity, and not an animal or object. Thanks for the correction. I hope my other edits have still proved helpful. Thank you for letting me know about this. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Titanoboa,
 * Yes, as far as I can tell, your other edits have been very helpful. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester  15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Picard's Facepalm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Twomad, 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. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for letting me know. I noticed the article was nominated for deletion, and I figured I would add some surface level information to make the article more readable. While there has been plenty of mainstream media coverage of Sedik and his death, unfortunately a lot of information, mainly from Sedik himself and former friends of his, I wasn't able to cite, because of the reliability of YouTube streams and Twitter being more than a little questionable.
 * Many of these, namely from Sedik himself and those who were around him that have recorded him, are confirmed, but I haven't seen archived and reported on by more reputable citable sources yet. I think finding propee citations outside of social media presents a significant challenge for the article moving forward, if it is to stay up.
 * Also sorry in advance for publishing another edit of a similar nature. I didn't receive this alert about a message on my talk page until after I had already clicked publish.
 * Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at twomad, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. While I di think the article is notable enough to warrant existing, I can see why it was nominated for deletion.
 * Much of what we know about twomad and his decline comes from social media such as YouTube, Twitter, and livestream clips, which are notoriously unreliable sources. Even what has been verified, including from the article subject himself, and content of him that was recorded by others, is on these platforms that aren't good for citations.
 * I wonder if mainstream media coverage of Sedik and his death could be a good starting point for references.
 * Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)