User talk:Tutelary/Archive 3

Thank you
Thanks. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not reinsert contested material removed because of BLP concerns
The Biographies of living persons policy is crystal-clear:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.

Furthermore, the repetition of completely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior is completely prohibited - and the use of the words "scamming" and "theft" are unambiguous imputations of actual criminal behavior.

See also the unambiguous policy: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced. It is prohibited to reinsert such material without a clearly-established consensus that the material does not violate the policy.

Open a discussion at BLPN if you wish, but the material stays out unless there is a consensus to retain it. If you wish to waste a bunch of time on BLPN arguing that we have to keep for all time the unsourced anonymous allegations of criminal wrongdoing, you are welcome to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're citing policy that specifically contradicts you. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. This is related to a content decision, and is specifically excluded from removal per BLP. Tutelary (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to content choices to repeat unsourced and unsupported allegations of criminal behavior made by anonymous IPs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IP editors comments are just as valid as anyone else's. "This article is biased" is supposing a possible NPOV violation regarding it, and therefore makes the comment related to the content and excluded underneath BLP protection. Anywho, defer to the talk page with additional comments. Tutelary (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up
Read the boomerang essay. You complained at WP:ANI, a very public place, about the removal of comments from a BLP talk page, and then tried to WP:WIKILAWYER by claiming that the unsourced and possibly defamatory comments were not content-related and so not subject to the BLP policy. If you didn't want the comments included in the article, then that was a misuse of the talk page. I suggest that you voluntarily request redaction of the deleted but still visible comments to avoid being blocked from editing for posting possibly defamatory comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , Wikilawyering is generally attempting to use policy in the way that it was not meant to. Citing policy is what I did, and if I were to go into the implications of what BLP stands for and try to hammer some artificial meaning out of it and using word play, then yes, I would be wikilawyering. In this case, no. Also, what defamatory statements? I made sure to only post diffs in WP:ANI and not the actual content from those diffs, as a precaution in case. Please also clarify what 'still visible comments' you're referring to. Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you were referring to this content of the edit, note that I removed that. Though I'm not sure how hyperbole or overt exaggeration in specific, meaningful context could count as defamatory. Tutelary (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you provide reliable sources for your allegations of fraud by Anita Sarkeesian? If so, who deleted them?  I didn't see them, but I did see your allegations.  Your allegations should be well-sourced, because Anita Sarkeesian is a living person, and we have a policy on biographies of living persons.  I understand that you don't like Ms. Sarkeesian, and that you think that she is a con woman.  That is not the way Wikipedia works.  You can't post allegations about her to her article page without sources, and you can't you post allegations about her to her talk page without sources unless they have to do with improving her article.  Do you really want to work your allegations about her off-Wiki in a redacted.  You really seem to want to say that she is a con women, but to avoid the hazard of that accusation.  Please try to clean up your remarks so that you aren't indeffed.  Please try.  I regret that my remarks offend you, but I think that I understand Wikipedia better than you do.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , provide diffs to anything possibly defamatory I've said about Anita Sarkeesian. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Otherwise, this is bordering on harassment. It's been resolved at WP:ANI. Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: WP:BEANS
Sorry, I never thought of it that way. I've merely just assumed that firmness against the tide of vandalism is what sufficed. I'll think a bit more carefully next time. Thanks. Carmaker1 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:DENY is a good essay. Revert them, issue them a warning, but don't insult/comment about them. It just gives them ammunition. Like, if I were you, if it gets changed again, the edit summary would be; 'Long term sneaky vandalism with changing dates' and then issue them a warning for 'deliberate factual errors'. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Or what?
If you don't want templates added to your talk page, don't edit in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. It is really very simple. John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , or you could respect my talk page guidelines listed at the very top. Do I have to bold them? Please do not leave templates unless it is absolutely necessary. See also WP:TEMPLAR. I'm talking mandated notices, like sanction notices. Tutelary (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Our paths have crossed before. i remember you seem to feel that the usual way things get done here do not apply to you.  So, I will not bother leaving you templates.  I will just seek admin intervention in the future.  I fail to understand why you think your time is more valuable than the other volunteers here, but whatever.  Feel free to continue behaving as if you are a world unto yourself.  toodles. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Admin intervention in terms of a content dispute? Really? Why do you continue to pursue almost hostile edits, are you trying to provoke me? Also, read what this is about. I'm merely asking that you respect my talk page guidelines, and you take it too far by saying that you'll seek admin intervention next time? For what, exactly? Getting into an editing dispute which is totally normal? I'm going to invite you to go right ahead, so more people can get a view of your behavior here. Moreso, cautiously read WP:BOOMERANG first. All I'm asking is that you do not template me, and to respect my talk page guidelines. Tutelary (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, I noticed this convo and your reference to WP:TEMPLAR. That is an essay, and while you are welcome to request that other editors not communicate using templates, they are under no obligation to comply. removal of any template constitutes receipt of the message, so no escalation is needed. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The dispute was related to another page, which I didn't want to continue the dispute in. I understand it's an essay but I'm asking that he respect what I've outlined. It's not an unreasonable request in my eyes. It's like saying I don't wish to receive talkbacks then receiving talkbacks; even though it's at the top of your profile. Anywho, I don't expect a response from John in this case; but should he continue making things personal I'll report to the appropriate noticeboards. Tutelary (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, if I requested not to get talkbacks, I would not be particularly concerned if one was posted nonetheless. Maybe the editor didn't see my request, or maybe they just thought the TB was warranted in that situation. To quote, A caution message on a user’s talk page isn’t the end of the world. If it was, we wouldn’t have reformed vandals. We wouldn’t have massive amounts of GFDL photography that users went and captured to overcome fair use issues. We wouldn’t have many of the great things we have on Wikipedia because someone steered a user in the right direction back when it counted; when they were new, and when they made mistakes. They weren’t “a regular” then, but because of the good advice they received, they became “a regular.” If they ever forget it, do the best you can to remind them of their old, good habits: template them! VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Misogynoir
Hi, I saw your reversions to the page misogynoir. I believe in this case it meets the following criteria on WP:SELFPUBLISH:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The tumblr posts come from Moya Bailey, who invented the term. Presumably she should be considered an established expert on the subject matter, as she both coined it and has published academic articles relating to the term. So in this case, her self-published post about when she invented the term (in graduate school) and other terms she considered (sistagyny) should be considered reliable, as these are not exceptional claims.

