User talk:Tutelary/Archive 2

Emperor Blackhat
Hello, What can I do for my article, please tell me, you added a speedy deletion tag on my article, but it is a notable personality please see the talk page of Emperor Blackhat for more information

A page you started (Hashtag activism) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hashtag activism, Tutelary!

Wikipedia editor Dudel250 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Im Watching You 8P"

To reply, leave a comment on Dudel250's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Batman and Robin
Batman and robin is considered one of the worst films ever made. If that is so, why the heck does it just say negative reviews. You made a mistake converting back what I changed. Even the "list of films considered the worst" page on Wikipedia says universally panned. I suggest you restore back what I did.

A bug?
Hi,

I saw that you recently undid some edits over at Candace Newmaker. I could've sworn you undid those by Sarahreadsallthetime (the +- count fits), but after those edits were deleted the history, as it appears to me, says
 * "(cur | prev) 17:22, 6 May 2014‎ Tutelary (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,300 bytes) (-278)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Skončil_jsi_hajzle talk: Unsourced additions (HG 3)) (thank)"

I'm trying to determine if this is some RevisionDelete bug or if perhaps you used the wrong edit summary?

Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , The diffs will not show what I have reverted/removed due to the revision delete. It is made this way intentional, in my own view and the way I understand it, to free Wikipedia of any legal obligation to remove the offending section. Any reason you needed the diff for some outstanding purpose? That's not the problem now that I look at it. I believe I reverted Sarahreadsallthetime's edit, not the one before. I'm unsure if the edit summaries can be edited by an admin. I was using Huggle, so that may have contributed? Tutelary (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But the user it says you reverted does not appear to have made any edits to Candace Newmaker (Special:Contributions/Skončil_jsi_hajzle). The question, I suppose, is whether that edit summary came before or after the revisiondelete... --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've personally got no idea. You could probably ask a bureaucrat/an admin if you're really curious. I'm thinking that Huggle bugged for just that edit, or it was edited. Interesting, nonetheless. Tutelary (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonverbal Influence
Why did you remove the new content added to this page as copyright violation? This is properly cited material. This is also for a class project and you are making our completion of this assignment difficult. I don't care if you want to tear the page apart after Friday just leave it alone until we get our grades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason1986 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I googled the text and found it to be verbatim of one of Google's books. I am obligated to remove it as a copy violation as it gives Wikipedia undeserved legal troubles if it is not. Paraphrase it or better yet, entirely rewrite it. Tutelary (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that for the portion about power, dominance, and status, but the Nonverbal Expectancy section was not verbatim from any book. Those are my words that you removed. Can you tell me what it was in Google books that was verbatim for what I said in the expectancy violation theory section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason1986 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As a member of the team, for our group project please allow us to finish the project and receive our final grade. Our instructions were to create a wiki article that has not been established which is why our topic was selected. I am very appreciative of your help but please allow us to get through this assignment. The team realizes that nonverbal influence is a derivative from nonverbal communication so there may appear an overlapping of ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spell4625 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , would you also please let your teacher/instructor know that Wikipedia is not the place to do this assignment. It should be done via the specialized tools specifically meant for educational institutions or at least in a name space. Wikipedia is collaboratively edited, and anyone can add/remove/omit/edit the content. Your namespace would be a good place. Tutelary (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary we understand that and we will let him know that for future reference. In the meantime, we do not have a choice and we must publish it as the assignment requires. If you have a problem with what is on our page, please let us know via talk and we can handle edits accordingly. Simply removing content without giving us a chance to correct it before you do is counterproductive when this is supposed to be a space of shared knowledge (unless I am mistaken in that understanding of what Wikipedia is, if I am, let me know). Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to edit our materials, for we cannot learn without constructive criticism. We are also new at this so please keep that in mind. Thanks for your patience and time in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason1986 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Band
Hey Tutelary! I was unsure how to write back to your message, sorry! Thanks for your help. I am the bands manager and the parts I have deleted are because it is completely irrelevant and unrepresentative of the bands career. Would you mind not undoing the edit? Again, thanks for helping! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1309:C036:6D4F:216B:38D5:3842 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like it is not a valid argument for removal of content. Also see the conflict of interest guidelines. Tutelary (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

CNBFries
HI Tutelary! Look at Truth (CNBLUE album) now! I inproved after you deleted all of my tries to make my first article, but now, I think I'm better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.206.145 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thom Gossom Jr., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Partners, Reckless and In The Heat Of The Night (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

EZLynx
Hi Tutelary

I agree with your reasoning's for my first attempt at an article for EZLynx. I have different content that I think will prove Importance and is non-promotional.

Please let me know if there are further issues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getfused (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , link me when you're done with it. I'm a new page patroller (from time to time) and tag articles for obvious errors. Yours was promotional. But yeah, strip out all the promotional content and establish notability using reliable sources, and it may be accepted. Tutelary (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Updated EZLynx!Please let me know if there are any additional changes that should be made Getfused (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , first there is no WP:LEAD section. I would recommend that you remove 'overview' and just use that as the lead. Also, the 'Recent Achievements' section is kind of promotional looking. Some other editor may ax it altogether. Other than that, and as always, include reliable sources (which you're doing), then I'd consider it good. Tutelary (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pethor Pitru edits
Hi,

I was the contributor for the Wiki entry on Pitru.

I tried to recently update the reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pethor

With the following:

''According to Numbers 22:1, the post exilic Jews may have camped in this area ("camped along the Jordan across from Jericho" NIV), the current king Balak, concerned about their presence and intending to avoid a military confrontation, summoned Balaam ..."He sent messengers to Ba′laam the son of Be′or at Pe′thor, which is by the River in his native land." Num 22:5.

It would not be reasonable to send a contingency to Balaam, if he was local. "The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination" Num 22:7 NIV.

References to Balaam on glyphs and tablets discovered here, would support his presence in the area, perhaps as the biblical account states in Num 22:39 when accompanying the king to view the encamped Israeli hosts and not necessarily that he was from here. Since the reference in the biblical account that the Israelite's "camped along the Jordan across from Jericho" and that the King "sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River" would indicate the account is referring to two geographical locations.''