Mvolz (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:PRIMARY, we need secondary sources to qualify for the primary sources. Additionally, we have to be cautious and attribute them to her if we do use them. In her tumblr blog, creator of term stated... and then whatever you wish to support. But we have to cautious, only using them for the most basic of facts. Tutelary (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not very clear on what you said here; would it be acceptable to use these primary sources as long as the statement is qualified with "in her tumblr blog" etc? Or is a secondary source required for that? I have a secondary source but it lacks editorial review so I wasn't sure if that was any better (http://www.gradientlair.com/post/84108234156/moya-bailey-explains-misogynoir). If neither of these work then I'll remove the information entirely. Mvolz (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. You're good for now. I've restored the edit. I'll examine it another time for compliance but for now, it seems you did use it for the most straightfowrward of facts. Tutelary (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Query about conflict of interest
Do you have a conflict of interest with Men's Rights Movement pages here on Wikipedia? Are you paid by or closely associated with any Men's Rights Activist organizations? jps (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Tutelary (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates
Why do you template my page when you ask people not to template yours?

jps (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have a 'don't template me' message on your talk page nor your user page. If you had, I would've left a more personal message. Nonetheless, those comments are not acceptable. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You should really do unto others as you would have them do unto you. jps (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You should take your own advice and revert your own revert. Comment on content, not the contributor. The next personal attack you make against anyone I will be going to the noticeboards. Tutelary (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just be sure you are aware of WP:BOOMERANG. jps (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen, Tutelary is a model of WP civility, and thus WP:BOOMERANG wouldn't go far. Your comments, including the one just above ("your MRA friends"), suggest that you would do well to tone down the personal aspersions / incivility.  Memills (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil POV pushing seems to me to be the model. YMMV. jps (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't do this.
Don't ever revert my talkpage contributions again. See WP:TPO for more on why you aren't allowed to do that. If you think it's a personal attack, report it to the administrators. jps (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks outlines that you are to remove personal attacks. Contributions like You don't add anything to this conversation but your own lack of scholarship. is a personal attack directed towards another editor. Additionally, this Since you can't read the sources, it seems you are basing your opinion on bias and favoritism. I haven't seen any evidence that you actually do anything else here. is not acceptable either. Tutelary (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Get someone else (not your MRA friends, please) to so identify it. Pointing out your egregious lack of scholarship in that thread does not seem to be a personal attack to me. You just aren't doing a good job at doing research, is all. It's okay. There's a lot of people who aren't good at doing research. jps (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone actually stated You don't add anything to this conversation but your own lack of scholarship. then it sure as hell is a violation of WP:NPA and can be reverted on-sight, plus whatever templated warning is applicable in the situation. Oh, and NOBODY can say "don't template me" - the warning templates were designed to convey a specific message and were vetted by WMF legal, so saying nobody can use them on your page is inappropriate.  You may prefer hand-typed, but you have no authority to say they cannot be used  the panda ɛˢˡ”  18:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest another wording that indicates the same thing: namely that the person commenting has not done the requisite scholarship to comment but is commenting anyway. This is how one deals with editorial matters in research-based works. It is not personal, it's merely stating an observation about something that is missing in the conversation that should be present. jps (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are the relevant diffs of what I reverted as a 'personal attack' if you want, DangerousPanda:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&diff=prev&oldid=616936186
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&diff=prev&oldid=616936281 (Where the lack of scholarship comment came from) Tutelary (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging just in case. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 100 Computing Lessons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 100 Computing Lessons 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/100 Computing Lessons 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. AlanS (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete the wikipedia entry for Panjury
Panjury is a good social review website, it has unique ranking system. User can vote and present their comments and preference to almost all subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngtszman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Misandry
Danielle. I understand you have a pronounced viewpoint and may disapprove of some content and/or procedure, but I have to point out some errors in your treatment of this article in this blanket reversion.
 * 1) You might have chosen to inform yourself about the online edition of the OED and seen that "On 14 March 2000, the Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED Online) became available to subscribers.[58] The online database contains the entire OED2 and is updated quarterly with revisions that will be included in the OED3 (see below). The online edition is the most up-to-date version of the dictionary available."
 * 2) You have reverted to (inadequate) citations which are in the form of bare links. It would be more helpful to expand those links to a more intelligible form, as I did in the citations which you trashed.
 * 3) Citations you restored fail to justify the wording "[hatred of] men and/or boys. You may choose to assume that boys are included in the male sex, but it would be more correct to limit the wording to that actually verified by the citation(s). In fact, the root andros specifically means MEN, not boys, as is explained in the section "Origin(s)" notwithstanding your irresponsible reversion of my improvements to that section.
 * 4) The "blog" which I appended to External links, and which you chose to revert would admittedly not have been a valid reliable source if used as a citation, but cannot be objected to as an external link, especially since it is well written and painstakingly based on reliable, third-party, published sources. I might add that Wikipedia's MoS does NOT have a blanket ban on blogs. True, blog references should not normally be used in biographies of living persons, but that stringent standard does not apply to this article.
 * 5) What are you going to do about the typos I corrected here and which you have  restored to their incorrect state? ...And the valid wikilink which I inserted here which is now absent?
 * 6) Since you have restored the uncited term "philandry" to the lead paragraph, it might be appropriate for you to provide some verification for that.
 * 7) You may have noted on the talk page that I intend to take a part in cleaning up this very unsatisfactory article. I am a normally a gentle and restrained person, but will not hesitate to be assertive when necessary. I also believe in handling substantial disagreements on talk pages.

Instead of anticipating my own thoroughgoing return to the article, you may decide to revisit your own over-hasty edits. I prefer not to participate in any form of edit-warring, preferring civilised discussion. However, I consider Wikipedia too important to be either neglected or depreciated by anyone, and I hope you and I can both approach this article in the same spirit. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note on the talk page and transclude your reply as well as my response. Tutelary (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

EGRS
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Boy is in the cats Childhood, Terms for males
 * Father is in    Family,    Fatherhood,     Human development,    Terms for males
 * MHS is in    Sexual orientation and society,     Human sexuality,     Male homosexuality,     Men's health,  Men and sexuality

Cloverfield Edit
I removed the section as I believed it had no purpose being where it was, specifically. I intended to move it, not delete it, but obviously forgot. The page went from plot to backstory, and while the information might be relevant, isn't particularly a backstory of any kind. The section mentions the company and details about it, but in no way mentions how it actually relates to the movie, except a few destruction scenes, let alone anything that constitutes a backstory.

It fits more with the Marketing section.

Joseph M. Hanna
I just added an image of Joseph M. Hanna to his page and you removed it? Not sure why as this is a picture of him I'm just trying to add to his page? Please advise. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTylec (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 July 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. Thank you. 70.194.130.117 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bobi Wine
Hey Danielle, I just added something in the Bobi Wine post, but you removed it. I'm new to this, so maybe I didn't cite properly. Advise is very much appreciated. However, adding what I did was by no accounts wrong nor unimportant. Please check the following sources: (Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfiction82 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have done my research. However, the reason I reverted is that you cited a WP:PRIMARY source (the petition) rather than secondary coverage (news or other notable people's comments) on the topic. Just doing a brief bit of research, it -is- a notable incident. What also you have to take in mind is that it has to be portrayed in a neutral, fair manner to abide by WP:BLP. I invite you to use Google news (or any other news gathering engine) to gather sources for the incident and present what they say in a paraphrased manner. (Not too close to wording, but entirely new and in an encyclopedic tone). Though, if there are no secondary sources for the change.org petition, it could be excluded. But the incident of the lyrics and media's response of it could be said. Here's something that I would write on it. Bobi Wine has been criticized by X media platform, Y media platform, and Z media platform due to his comments on on LGBT persons. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit
I do apologize for being new to editing on Wikipedia but all the information I entered was accurate simply by actually listening to the cd. For that I am not sorry for being a fan and correctly entering the production credits. Thanks though. I will not waste my time trying to help fellow fans get accurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 913Zill (talk • contribs)
 * I'll apologize but when I reverted via Huggle, with names like 'Drumma Boy' and '808 Mafia' it seemed like it was vandalism. I have reverted and removed the warning, though you should really add sources to verify that these are indeed the artists. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pan
Pan was obviously having sex with a goat in the caption I edited. Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.0.95 (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted, as it appears you are right. It appeared to me (while patrolling) that it was vandalism, as sexual edits are often used by bored people looking to vandalize. In this context, it was appropriate. Apologies. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.0.95 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Life
I have tried to start a conversation on the talk page regards my edit of users copyrights on second life, sorry its a bit basic cut and paste due to a little headache I have. I think Linden Lab has replied to concerns and declared they are not taking away creators copyright.Tallsally (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

United States, Canada & Mexico History
I have reviewed several sections of Counties in California which have no reference to the Native people who "own" the land. Or, owned the land. I have been warned thai I must cite references and do wish to "adhere" to a cohesive organized method of referencing citations. I do apologize for the two post where I do not do so. Kind Regards,
 * So then you can't add it again if you don't have a reference. Additionally, 'We should give it back' is a violation of WP:NPOV as it's attributing it in Wikipedia's voice. However, if you have a ref that says it, we could do, "Media Source says 'We should give the land back'" would be OK. Tutelary (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert
Please be careful: I realize that this reversion was probably a mistake, but it put back some flagrant BLP violation that has had to be revision deleted, and the original creator, an IP and a sockpuppet were blocked for edit-warring and inserting defamatory essays.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't really look at the context and I should've, was just patrolling with Huggle--but that's no excuse. I'll be more careful next time. Tutelary (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy editing!  Acroterion   (talk)   02:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[Hobby Lobby] Funding Abortion in China
Hi, Tutelary, I disagree with your assessment of the Coat Rack status you used to justify removing my post to the Hobby Lobby page. I would totally agree if they had not made abortion a key issue to their business operations- I think it is hard to disagree that a topic that you take to the Supreme Court is key it a key issue. With it being such a key issue than all the facts should be on the table. And they should support that if, as they told the Supreme Court, abortion is the real issue. If the real issue is politics and abortion is just a way to get at their political ends than it is especially important to have this fact well known.

If you have concern with the wording I am fine with it being improved. If you are just acting politically because you think it is an uncomplimentary fact than I think you should put the paragraph back.OneHandClap (talk)
 * It's taking sources which are only tangentially related to the company and trying to make a paragraph about them. For example, Google no longer has their search engine in China due to censorship concerns. Now, could we make the connection (let's say some Huffington Post blog) said that Google supports Chinese censorship due to them retracting out of China? We can't make that connection because it's simply a coatrack. At least three other editors (including myself) have a problem with the material you continue adding, maybe it's time to listen to their concerns. Tutelary (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lejeune
The discovery of Trisomy 21 is the principle discovery on which he built his career and his principle claim to fame. The fact that his version has now be credibly challenged and that there is a decent claim that he flat out lied and claimed credit for a discovery that was not his is far too important not to feature in the lead.