Having read "W.H. Shea, "The Inscribed Tablets From Tell Deir `Alla" [1][2] Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol. 27, pp. 21-37, 97-119, 1989" and other works, I do not understand how the conclusion can be drawn that Deir Alla is the Pethor/Pitru. Please check the reference cited and see if you agree with SamEV conclusion posted at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pethor

While I'm not a scholar or academic I would support your role as a gatekeeper to not allow interpretation to become 'fact'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.104.181.66 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (not sure if pings work on IPs), but I'd like to say, that any interpretation of a primary source, in this case the Bible, requires a reliable secondary source for any interpretation. In short, Wikipedia editors cannot interpret information. We don't do that. We do, however, look for sources, see what they say, and add them to the text using NPOV language and in an encyclopedic tone. What you were doing was interpreting information, which was original research. For elaboration and for further reading on what I'm talking about, see Wikipedia's policy on original research. I acknowledge that your edits were made in good faith, and believe that you are WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
M. Caecilius (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

About Article "Racism in Turkey"
Hey,

You have just removed one of my protesting edit on an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Turkey and you had good reason to do that I see.

I have read the current article completely. Although there are parts we all agree but most of it isnothing more than made-up for an intentional defamation. I do not want to see wikipedia as a partner of this kind of propaganda against turkish people and culture with loads of false informations which cannot be "verifiable" as you have stated as a rule at here.

What do we have to do to get this article removed? What do you suggest?

Ozan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.227.162 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you could always nominate it for deletion, but in doing so, I suspect that it would be speedily kept. Anything's possible, though. Alternatively, you could go to the article's talk page and make your case for what needs to be changed/removed. Be civil and be sure not to have any personal attacks. Try not to blank content, either. Tutelary (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

-Well that's an unfortunate. Thanks for your attention tho. Ozan
 * You could also attempt to remove the offending info yourself, and you would be justified under WP:BOLD, but blanking the entire page isn't very helpful. If you see something that isn't sourced well or just seems outright wrong, you can edit it, but given that you blanked the page earlier, you have to be careful. Don't remove large sways of content. I would seriously recommend going to the talk page on this. Tutelary (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

-I dont want you to think I'll do it again. I actually thought whole article wouldnt be changed without a confirmation. you could see that by the way I protest it but I personally ask you to read the whole article as a neutral person some day. be fair then tell me how can they be sourced when they are so offensive? from where? I've checked some of those references. they contain even opposite informations that dont match with ones in article here. Is it declaring the truth or making distortion through a huge community. I'll try to do my best as I find free time for it. Thank you Danielle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.227.162 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, raise the issues on the talk page. You have a voice as any other editor (including myself), and if you don't raise them, then the article will just be perpetuating false information. If your assertions are true and accurate (and I can understand the complaints), I may even back you up with it. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Behrouz "Brian" Vala Nahed
I did not add the birthplace of Behrouz Vala Nahed to the article; the person who falsely claims he was born in America needs to provide a reference. My intervention, however, was a good-faith one, based on the official Iranian News Agencey IRNA/IRINN. His parents (Reza and Nooshin) left Iran several years after the Islamic Revolution. Here's the link and you can use the Google translator if you don't speak Persian. The title of the article says (which is written in blue) says that Behrouz is, in fact, Iranian-born. http://irinn.ir/news/30496/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C%E2%80%8C-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8 Payam AtheistIranian (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , rather than tell me, add it to the article and that source as the ref. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the editors are in the process of deleting the article for good due to lack of Notability on Wikipedia and reference sources. All the sources in the "external reference" section are identical and only list his qualifications and his profession. As someone pointed out earlier, it looks like a résumé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistIranian (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
It is not original research. The countries can be verified on the show's official website: http://asntm2.starworldasia.tv/model-list

The winner can be verified here: http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/People/2014/04/15/Asias-Next-Top-Model-winner-Sheena-Liam-is-your-typical-girlnextdoor/ & http://www.rappler.com/entertainment/news/55041-sheena-liam-asia-next-top-model-jodilly-pendre-katarina-rodriguez

Why am I getting in trouble for correcting OBVIOUS vandalism from a user, who also did not provide sources? 71.239.172.110 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to issue my own apology for this. You were changing dozens of names and the weight and height of the contestants, so I reverted it. Didn't know that you had sources. Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

About Hashtag Activism
Hello. I saw your page Hashtag Activism And Also saw your edit summary of being aware of WP:GNG But i still wonder why you didn't put it in the Drafts namespace, It would be at less risk of CSD and You would have more time to work on it. Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I know my own personal habits. I know that when I stick something somewhere for some amount of time and promise to work on it, I'll just stop working on it. I'll stop doing it. That's why I put it into the mainspace, where I'd be forced to add to it until it was reviewed/deleted/whatever. I am a new page patroller myself, so I should know all the criteria, but it is still nerve wracking. Must be even more intimidating for brand new accounts. Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed Today i had the rare event Experienced people were creating the mass of new pages today Most of them not even needing any sort of tag. As for your page i will mark it as Patrolled but i'll still keep a eye on it 8| Dudel250 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Tutelary (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dudel250 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
, what is this star in relation to? Give me the page link. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hashtag activism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting a slow, thorough, major revision of the Organic Chemistry article
I wanted to call your attention to it, so you might be aware, as an editor/admin that has acted there. I have placed Talk section notes for the past year or two, without any response or comment.

I will nevertheless proceed slowly, and using only the best sources. (I am a professional medicinal/org chemist with doctoral level training, and both industry and academic professional experience.)