I have, once again, restored this important fact to the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAidley (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

CodeCore Developer Bootcamp
I'm accustomed to making minor edits and authoring new sections, but new to improving the quality of Wikipedia. Just wanted to say thanks for editing my AfD and demonstrating how to appropriately flag a page for deletion. -Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism
Feel free to revert if you still have BLP concerns.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 23:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc
Re: this, she is creating emphasis with a point-y edit summary. This is what she does and she does it frequently. She is an absolute pest with no sense of etiquette and little sense of doing the right thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I opt to let her, since it's directed towards me. She still hasn't named a single instance of who the specific BLP is she's mentioning. Tutelary (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Be aware, as well, that this behavior of Carols has a long history and that there's substantial evidence that some of her missteps are premeditated tactics from which she retreats only when they are documented as such by the community. I'm not going to belabor this but I can point you to documentation if you ever need to see it.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

vorarephilia/Wikipedia is a Confusing Place
Sorry about that. I didn't know that media examples weren't right to put on the page, I just thought they were relavent since those examples are also what many vorarephiles do enjoy and fit into what they think of as vore, or helped them realize they had the fetish. I am a vorarephile and I've talked with others of my kind and was just adding things to the article that I thought would help people understand what actually qualifies as vore in the eyes of vorarephiles, since many people, including psychiatric professionals, don't understand it properly. But I do think my elaboration on the connection to macrophilia should remain, since it actually explains how they are linked together and my explanation of "pred" "prey" and "observer" which sadly hasn't really ever been touched on by psychiatric professionals but are common terms in the community. And yes we do find that scene in "Dude Where's My Car" hot. — Preceding 174.240.8.51 comment added by 174.240.8.51 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But it is fairly reliable because it is made by actual members of the vore community. As opposed to individuals who make assumptions and get things incorrect like a lot of the other sources sometimes used on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.39.200 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a self published source and therefore not admissible unless we were speaking about Aryion.com's Wikipedia article (which I don't think they have). It would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source in that context and used to only make simple statements. I'm really sorry to constantly damper on your contributions but it's not acceptable as a source. (Except in that instance I stated about their own article.) Tutelary (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But what am I supposed to do then? I'm leaving honest and true information but because a lot of these regulations make it so I can't post this info and better inform people, leaving the article subject to these sources that while they fit into what "counts" as a usable source, are full of inaccuracies, misinformation, and assumptions made by people who don't understand the subject (yes, that includes a lot of these article written by psychologist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.39.200 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can look for high quality articles which reflect your own personal views. Wikipedia operates on the sources, not truth. I'm really sorry that you feel that way but the only way to change that is with reliable sources. If you're not sure a source would be reliable, you can ask me or someone else. You can also achieve some help at The Teahouse, where experienced editors answer questions for editors who are new or just started. Tutelary (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But I've looked and I'm having trouble finding any good sources. What would you recommend I type in to find good articles on vore that would fit in Wikipedia's guidelines. Btw some of the sources cited on the vore page are inaccurate.174.240.39.200 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.39.200 (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it might be advisable to declare that no WP:RS exist for the view that you wish to add and it will not be added, per WP:DUE and No original research. Also, what sources are inaccurate? Tutelary (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The article about the man who "desired to be eaten by large dominant woman" confuses vorarephilia with the cannibal fetish, which is different from vorarephilia and makes other widely inaccurate statements about the fetish such as saying that most people with it want to be the preds, when the opposite is actually true, most vorarephiles would prefer to be prey. Also what is WP:RS? This wiki is terrible at explaining things in laymen's terms. 174.240.39.200 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as I stated before we are obligated to the sources that are currently present for the article at hand. The sources currently presented are all reliable and to that nature support the current content. WP:RS stands for reliable sources, here's a link. reliable sources. I also ask that you revert your edits as I cannot do so without breaking the three revert rule. It fails WP:V. Tutelary (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you did use a lot of wiki jargon, but it's ok. As far as rudeness I did find that you are far more polite than a lot of people I've had to deal with. The fact that I had to undo the edit was infuriating though. I want these wiki articles to reflect the actual facts about subjects like this but sadly most sources that are useable are inaccurate and are filled with misinformation or only cover the subject in passing. There was a time when the page for it was full of information that was fairly accurate and the article was much longer and explained concepts like "soft vore" "hard vore" "pred" "prey" and "observer" but sadly that somehow changed and now the poor thing is little more than a stub. Btw what's a barnstar?174.240.39.200 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that I had to undo the edit was infuriating though. You didn't absolutely need to, but it failed WP:V in its current form with aryion.com being a self published source, and not usable for the topic at large. Again, I'm really sorry. It might've also been argued (in a more deep discussion) that aryion.com would not have been unbiased as they host a Vore Chatroom, vore forums and constantly act as a platform for vore writers/artists to post their works on the site, so they have a bias towards letting it be considered harmless/inputting their own information. I'm not saying that's absolutely the case, I am just saying. Btw what's a barnstar? It's a way for Wiki users to show appreciation to another user for something that they've done. Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'm surprised it infuriated you at all to undo the edit. And vore is harmless because it is merely a fantasy, since the mechanics of it male it physically impossible to do in real life. Also Danielle, since I can't edit the wiki on it, can I at least explain vore to you in the words of an actual vorarephile? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.39.200 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't, I was just quoting you using the "Talk quote" template with brackets. Also...sure, though a blog would be better for it than an individual user's talk page. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a blog like thing for this wiki I can communicate with you on?174.240.39.200 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, just leave a response on my talk page I guess. I was referring to a blog like blogspot or something. Tutelary (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

vorarephilia explained
Oh ok, thank you for letting me do this.

So as you may know, vorarephilia is a paraphilia fantasy where an individual is aroused by the idea of being eaten, or eating another alive. It is not to be confused with the cannibalism fetish since that involves the killing, preparing, cooking and eating of a subject, while in vore does not involve those actions. In fact most vorarephiles are in fact put off by such things. Vore fantasies are enjoyed through stories, pictures (either drawing or photo manipulation), movies/videos, role playing when with another person, or simply through imagining it.