Let me know of any concerns. I wish to make progress, but at first sign of edit warring, I will depart the article, for good. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know, though do take note that just because you said that, someone may intentionally edit war as to bar you the article. I encourage you to be WP:BOLD in your edits, though do take note that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and there may be disagreements, though that in my opinion is no good reason to depart from an article. Tutelary (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * TY tutelary. My references to warring, are not toward the likes of you or regular editors, but rather to Twinkle/Huggle-driven fly-bys, where (in my experience), even if one creates a prior Talk, if one fails to create an edit summary (and even if one does), sincere, scholarly edits are often reverted.  This is the major reason to have reviewed the article history, and leave messages to all regular contributors to the article.  I would appreciate it, if time permits for you, to have the Talk for Org Chem article added to your talk page, so when I added pre-edit comments (which I will, beginning today), you can monitor, and even chime in early with an affirmation (or catch me if I'm in error).  I find the trends in ways discussions go are often correlated with what the first person on the scene says or does. I would rather it be a thoughtful, article-concerned editor, than a fly-by.  Cheers, and thanks for the encouragement.  (More, perhaps later, on the appearance of my User pages, as time permits).  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Eurofalsh - Help
I would really appreciate some help editing an not deleting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drori.mor (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

91Hulkster
Hey there - just a heads up that User:Acroterion deleted 91Hulkster under A7 criteria, and I've closed the AfD discussion you started as such. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That Natalia article
Don't get too upset over it. All sorts of things have happened over there within the past month or so, and frankly I'm already tired of it. It appears that there's a group of editors who are extremely opposed to anything related to the internet following on that page because they find it personally displeasureable, and there's not much that can be done over it. Don't expect these fellas to even consider stepping back an inch, they accept zero compromise and expect things to only be done their way. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard#Tutelary
You are invited to join the discussion at New pages patrol/Noticeboard. Thanks. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your recent editing history at Natalia Poklonskaya ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Help Me
Is there an official process by which afds can be reassessed for consensus? There is one where I feel needs it. The vast majority of the individuals !voted to keep, but it was deleted. Tutelary (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion_review is what you want --nonsense ferret  22:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Kriss Sheridan
This page should not be speedily deleted because... the artist has developed his career since the last deletion. he has two successful singles on the music market, he attained popularity in social media, he has over 100.000 facebook fans, and almost 1 million views on Youtube. his entire album is coming soon. isn't it enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia90 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , could you link to the 'two successful singles' part? That may be an outstanding factor even in the afd, so that it would not qualify. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this ironic now? What is afd?
 * , the link to his singles getting attention. If present in a reliable source, may establish new notability other than what was argued in the afd. Afd stands for articles for deletion, which is the formal process by which articles are assessed to be deleted. Tutelary (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved this from the article's talk page since this was already here. Basically, I can't see where the two singles gained any sort of coverage in the slightest. Fan followings on social media sites such as facebook and YT views don't really count towards anything on Wikipedia because popularity doesn't always translate into actual notability and coverage. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Part of the reason is because in the past we've had people claim notability because the individual in question has a large following on say, Twitter, only to discover that they purchased the "fans" via various different companies that specialize in this. I know that some of the criteria says "large following" but the unsaid thing about this criteria is that it is fully expected that the following would have received coverage in reliable sources. (EX, Bronies) In other words the unsaid thing is that if something or someone has a fan following that substantial and noticeable in the media, they'd have received coverage themselves. In any case, I can't see where any of the concerns from the previous AfD have been met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Just in case you haven't watchlisted my talk, nothing important or urgent Lixxx235 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just ask?
Getting my side of MONGO's tale, asking me about what Mongo is referring to rather than just taking his biased/POV word for it would have been a civil, AGF thing to do. He has an ax to grind, you gave an unbiased and accurate assessment of my editing from a neutral point of view. But, it doesn't matter now, I guess as you have stricken and withdrawn your endorsement. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm just not sure. I'll take a look at your edit history with a fine tooth comb and decide then. But I just did a brief overview and didn't look into any topic specific controversy.
 * I have found that you consider paywall materials and newspapers to be unreliable given that you must have a subscription to access them. Please see WP:PAYWALL and WP:SOURCES for details on why this is not so. I should have looked into this and not endorsed without doing so. I cannot in good conscious restore my endorsement per this. See |this for what sections I looked at. (That and the rfc and everything below it) Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That was only until it was explained to me why they are considered reliable (you can see my response to the editor who explained it here: ). As far as the latest RfC at the Simon Collins talk page, it was opened in error. My response to the RfC outlines why it never should have been opened as the concern Fugh had was resolved hours before he opened the RfC addressing that concern.  He hasn't been back on Wikipedia since the RfC was opened to comment and/or close it.


 * Just yesterday, you were considered to be edit warring. Based on the warning you received, if I were to just do a quick glance at your talk page, should I judge you as an editor based on the presence of that warning?  Is doing so what being collegial editors working together to build an encyclopedia on good faith in each other is about?  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater based on the ax-grinding comments of one problematic editor (who had his administrator privileges revoked years ago and his subsequent request to have the privileges restored overwhelmingly denied) doesn't seem wise to me. (if you're interested, look at the number of times MONGO has been blocked for civility violations and edit warring violations here ).  I wouldn't and shouldn't judge you based on that edit warring warning.  No one should.  At this point, it really doesn't matter to me anymore that you go back and reinstate your support/endorsement.  It does matter to me that you give a second thought to basing judgements of other editors on one guy with a very loud voice who has a very questionable civility and behavior history in Wikipedia.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial endorsement, and I'll look into a few more of the happenings before judging again. Tutelary (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" is certainly overstated. Now, the editing history of someone as controversial as MONGO, that is worthy of the aforementioned adjective. :-) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
A belated thanks for your support of my requesting STiki permissions! I got rollback rights though, so it doesn't matter anymore, but thanks! You're the reason I was confident enough to request rollback and reviewer. --Lixxx235 (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Honestly I don't think you'll get reviewer, but congrats on the rollback. Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wat? I have no bias against feminists
All I did was point to the facts in the deletion log which document straight out a feminist led brigade from reddit trying to delete the article

That's NOT a bias against feminism. That's a bias against hidden biases.

Tell ya what, keep to your corner of the wiki and I will keep to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.215.31 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

US Airways
That RfC introduction is thoughtful, well written, and entirely neutral. I am genuinely impressed. Thank you. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Shaktimaan's character page
May i know, how you reverted Shaktimaan's page. Its a notable superhero. If it is non notable i myself would added to speedy deletion. I made a page nor violated terms! Character pages are of many characters like Tony Stark, Jack Sparrow, Bruce Wayne, Volverine. So do not target my works by any, Any Unfair Means PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I redirected it because there was an already an article about that character. You are free to add to that article, but two versions of the same article can be confusing to users. The speedy deletion criteria I'm talking about is WP:A10. Tutelary (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * God its a page and (character) is specified in end very respectively. Check character pages of Peter Parker he is too notable. Do not revert any work of mine. PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , please do note that it is a duplicate article of an article already established. This is a speedy deletion criteria. I have chosen not to tag it, but any other editor can. I redirected it, preserving the page history so you can take the text from it and add to the article already established. Tutelary (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell me one thing why editors do this to new Wiki users? By the way, India is backward in all fields. Showing a notable character is considered a vandalistic work (specially if i do). Characters from American cinema are so notable that they are mentioned here. Really if contribution is a wrong deed then its fair. I have made the page for proving a strong notability of character, but here editors find my works' painful. Even Iron Man has a character page with Green Padlock Protection. My God its really amusing that its just a small attempt to protect just a character page. And for Shaktimaan a redirect. Think to leave this site as my works give pain to other users. PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see the WP:ANI discussion? "This user User:Tutelary is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites".  Thanks for the copyvio-fighting; PrateekTamilian's been indeffed as a block-evading sock.  Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did very much look at the ANI, but I decided not to respond, as I'd googled various versions of the text and found them all over the place. So I figured I was right. Plus, WP:DENY comes into play. It seems to have been handled, so even if I were to respond, I don't think it would add very much at this point. (Plus I was on mobile and what not so it would've been difficult to do.) I'm on my computer now, so if it requires a response, I will. Thank you for the kind words, such a better contrast to the sock's insults.Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Oppose
I think its really a shame to represent an Indian character. And the site where you provided has content from wikipedia to Mtv. Really its making me really irritating PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And one thing if it is blatant infringement put Shaktimaan too in speedy deletion. And you idiotically added as infringement read and decide. I will put up you to Admin noticeboard.

PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop your vandalistic work. Stop at once!

PrateekTamilian (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Tutelary, I saw this on change patrol, and one thing strikes me as odd: the page is said to be a copy of an mtv.com page, but that page seems to be the page for a musical artist of the same name, with no infringing content that I can see. It IS, however, largely copied from http://www.relianceanimation.com/shaktimaan/shaktimaan-aniamted-characters.html, so is still a copyright violation. I only bring this up to point out that the Duplicate Detector seems to be catching violations, but is not associating them properly. Electric Wombat (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted now, so irrelevant. I'll check with the tool's creator. Sorry to have bothered you. Electric Wombat (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this Tutelary user is behaving smart as if Wikipedia is her property. Patent Nonsense user

PrateekTamilian (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, PrateekTamilian is a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama and now blocked so feel free to disregard these messages. --  At am a  頭 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Atama. Will do. Tutelary (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Tutelary. I just saw a deletion notice on Planet Miracles page and I have revised it now. Could you check the article and see if it meet he non-advertising requirement now? I also wrote a contest on my talk page. Kiminamo (talk)
 * , No. As it is still unambiguously promotional. You would have to fundamentally rewrite the page in a NPOV in order for the tag to not be valid anymore. Tutelary (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tutelary. How about now? I have revised the article based on your instruction. Kiminamo
 * , I've removed all non-NPOV language and content on the page. You need to add reliable sources that establish notability, else somebody may nominate it deletion. You also need a claim of significance, which is why this group is notable and what they're notable for. An admin has already tagged it for deletion due to no claim of significance. Go establish one nowTutelary (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , all it needs is a claim of significance, and it could be kept. But since you blanked it, it counts under a different speedy deletion criteria. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems a little complicated so I just deleted the whole article. I will figure a good one before posting a new version. Thanks again.

For Jabari Parker the citation is from draftexpress.com where it states on jabari's page his height and weight based off of NBA Draft Combine measurements, that is what he will be listed as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarts343 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

 * Just wondering, do you regularly check my user page? I mean, how else would you find that? I'm flattered that you spend that time to do that for a user whom you met less than four days ago. Cheers! Thanks, Lixxx235 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, just decided to check it out just once and saw that vandal page and got curious. I'm also wondering if anybody ever had a 'vandal' page where a vandal actually took the advice and vandalized there. Oh, and no problem. You're as much of an editor as I am. Tutelary (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
John from Idegon (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Help me
I nominated an article for deletion, and noticed that there was an older afd which came to the same premise and topic as the one I nominated. Would I be within the rules to use this exact wording (and template) on everyone who participated on the old afd? Exact text which would be on the user's talk page:
 * ==Notification==

You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Boxxy (2nd nomination). You are receiving this message due to your involvement in some fashion at the 1st nomination. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be anything wrong with it. I think it's a good idea, but some of them may be inactive. Go ahead I say. Acalycine ( talk / contribs ) 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandal you've reverted
Hello. You reverted some vandalism here, but User:Salcruz91 seems to be changing other pages as well without leaving reasons in the Edit summary box. Here is a list of his changes. I have warned him on his Talk page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to discuss this on the IRC help channel before reverting it. Tutelary (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Humber the Hun
Hi there. I saw your name in AfD pages. I understand you are quite knowledgeable in deletion discussions. Could you have a look at Humber the Hun article? I think it should be proposed for speedy deletion or AfD but as I lack experience did not want to do it myself. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and nominate it for deletion. Nothing will happen to you IRL. No one is gonna call you up and be like, "Why did you nominate this article for deletion? I'm going to kill your entire family!" No one is going to ban you for some ludicrous reason like, "bad faith afd" and no one should criticize you personally for it. Even so, "What kind of idiot would nominate this article for deletion?" would be rebutted with a link to no personal attacks and a reminder to comment on the content, not the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you undo my conribution?
I removed your false and incorrect content from the first section of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma because rhabdomyolysis is not a type of cancer as you falsely stated. You also fail to provide citations thereby making your contribution to that page null and void.

Srsly bruh like im just tryina help wikerpedia man man129.12.103.201 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing "Google Now" to "Anal Sex" and "Mortola" To "Sex" is not appreciated.