Vorarephiles can be divided into three categories: pred, prey, and observer. The "preds," which is short for predator, prefer to be the ones eating the victim in these scenarios, while "prey" are the ones who best identify as the people being eaten in these scenarios. The third group are the "observers" who prefer not to be directly involved with the scenario but simply read or watch the fantasy play out. While their are some who enjoy being preds most, the majority of the community identify more as prey or observer. (I personally fall into the majority categories of prey and observer as well, though I can situate myself as a pred once in a blue moon)

There are two main categories of vore: soft and hard.


 * In Soft vore the prey is swallowed completely whole and alive and arrives in the stomach in more or less one piece. Once inside the stomach they are either simply held their indefinately, or they are eventually digested.


 * In Hard vore the victims are either eaten in multiple bites or violently chewed up. While soft vore may have some chewing it lacks the graffic nature of hard vore. Hard vore always has the prey killed in the process of being eaten, unlike soft vore where the only deaths would come from digestion.

Out of these two categories soft vore is the more popular by a wide margin to the point where hard vore examples are nearly non-existent. This is because soft vore is less bloody, violent and gruesome. (Again, I fall into the majority category of preferring soft vore, with digestion though).

Now how vore is enacted in these fantasies is in generally one of two ways. The first is same-size vore, where the pred and the prey are the same size and the prey is swallowed whole by the predator, which sometimes results in the pred having a distended stomach.

The other way is where the prey is smaller than the predator and therefore more easily fits into the stomach. This is where vorarephilia connects with macrophilia since this style of vore is about female giants, called giantess, devouring regular sized humans

In the vore community these two varying takes are about evenly appreciated. (Though for me personally I prefer the different size vore since it is more "physically possible" so to speak).

Now not all vore scenarios end with the prey dead. In some the prey is simply held in the stomach and is later spat out by the pred, or if they are digested they simply "reform" later outside the stomach and keep on living. There is also willing vore, where the prey offers themselves willingly, and unwilling, where the prey struggles and tries to avoid being eaten, ultimately to fail. ( I prefer unwilling, since male red back spiders are the only willing prey I've ever heard of)

And there are also category variants on pred and prey genders that are defined by a simple short hand:

F/m: a woman predator eating a man.

F/f: a woman predator eating other women as prey.

M/f: where a male pred eats a woman.

Of these three variants F/m is the most popular as well as seen in more mainstream features that appeal to vorarephiles, with F/f being the second most popular and M/f being a distant to rather non existent third. (As for me I enjoy F/m and F/f about equally but in my formative years it took me a bit to warm up to F/m)

Some examples of mainstream media that are popular in the vore community are:


 * Men in Black 2.The main villainess takes the form of a Victoria's Secret underwear model and gets jumped by a mugger. She attacks the mugger and eats him whole, getting a large gut as a result. Moments later she regurgitates him and takes his clothes.


 * At the end of Dude Where's My Car? five alien women merge together and become a beautiful giantess. She picks up one of the male characters and devours him before chasing after the two leads.


 * In the music video for "Miserable" by the band Lit the band is chased down one-by-one by a gigantic Pamela Anderson and eaten alive by her.

Thanks for letting me share this with you and sorry it was such a long read. I hope you found some of this interesting. 174.240.39.200 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever gets people quirk's off as long as they're not harming anyone else. ^^ Though it is fascinating, they got this whole 'category' system all down, people only see what they want and there are search terms specifically meant for it. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar for this. And yeah I love the category system so that way if I want to see work featuring women getting gulped down by a giantess I can see it, or if I feel like it I can see something where a giantess chases down and devours a bunch of hapless guys I can find it more easily. 174.240.39.200 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanding a Song/Music Video's Page
Danielle, would you be willing to expand an article for a song? It's the song Miserable by Lit. It's article's a tad stubby and I think it could be expanded, particularly the description of the music video and the events within it, which I think should be described in better detail. You wouldn't need to find more sources, since there is a link to the video itself, which is a reliable source for the events of the video. I'd rewrite and expand the description of the video myself but I think you'd be better at describing the events of the video since you have a better understanding of the grammar and style of writing Wikipedia uses, plus I think if it's written by you I think it would be less likely to be undone, as apposed to if it was done by me. 174.240.39.200 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about Miserable_(song). I'll take a look at it but no promises. Additionally, I think you'd make a good contributor, but first I'd like for you to register an account; it's much easier than having a single account rather than a dynamic IP. Additionally, you acquire the possibility of gaining autoconfirmed status upon 10 edits and 4 days old, where you can edit the primary of 'protected' articles. Tutelary (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok just made an account. You can call me PrinceTriton now. And yes I meant Miserable_(song) PrinceTriton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so first I'd like to ask why you want to expand miserable_(song) There doesn't seem much that we'd be able to add to it. Tutelary (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just think the description of the video is too short and terse. The length of the video's description is fine when it's being alluded to in another article but far too brief of a description of the video on its own page. Plus the video is generally the most remembered thing about that song so it deserves a more detailed description. PrinceTriton (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The music video should have more detail.
I think the description of the video for Miserable_(song) is too short and terse. The length of the video's description is fine if it was being alluded to in another article but far too brief of a description of the video on its own page. Plus the video is generally the most remembered thing about that song, even gaining decent air time on MTV back when it still predominantly played music videos so it deserves a more detailed description. PrinceTriton (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , then be bold and add it yourself! You can edit these pages, and it seems you have an interest in doing so, so go ahead! Tutelary (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * was thinking about editing it myself but I'm not sure I'd be able to describe it very well. At least not in a way that is grammatically suitable for Wikipedia. PrinceTriton (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So? It's OK to make mistakes, and as long as it's encyclopedic, it should stay. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna edit it and them could you check my grammar and how I phrased things?
 * Sure. Tutelary (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I finished editing. Can you do a grammar and phrasing check? Miserable_(song) PrinceTriton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems alright. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing that could be better worded? PrinceTriton (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 6 redirect
I'm not sure if you are aware, but this is the fourth time that this has come up for deletion and every time the redirect is kept. And every time it does come up, it disrupts the redirect and the purpose of the redirect. The last discussion lasted a month and a half, and that was less than two months ago. The person causing this disruption is a new account with just over 100 edits, most of them either on his/her own user space, or in causing some sort of disruption in another way. To prevent this disruption I may have to take this to ANI so as to get this cleared up right away. This user is obviously wikilawyering the guidelines and is most likely gaming the system but for whatever reason, this has to end. Maybe you can see fit to undo your rollback so as to not assist in this disruption. And by the way, ROLLBACK is only to be used to revert vandalism. You seem to have been misguided in your use of the button. I hope that this will not happen again, but it may come up in any potential ANI discussion. Bottom line is that this fourth nomination has gotten to the point where this user is basically beating a dead horse.-- JOJ Hutton  15:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I used Twinkle's rollback function and also, I use it in the place of a revert, and I gave a reason. Now, if I didn't give a reason in my edit summary then I would be assuming that the edit is vandalism. It's not. Also, it doesn't matter, new users can start deletion or RfC discussions as they like, and you can't remove the notice just because you think that the user did in bad faith. Tutelary (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When its done 4 times, its bad faith. The redirect needs to do its job and not sit idle for a month while this gets discussed for a fourth time. As far as the Rollback issue is concerned, I guess we will let ANI work that out.-- JOJ Hutton  15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you can make that argument and I won't dispute it, in fact I'm not even !voting at all, it's just that -even- in the case of a bad faith nomination, you don't get to close or remove the RfC template. Additionally, I have done -nothing- wrong with my use of Twinkle's rollback and if you want to get WP:ANI involved for that frivolous complaint I invite you so that you get a boomerang smack. Tutelary (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion
See WP:ANI-- JOJ Hutton  16:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Even a broken clock
Whatever your opinion of me I've always been of the opinion even a broken clock is right twice a day. Thanks for chiming in, you can wait until next time my time is correct again ;). I do appreciate looking past your personal opinions of me and seeing the situation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of advice
If I were you I'd ask for oversight of that edit. It only takes a minute and would be for your protection going forward. You should be careful about saying things like that openly; euphemisms are wiser. No this should to go to ANI or whatever these things are handled quietly. I have emailed ArbCom so ball's in their court, in the past they have been sympathetic on this issue. Herostratus (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already requested it. Thank you for watching my back. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, and best to you going forward. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And that user is now blocked by ArbCom without right of appeal (except through ArbCom). ArbCom has our backs on this matter generally. If you should encounter a user who, based on what they say, might be likely to be personally problematic in this way, send the evidence to ArbCom via email. ArbCom's point of view is more to prevent problematic personal encounters with our younger editors; I care more about editors inserting certain kinds of material into articles; but in some case these interests coincide. Don't be too quick to pull the trigger on going to ArbCom though, allow them time to state their case and see how it plays out for awhile; obviously, legitimate points are welcome and there's a grey area. Flyer22, who is an accomplished editor in this area, can offer guidance too. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zoe Quinn
Given this preface, I have no idea how you thought restoring this with only one redaction meets our BLP policy. --Neil N  talk to me 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I realize that this is a contentious topic and maybe you saw something that I didn't see, particularly around the accusations of gaming the system. Looking at it again, I trust your decision and will not revert again. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was a combination of calling websites "super corrupt", her using feminism as a "coverup", and her using connections to facilitate censorship. I have no issue with these points being discussed but they need to be accompanied by very good sources covering the points, and not simply be the editor's assertions. --Neil N  talk to me 17:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that now. Thanks NeilN for looking out for me and for BLPs. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn
Because as pointed out there were autoconfirmed editors adding stuff too. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see but maybe two diffs of vandalism, only one coming from an autoconfirmed editor. You know what should usually happen in that situation would be blocking the select offenders, not fully protecting the article so no one can work on it. Tutelary (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've returned it to semi. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Tutelary (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rule 34 (Internet meme)
Hello Tutelary. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rule 34 (Internet meme), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The AfD was five years ago, and the version deleted there was referenced only to xkcd. Consider relisting at AfD, but in my view the refs show that this is now notable.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could reconsider. It's been deleted twice and has since been recreated; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rule_34_(Internet_meme) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rule_34_of_the_Internet I'd rather not bring the article to an afd a third time just because somebody wanted to recreate an article which has already been deleted twice via afd. Tutelary (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that one. I don't have time right now to check it against the new one, but I'll come back to you within a day. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now compared the current article with the 2010 version, and I still think it is not a case for WP:CSD - there are a number of new references, in particular the Daily Telegraph and CNN ones which show that the meme is no longer confined to the Urban Dictionary/4chan/xkcd world. You are welcome to take it to AfD again if you like but I think, if I were commenting at an AfD now, my !vote would be keep - the existence of Rule 34 (novel), not mentioned in the article, is further evidence that the meme has got into the mainstream. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP vio
Sweeping attack claiming against others, revert it again and we'll see how it fits WP:NOTFORUM and attacks against others. No source for that. Dreadstar ☥   03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you freakin' kidding me Dreadstar? You can't edit other users' comments just because you don't like what they think or say. It's -not- an 'attack' against others, it's anything but, it's coming to the defence of Zoe Quinn and I'm absolutely freakin' irritated that you're trying to claim it as such. Additionally, you are implying my edits as vandalism with rollback; You are to leave an edit summary if you are reverting a good faith contribution. Tutelary (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked you for 31 hours for edit warring to restore what I consider to be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and unsourced attack on others, thus violating NPA and BLP. I'm not playing games on either side of these articles.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of good faith, I'll reverse this block, but I think calling the 'attacks' as being made by misogynists to be an unsourced attack - even if I agree that indeed it's the truth. I really expect better of the editors here.  And really, you shouldn't be edit warring on behalf of others, especially when BLP is in question.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be misled
What Dreadstar, Guerillero, et al are doing on Vani Hari has nothing to do with "vandalism" and everything to do with their goals as pro-pseudoscience admins to control the content of the article and block discussion. After all, if they allow discussion, they risk consensus changing whereas if they just block people and claim "sockpuppets" they can keep off even as reputable and reliable sources as Snopes from being reflected in the article content.
 * I don't think I can persuade you to the opposite about your already stated conclusion but I do see some rather peculiar things happening on Wikipedia as of yet, but they're in other forms of already aggressive over application of policy to the letter, rather than to the spirit. I sympathize with you (but don't agree with you) for the nature of you seeing Wikipedia as having a 'cabal of admins' controlling things, because that's not what happens. They have their own checks and balances that keeps them in check. For example, for emergency gross misconduct, there's ArbCom. For general things like maybe an unjust block, there's the noticeboards. But your own conduct is to be scrutinized as your IP-hopping comments on certain pages. Wikipedia's foundation is on consensus. They're how people get community blocked, banned, topic banned, people being desysopped (but admittedly that requires ArbCom but is still a form of consensus). You can make a change if you stop socking, stop IP revolving, wait out your blocks, stick to one account, and edit constructively. You can have a voice, but you can't be blasting it via a broken platform, as nobody will listen. Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Tutelary, see WP:BANREVERT and the proxying section that follow it. I'd advise extreme caution about enabling such editors, it may boomerang on you.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could take a look at the recent ongoing ArbCom case, where this exact scenario has played out on Jimbo's talk page, and has yet to reach a verdict. Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I'd advise watching your step regardless of what 'king jimbo' has to say or what 'verdicts' have not yet been reached. Dreadstar  ☥   23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And, FYI, ArbCom does not set policy. Dreadstar  ☥   23:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OSE does not apply because this exact scenario that you're saying has been had on Jimbo's talk page. One person reverted a suspected banned editor about 20 times, and there was ambiguous replies on whether it would be allowed. Same thing is happening here, but the person here has not been banned. A ban requires a community consensus. They've just been socking and was blocked. And I will watch my back. But in this case, I see fit to respond to a person's misguided views about how Wikipedia works and their 'warning' to me 'not to be misled' in this case. ArbCom may not make policy, but in effect they're the de-facto 'supreme court' of Wikipedia, and they issue binding rulings. Tutelary (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been dealing with policy and ArbCom for almost a decade before you even started editing here. Enabling banned editors, and make no mistake WP:LTA bans editors, is a sanctionable offense.  I'd suggest you not do it.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, where's the proof that they're a banned editor? If you're so sure that they're a banned editor coming back, where is the evidence that they are? Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CHK and WP:BEANS. You want to continue screwing around, be my guest - these kinds of things never end well for the enabler.  I'm done trying to help you.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any serious question that this is a banned editor? This person who is changing IPs 5 times a day and pretending to be more than one person? The person who speaks and acts exactly like an editor who was blocked for the same thing? I suggest that if it not obvious to you that this is block evasion then you are simply not versed in the situation. Chillum 23:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they're a blocked editor. What I am disputing with Dreadstar is that this is a banned editor by WP:LTA. Bans aren't imposed by administrators, they're imposed by the community or by Jimbo himself. And I won't edit war with any user who removes the section (but I'd much prefer they copy and paste to my archive for archival reasons, given this was a heated discussion) but I feel that the question and their gauge of answers tells us a bit about what IP contributors think about certain aspects of Wikipedia which is why I didn't let Dreadstar's revert stand and decided to give my thoughts on the matter. If given a link to a ban discussion by the community or where Jimbo/ArbCom personally banned them, I'll put up and shut up. Tutelary (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're playing word games, per The user account has a history of repeated egregious disruption, and despite indefinite block or ban, continues vandalism and/or abuse beyond the point of any usual blocked user.. Enable this user at your own peril.  I allow it here on your talk page, but anywhere else on WP and I'll block you immediately. As a matter of fact, if I see too much enabling here on your own talk page, I won't hesitate to block for that either.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Human licking his hand
It's a joke image and a distraction to the article. Okeado (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