Yes, it is. So why undo it?
 * I mean to say not appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism. They're just updating stats from the official website for it. Tutelary (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
This is the only warning you will receive for your Wikipediholism. If you edit Wikipedia again, you will be nominated for administratorship. Lixxx235 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't nominate me, seriously. I'd get a WP:NOTNOW response, and/or some tons of !oppose votes due to the controversial topics I've edited in. But still, thanks. I'd consider myself a Wikipedia addict. Tutelary (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, this was the standard template here ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Lixxx235 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd
I take exception to your sarcastic edit comment when reverting my reversion of an edit made to a sentence discussing the cause of death of Amanda Todd. The cause of death has not been officially released, source cited in the Investigation section. Your own use of Undue and lack of civility is both uncalled for and ridiculous. The article now lacks balance, an impartial tone, and good research... all cornerstones of a worthwhile WP article. If you're trying to prove a point, I don't think it was the one you intended to prove. You don't own the article, so it'd be great if you could back up your POV-pushing with a substantive argument. OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never stated that I owned the article. If you were to look at the post on the talk page, I explained my reversion quite well. Tutelary (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Using words like "Sarcastic" and "lack of civility" and "you don't own the article" as well as "POV-pushing" are all assumptions that I am not working in good faith. I beseech that you demonstrate good faith by not referring to me as a 'uncivil pov pusher', because that's not what I am. I am a Wikipedia editor who saw fault with using a single source as relevant when there are multiple sources that contradict such. Though that's not to be discussed here, but on the article's talk page. I have not discussed you as an editor, but I do take some minor offense that I wasn't notified of the reference desk about Amanda Todd, where I could've given my response to my reverts, which I have done such now. Tutelary (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll use the word "sarcastic" again, because that's the apt description of your edit remark. You may not see yourself as an "uncivil POV-pusher", and that's fine, because I never made such a characterization of you as a person. I did, however, characterize your actions as uncivil POV-pushing. I can assume good faith in your actions, unless and until you've clearly demonstrated otherwise, which is how I perceive the situation. I have no personal gripe with you; I don't have a strong interest in the article in question either. However, I believe making an effort to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles is occasionally worth a try. In an effort to keep the discussion of the edit issues on track and seek a resolution, I've followed up on the Talk page of the article. OttawaAC (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Do not characterise or implicate me as an 'uncivil POV pusher', or even imply my actions as one. I will see it as a personal attack, which are against Wikipedia policy. I am a strident and harsh supporter of commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is what I have done. I have not commented on you as an editor, nor anything of the sort, but purely focused on the content, sources, and policies. I am going to beseech that you do the same. Tutelary (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't "imply" anything, I flat out stated that your edit remark was uncivil. So you stating that your actions are above criticism, because any criticism of your actions is equivalent to a personal attack? Are you serious? OttawaAC (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, however, characterize your actions as uncivil POV-pushing.  Replace 'Uncivil POV-pushing' with anything more derogatory. Like "Vandal". "I did, however, characterize your actions as vandalism, but you are not a vandal." it still has the same effects as calling that individual a vandal, and that's what I am telling you to stop/prevent. I am not immune to criticism, but I do not consider 'uncivil POV pusher', even in implications of my actions to be legitimate constructive criticism. Tutelary (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Todd
You lack consensus and are engaged in an edit war against several editor. Leave it be, or you'll be reported for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP:CONSENSUS can change and even so, I have not seen valid consensus on the talk page, maybe in a tag team of reverts against me. See WP:DRNC, as well. I have engaged in the talk page and you have not responded to my points about being reliable sources, either. After the initial comment by you, and the responses between me and another editor, I have not seen any more comments. You also seem to only show up after I revert the last revert which had the reason of 'not reliable' sourcing, which is truly not correct. Tutelary (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do yourself right, and stop it now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop what, exactly? Discussing on talk pages? Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself whether it's worth getting blocked over this bit of trivia, which no one besides you is supporting? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, stop what exactly? Contributing to Wikipedia in all of its entirety? I also would like to request that you stop threatening me vaguely with a block. Tutelary (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you continue to edit-war on the page, you will be reported and might be blocked. Is it worth it you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist request
Your request has been archived already, but in case you missed it, I have white-listed the pornhub faq page as you requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hackforums
Given that it was deleted via an AfD, you should take your draft to Deletion review. Stephen 22:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Always repercussions
Tutelary, as much as I typically appreciate your input, this one - which you made without a) reading my entire comment, b) apparently made without reviewing the edit-warring, and c) understanding the BRD is a tool towards gaining WP:CONSENSUS - led to this poorly-thought-out unblock request, which led to this decline that got you mentionned. Please be careful in the future when you make comments ... we now have an editor who believes they were wrongly-blocked, which will influence their desire to continue editing OR could lead to them to go on a "suicide-by-admin"  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I do admit that my comment was made out of haste and partially misleading. However, you should not say If you ever fail to follow WP:BRD, you will be blocked. sounded very much like it was using the essay as a policy. I think that your wording could have been more clear. Something like I highly advise that you follow WP:BRD, as it contains strategies intended to limit edit warring, maximize discussions and civil opinions. If you do this and follow it, I will overlook the edit warring and negate the eminent block. would be a better phrase than what you said. I did mention the WP:3RR in my response, but I didn't investigate further, which I very well should've. I'll leave a note on the user that they were not blocked for violating BRD, but edit warring policy instead. Tutelary (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the extent of their edit-warring, flaunting of the rules and stating that they would continue to do so, there was a need to be a little more forceful - essentially implementing WP:1RR by advising them that they need not pass the 3RR threshold in the future to be blocked for edit-warring. The wording was forceful for a reason  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to justify yourself
"Panda" acted like a paltry garden-variety bully and you were spot-on in your first message. Wording is everything and he chose the worst way to express himself. But more importantly, he paid more attention to my "edit warring" and to reasserting his authority than to the actions of a severely biased fellow wiki user who had used the Admin Noticeboard as a weapon rather than as an instrument.

It is people like "Panda" or "Lucy1994" who make Wikipedia such an unsatisfactory experience overall. At least intellectually. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Todd DR
...has been re-opened. I had already made a statement there, and that will probably be the end of my involvement, especially as they're trying to get me banned. C'est la vie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have been very diligent, even though you're on the other side of the argument. I truly appreciate it. Tutelary (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding articles, my primary goal, always, is to get it right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger
I didn't intend my edit to be pointy; I was adding a project that seemed relevant. My edit summary was provocative, I guess. I've dealt with some... very misinformed and ignorant people regarding this issue outside Wikipedia, and maybe that bled in. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page
Damn right you made a mistake, I didn't introduce any external link. The closest I could possibly be said to have done that is by describing in the edit summary what said add on was, but it wasn't a link, it just described what the add on I was talking about was. 81.158.98.45 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that I saw your edit summary as somewhat promotional. Also, no personal attacks are allowed. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I made a mistake, sure. That does not give you the right to call me any names. It also leads to animosity between editors. Tutelary (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/FoF/NPOV page
Hello there. I noticed you reverted my blanking of the page User:Vassyana/FoF/NPOV, perhaps because I didn't include a summary. The page I blanked is a draft of an article that was deleted on 08/27/10 (I am a former editor of that article). Today I noticed that a web site is linking to this draft as the main article, and that defeats the whole point of the deletion. If blanking is not the right procedure, what do you suggest the process should be? Thank you for your attention. --UltraEdit (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You could take it to miscellany for deletion, explain the situation, and etc. Miscellany_for_deletion Also, blanking can sometimes be legitimate. Editing summaries are highly useful in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You could also make it a redirect to the mainspace page. --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do I do that? --UltraEdit (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to add the page to miscellany for deletion but I don't think I did it right. Could you check for me? Thanks! --UltraEdit (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to have done it right, but you haven't left your deletion rationale on the page entry. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vassyana/FoF/NPOV and post your deletion rationale. Tutelary (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --UltraEdit (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire source
I am sorry if I seem like I am bothering you :D but it seems that on the page about Voltaire, you keep undoing my edits (even when I put a reliable source) now, I don't want to sound hostile but maybe you don't believe the source or what, also, sorry about that if you don't.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of OSX 10.10 discuss
Why are we deleting this article over and over again. It's obviously coming tomorrow at WWDC. It's not a crystal ball as there is not speculative info. All other MAC OSX versions have there own article. Don't see how deleting over and over helps. Justinhu12 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Power Ponies
But it doesn't have to do anything with the works of cartoonist Jim Davis. Scarlet Marines (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , then Boldly remove that portion of the article. I might take it to afd myself if the IP doesn't. I have no problem with you removing that portion. I only care about the wrong speedy deletion nominations. Tutelary (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim Davis did not create Power Ponies, he created Garfield.--174.47.248.220 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Natalia Poklonskaya
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

COI noticeboard
Have you or could you initiate the SPI for User:Speededdie? I would do it myself, but I am currently on my phone without real internet and won't receive internet most likely for a few more days. Apologies and thanks!  Artichoker [ talk ] 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I thought I told you, but it turns out that I didn't. I decided not to, as the supposed sock puppets have not edited for months and it would be considered stale. However, if there is indeed current sockpuppets, I will file it then, but 2-4 months old I won't do. Plus, some of them only made a single edit. Apologies for not letting you know sooner, it just skipped my mind.Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No prob. Thanks for the update!  Artichoker [ talk ] 01:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot?
I am working on developing a bot, but for now I am using it to generate updates for financial information on a limited basis. It is not running in a n automated fashion. So much of the financial information is out of date. I am sourcing the data from the SEC. When it is ready I will start the process to submit it as a bot. Xbrlus (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I mean are you using some bot or automated tool to add the financial information? You're doing 4-5 articles a minute, and I'm not sure if it would violate Wikipedia policy to be doing such. Tutelary (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello, I'm Chief hiccup horrendous haddock. I'm sorry about editing 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil (video game). I was confused and thought it was the FIFA 14 page. So sorry and thanks for restoring the edits I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief hiccup horrendous haddock (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Remember, I have reverted a typical WP:SPA who inserts a source that doesn't even support his information, check Talk:Rape_in_India for more info.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reported to WP:AIV. I am not really sure though, but lets see.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I recently had email from other editor that this person is a sock puppet. It will be easier to handle now. Thanks a lot for your contributions and civility.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thnx though
There is no personal attack on my edit summary, just stating the obvious about their status as a user on Wikipedia. A personal attack is WP:NPA#WHATIS as descriptive. They interfered in my request that is approved or denied by administrators only. Comments done such as the one here in my request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=612232005&oldid=612187035 can be discouraging. An administrator would see differently about the request because a comment done by a non — admin. Thanks though for you message -- ♣Jerm♣  729 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , Calling a user 'obnoxious' is not acceptable. Consider this my level one warning to you for personal attacks. Other users can comment on requests all that they like, and as I said before, it might or might not be taken into account by the reviewing admin. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't call a user a "obnoxious" nor did I use the word "obnoxious". I stated: "Disparaging comment by Non - Admin." that applies to the comment and not to the user. Edit summary comment does not apply to WP:NPA#WHATIS. Do not manipulate the context of a discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣  729 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I mistook the 'obvious' as the word 'obnoxious', which is my mistake. Nonetheless, according to google's dictionary, disparaging means expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory. which is plainly a personal attack. All in all, just comment on the content, not the contributor. "Hey, I would appreciate it if you were to not comment on my rollback request and politely requesting that you remove it. Thank you." rather than saying that they were 'interfering' of sorts. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

actually
I'm wondering about jezebel and bustle. are those also RS?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jezebel I'm pretty sure is, not sure about Bustle. Tutelary (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. What is the RS qualification for inclusion in the "media mentions" section. A tweet by a non-notable person? Nyet. A NY times article? Yes. But what about a group blog with no editorial oversight, that nonetheless gets oodles of hits. Is that a RS? The problem is, once you start accepting the Bustles of the world, are you going to start letting the Manosphere blogs in as well. I can see WP:Feminism trembling... So to be fair, we should probably not include any of them. I'm not even sure how to analyze Bustle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think letting Jezebel stay would be a good idea. Neither do I for Bustle. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk page.
I do not feel i "bit" at all. I left him a message added into a first level warning template with added text explaining exactly what the problem was. How is that biting? Edits about people have to be properly referenced. He left a message at my talk page to which I would have replied with some helpful comments, instructing him on the importance of proper referencing (and how to do it). If you care at all, Hoda Kolb's bio actually says she went to a different school. all the other references were to sites connected to the person being referenced, and none contained any info on where they went to school. None of the bio's for the people that were notable contain any info connecting them to the school. The only bad move in this was your butting in. How is it helpful to a new editor to replace their poorly referenced edits just because they are new? I don't see a damn thing anywhere where you did anything more than I did. You directed him to a help page. Since he cared enough to write back about his edit, I certainly would have helped him in far greater detail than that. That probably will not work now, because you have "instructed" him that it is just fine to do a half ass job and that I am some sort of a jerk for telling him it isn't. Again, how do you see your actions as helpful to either him or the encyclopedia? If I have the time, I will go back to him and try to repair the damage you did. Thanks for being so "helpful". John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this edit on the IPs page. I remember some brouhaha about Men's right movement and an ArbCom case, but I had forgotten about it. Plus, I wasn't aware of all the sites that were included under this case. Thanks for giving reminders, I'm going to watch myself too. Dave Dial (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