a little sanity
I came over here from Wale's talk page. Good to hear a female voice that does not scream "misogyny" or whatever over every little thing. Stuff like that diminishes the real deal. Is the drawing of Supergirl childish and silly? sure.... But it should be discussed like anything else, not hidden from view.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! But for clarification, I do think that having the image of the woman's chest was inappropriate, but I can understand why it was put there in the first place. Power Girl is partially known for her big bust...they decided to portray a big bust since there were no other free images (but now that I see they replaced the image with an innocuous DC symbol,) which is fine. What I was not fine with is that the image which we were supposed to be discussing is removed...how are we supposed to criticize something if we can't see it? I also don't think anybody's sexist for putting the image there in the first place, just made an honest mistake. Tutelary (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have made it clear but that it what I agree with. Thelmadatter (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Selfie
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Selfie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

internet topography
the article were created to describe the topology of the internet nodes, a topic of computer networks, but edits were made to talk in the article about interconnections of the world wide web, which is a totally different topic. the topoligy of the internet talk about the interconnections between serves, backbones and isps, while de interconnections of the world wide web is about websites and the links who connect them. therefor they are two completely different topics, please see and discuss in the respective talk page. Porcofederal (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are expanded, their definitions broadened, and what not. That doesn't give you the power to revert them to an earlier version 6 years old, and removing all of their contributions. No, if you feel that the article is going in the wrong way/confusing topics, edit that and fix it, but don't remove every single contribution. Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

delete this Porcofederal (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Please, delete this. Porcofederal (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Fat Hobbit
FYI, that's what Gollum called Samwise Gamgee, so it's really a compliment, unless you're Sauron. Pay attention. Dreadstar ☥   22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's really good reason not to not to feed the trolls. You want to play with the big boys, then you better learn how.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23's violation of community consensus / other violations of administrator conduct
Despite your civil request on Bbb23's Talk page, Bbb23 has so far ignored it. Please let me know whether you will be talking this issue to the AN or to Arbitration. Since this issue was already decided at the AN, and Bbb23 acted soon afterward to reject that consensus despite his/her involvement, perhaps the logical step would be to take it to WP:Arbitration with a request to review Bbb23's administrator conduct (per Administrators) and to consider possible sanctions or de-sysop. Of course, I would be happy to assist in providing relevant historical diffs re Bbbs23 biased actions against me and other editors. Thanks. Memills (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , could you email me? Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Memills (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned you Tutelary at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Pudeo' 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

CFK editing
Hello, I'm Ruizhernan and you have left me a message at my talk page. I'm a newbie in terms of editing articles in Wikipedia, so I'd greatly appreciate your help.