David Webb
Hi,

thanks for altering the David Webb title; I tried to capitalise it but couldn't find the right button. I want to add a photograph but don't know how to go about it. You will find a number on The David Webb Virtual Archive & Fan Site.

There are also some documents relating to him here and on The NCROPA Virtual Archive including a magazine article in which he explained how he came to form NCROPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Morning T
Was posting at Bbb23's page on a general matter (more in closing). After posting, this interaction caught my eye:, and I am writing you because this eye-catching conversation seems to have led to your participation at TomT0m's User Talk page. As background, you may recall we (you and I) interacted back on 15 May, and you kindly gave me a star. (Search "Le Prof" at your .) In re: the TomT0m discussion that frustrated that new user, at. Look at the first person to respond to TomT0m there. This is an admin. Please, I would ask you go to his Talk page, and review it in some cursory fashion (to create your own impression) of his activities, interactions, etc., especially with new users and IP editors. You may also wish to have a look at his User page and self-descriptive links. There is a protege also appearing throughout his Talk page that may also catch your attention.

After you do this review, please then ping me, and I will return and express the concerns and question that I have.

The Bbb23 posting that I was leaving initially, alerting me to the tomT0m matter, regarded how to address plagiarism,, but we can take that up later if you are interested. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've looked over it. What are your concerns? Tutelary (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More soon. I am stuck trying to sort something with an Admin, before things get hairy. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What's it about? I'm still wondering. Tutelary (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tutelary: In re: this and your post at my Talk: Two separate issues. The one I am referring you to, above, is just advice — is the Admin at the pages referred to above — the Admin responding first to TomT0m — acting OK vis-a-vis expectations for Admins (see, for instance ), or am I missing something? And if the Admin's attitudes are inappropriate, how do we then respond?


 * Regarding the discussion at my Talk page, this is a separate sticky matter. The Admin there took a side in a difficult content dispute—taking the side of someone with whom he appears to have a long friendship. Editors do this all the time; Admins, for them I think it is ill-advised. But no need to involve yourself with that. (I have asked 3 other Admins to look to the matter.) So, ignore that, just look to the TomT0m question. Sorry for delays.  Cheers, mon amis.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , If you genuinely believe there is administrator misconduct done here, you can take it directly to WP:ANI. Do note that there is not immunity for being the reporter. What you might've done by alerting other admins might be seen as canvassing to others and it might backflop on you. There's no way to directly tell how it will lead. But it will force a discussion between you, the admin accused, and other admins on whether there was misconduct involved. If you do decide to go down that route, which I personally wouldn't, be sure to back up your statements with facts and evidence. Another solution might be WP:RFC/U, a request for comments from the general community about a user's conduct. I wish good luck with you deciding to pursue or not. Tutelary (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tutelary, thanks. not worried about the canvassing, because of the way I handled it, but your cautiousness is noted (and appreciated). On the TomT0m matter—what do you think (having looked at that Admin's Talk page)? Is there an issue? Not asking you to join in anything, just for an independent view of whether, a, this type of treatment of new and IP users by admins is normal acceptable, or b, no, that it seems "beyond the pale".  Cheers.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of ambivalent about it, and not willingly. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are accountable for whatever administrator action they take, and should to answer questions about it. You are very much allowed to criticize an admin's decision. This may be considered vaguely under WP:BITE, but it seems that the editor was having a somewhat of a 'rant-ey' tone to it, and that may not be why Bbb23 did not respond. Though such a thing does not disqualify them from asking questions about an administrator's decision, like deleting a page. I think he could've done a better job of handling it. Given that the editor has not edited in the past 4 days, they might have left the project, but it's too early to decide whether they did or did not. In short, I think there were sound wrongs on both sides. Administrators are held to a higher standard than a regular user, however. Where a regular user might be 'rant-ey' an admin should WP:AGF and answer their questions regardless. Tutelary (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, received, yes, agreed all. The WP:BITE reference was helpful. By the way, there is no criticism implied of Bbb, only of wild-looking English fellow, who seems to take pride, at his User page says, at being a crotchety admin. Any other thoughts, more generally—e.g., on the latter's general approach to new and IP user issues, in response to their questioning his deletions (see his most lately archived Talk)? Would be glad to hear on that as well.  Meanwhile, no immediate action, just understanding perspectives in this. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Male submission
I'll go point by point: The existence of male subs is not a matter of debate, they exist in real life. The debate is about male subs in porn, not real ones. This was not made clear. "personally submit themselves to the authority of a woman" it says "personally", we do not critique what these men "personally" do, we critique femdom porn - which is public. "radical feminists, and hyper-masculine frat culture, as they both subscribe to the exact same patriarchal world view" WOW. radical feminists now love patriarchy... seems totally legit. "Sex positive feminism, meanwhile, has actually dominated a few submissive men" WUT? "and may have different opinions regarding binary sex roles." 1.i thought links to blogs were not ok? How is a link to "Pervocracy" more credible than a link to radical feminists' actual beliefs? 2.it implies that radfems hold different beliefs regarding sex roles i.e. that radfems like sex roles. Seeing as a group of sex roles=gender and how radfems want to abolish gender... im going to have to ask for an explanation on how that isnt slander. "it has been argued by anti-pornography feminists that male submission may be even more evidence of men's patriarchal oppression over women" complete and purposeful misunderstanding not only of radfem critiques, but what it is that radfems critique about femdom porn in general. "Even if it's mostly women earning up to triple dollar amounts per hour to degrade submissive men and women, and some of them seem really enthusiastic about it, especially when compared to minimum wage jobs in the service industry... does she need protection from that experience?" ok so this is what a non-biased POV looks like? Gotcha. "It's telling that many of those who claim male submissives don't exist, such as Robin Morgan" who never stated such. "thus alluding to the hypocritical, phallocentric sexism that radical feminism is often accused of" accusations and bias. "Although, to be fair, the kind of radical feminism Robin Morgan represents, really sets the bar low for what defines male oppression of women" that is a personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Operation Fourth Wave Feminism
I've had a look at your edits to this page, and given that a different user tried to blank the other half, I've had enough. I'm going to rummage through the article to see what can be salvaged.-- Laun  chba  ller  07:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

John Steward (assemblyman)
I removed you Prod, because if everything is true, he'd be notable. It needs a lot more work, however. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you. My main problem with it was WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but now that I look at it, I did do a 'derp' moment there, considering those were dates, not phone numbers. Nonetheless, I got no problem with it. Tutelary (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Elliot Rodger Screenshot From Youtube Video.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elliot Rodger Screenshot From Youtube Video.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:
A little bit of both. But yeah, a tabloid thinking it is legitimate should be considered notable, right? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leave the andersson jamal page, its correct!!! He played for ado 20 this season and the changed ive made now are correct he played in qatar, upcoming season he will play in ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.69.252.54 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes hello, I have edited the "quoting out of context" section of wikipedia as "quote mining" is unverified
I have done extensive searches for an internet slang term called "quote mining". It however is not found in ANY dictionary, slang or not.

the only data bases that even use it are some creation/evolution debates and this site.

seeing that this site is non partisan relating to issues, and at least tries to be, I removed it's section.

quoting out of context is a phrase already defined, it is redundant to also use the term "quote mine" as it simply means the same thing.

secondly, as I said it doesn't exist in any dictionaries I found, except ones with a wikipedia base engine.

thirdly, quote mining is unverified as the rules states all content should be.

thank you for your time.

(I gave a one sentence explanation of this edit when I edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.24.102 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk page.
I do not feel i "bit" at all. I left him a message added into a first level warning template with added text explaining exactly what the problem was. How is that biting? Edits about people have to be properly referenced. He left a message at my talk page to which I would have replied with some helpful comments, instructing him on the importance of proper referencing (and how to do it). If you care at all, Hoda Kolb's bio actually says she went to a different school. all the other references were to sites connected to the person being referenced, and none contained any info on where they went to school. None of the bio's for the people that were notable contain any info connecting them to the school. The only bad move in this was your butting in. How is it helpful to a new editor to replace their poorly referenced edits just because they are new? I don't see a damn thing anywhere where you did anything more than I did. You directed him to a help page. Since he cared enough to write back about his edit, I certainly would have helped him in far greater detail than that. That probably will not work now, because you have "instructed" him that it is just fine to do a half ass job and that I am some sort of a jerk for telling him it isn't. Again, how do you see your actions as helpful to either him or the encyclopedia? If I have the time, I will go back to him and try to repair the damage you did. Thanks for being so "helpful". John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I would like to add a couple of observations, if I may. First, I'm a "she" not a "he."   The discussion above relates to my very FIRST attempt to edit a Wikipedia page.  As such, I appreciate  for "butting in" when she did, otherwise I may have just walked away from this confusing and expensive waste of my time.  Now that I've had a chance to learn from BOTH of you, I understand the policy that you, John, are attempting to uphold.  A different approach might be more effective, however, assuming Wikipedia's intent is to teach, and not turn away would-be contributors.  Surely there is a way to see whether someone is a novice or a seasoned editor before bringing the ax down?  It truly is not immediately clear to the novice what does or does not constitute reliable and applicable information... Especially in this case, when I know, firsthand, the facts provided are correct.  I am a fellow FHHS alum of our "Notable Alumni" and I the primary admin of our alumni association website.  I uploaded all of our alumni profiles from official graduation rosters I received directly from the Fairfax County School Board, but I don't have any way to cite those documents that I received via email.  Whether Hoda Kotb attended another high school or not, she graduated from Fort Hunt High School.  I have since found and cited an article stating Hoda attended FHHS, Class of '82.  Do you have any additional suggestions, or is our official alumni association website sufficient for verification?  Our alumni organization is registered with the state of Virginia and the IRS.  Thank you, both, for your time and consideration. Talers (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RE User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2014/June
In response to your comment at User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2014/June, I found an edit that CBNG scored at 1 (edit - warning). --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 23:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Earlier comment on Angus Taylor (politician) page
Hello, you were on the Angus Taylor (politician) page a little while ago. Since you were there, we have had more disruptive edits by COI editors. Discussion amongst editors on the talk page has greatly improved the article and you will see that it has changed significantly. I am proposing a number of edits that are often removed or altered so there is still some sticking points. If you get a chance, swing by. It would be great to get a neutral view point on the reasons other editors keep removing them. I have a genuine wish to improve the article but I want to ensure I also comply with policy. 1955Dewayne (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , please link me to a section you want me to look at. There are many discussions going on and I'm not going to reply to all of them. Tutelary (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Didn't realize the ramifications of my actions until it was too late. I am currently working on undoing all of my mess. Again I sincerely apologize. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for that resounding welcome! Just to let you know, I love my IPv6 User name, and it's very cool to me that when I restart my computer, I will have a different User name. - 2001:558:1400:10:C2:2B3:2D1A:CB69 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just curious, what do you think of this edit? I thought Wikipedia had an essay or a guideline, asking editors not to be a dick to each other? - 2001:558:1400:10:C2:2B3:2D1A:CB69 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. I just welcomed you because that red link looks a little off to me when I see it, and it reminds me. In general though, you could probably revert the close, but do note that Jimbo's talk page is monitored heavily. I don't know what other than that you could do, but WP:BOLD is a policy as well as WP:BITE. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, the English Wikipedia has abandoned that essay as an incivil way of asking people to be civil. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

WWE Music Group edits
Why edit the WWE Music Group page? There's a ton of helpful info there. --Evil Yugi (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)