You say that I removed some content "without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary."

As I understand, I did explain why. I used the "Edit summary" box to explain that I was removing content that was absolutely biased.

I visited the article's talk page first, and I saw that there were 2 opposing views, let's call them A and B. A's claim that any edit they have done has been reversed by B's, whereas B's say that A's are free to edit if they wish.

I also notice that you removed the npov tag I put. Can you explain why you did that? If this was a mistake, don't worry - I'll put it back right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruizhernan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid explanation, specially when you deleted a large number of bits from the article. If you believe the page is in need of some kind of improving (which article doesn't?) you can raise your concerns at the article's talk rather than mass removing content. Furthermore, you provided no reasons for the placement of the tag.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, the article's talk is no way to improve the article. Many people have attempted that, but you and Cambalachero won't reach a consensus with anyone. The two of you agree that "[sources] are reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial oversight, and no evident conflict of interest involved." But you had earlier said that "[Clarín and La Nación] qualify as reliable sources. Period." Either you are seriously ill-informed about Clarín and La Nación, or you don't know what a conflict of interests means, or you are totally biased in your opinions. I'm doing as you say. I'll edit the article according to Wikipedia's principles. I won't remove content. I'll just add content, and you won't be able to delete it. And one more thing, you say I didn't provide reasons for the placement of the NPOV tag. Here you demonstrate you're biased once again, because to anyone with the slightest knowledge about Argentinian politics, the article is OBVIOUSLY biased.

Please comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Perry mugshot
Hello. Your rational directly contradicts this guideline and WP:NFCI #8 which says historical photos of famous people is a rational for fair use and even uses it as an example. There are other things wrong with that photo - but I intend to fix them. However, a historic photo that cannot be recreated of a BLP is allowed in the context of an article about that event.--v/r - TP 01:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You can't use non free media of BLPs when the images are easily replacable. The 'historical' portion doesn't apply as it's not a historical image. A good exampl of that 'historical use' would be the non free media claim for the article 'Dewey defeats Truman'. Truman is no longer alive so it's allowed. It can't be applied here because of [WP:NFC#UUI]. Perry is a public figure and there are free images which would suffice. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a historical image. It is an event - you cannot replace images that happened once.  This photo is irreplaceable and the photo itself is covered in multiple reliable sources discussing the photo itself to include his tie, his smirk, his missing glasses, his hair, the lack of numbers, ect.  This meets the NFCC.--v/r - TP 01:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These sources are about the mugshot itself and discussing the contents of: Yahoo News "Perry’s mug shot, released by the Austin Police Department, quickly inspired a meme", HotAir "It didn’t hurt that Perry showed up for his close-up groomed, well dressed and ready for prime time.", Texas Monthly "He wears a dark suit and a smart blue tie, holds up no numbers, and gives a practiced headshot-taker's confident smile—they even got him from his best angle.", The Chron "A smirking Perry posed sans glasses for the camera, and the resulting photo has gone viral overnight.", ABC News "The question is, did Rick Perry take his mugshot with all the gubernatorial swagger expected of his office? And how does his mugshot stack up to the governor’s official portrait?"--v/r - TP 01:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Split, Croatia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Split, Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Zoe Quinn again. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"
I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

clarity
Let's be clear, I did not revert myself or unblock you in fear of 3RR, as you falsely claim here. I reverted my actions in good faith of the other editor's intentions, not yours. Next time you revert what I see as something I removed as a BLP violation, we will indeed go the distance. Dreadstar ☥   06:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My beef is that you didn't 'claim' it as a BLP violation in an edit summary. You edited another user's comment saying 'that's not what this page is for' or some variant, not claiming it as a BLP violation. Only after you blocked me did you finally cite NPA, NOTFORUM and BLP. I would've stopped instantly if instead of rollbacking (assuming my edit is vandalism, that's what rollback is for, not for reverting good faith edits) you would've claimed 'BLP vio, do not restore' or some variant and I would've stopped. Additionally, you blocked me while you were an involved and with no warning. WP:BLOCK specifically prohibits administrators blocking others whom they're engaged in a content dispute; Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. Tutelary (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not engaged with you in a content dispute, I'm engaging here on a policy issue. Dreadstar  ☥   16:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I delete my Wikipedia account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaelaArsenault (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination)
I noticed that you have unilaterally reopened Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination). I could be wrong but I believe that once an AfD is closed any disagreement is supposed to be handled via a deletion review. If there is some guideline that allows non-Admins to unilaterally reopen an AfD could you point me to it? You also said that no grounds were cited for the Speedy Keep. But I clearly spelled out the grounds in my !vote comment... "Ridiculous. Subject clearly has sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC. This looks like a vexatious nomination by a WP:SPA whose only record on the project is one of unremitting hostility to the subject of the article. As such I urge Speedy Keep per WP:SK subsection 2." Obviously vexatious nominations are clear grounds for a speedy keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically she should've visited DRV but what's done's done, I will say however had Tutelary asked first I would've reopened but yeah imho noting to worry about, Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , then please reopen the afd, as Ad Orientem has reverted, and you said you would if I'd asked. This is my official request, I won't revert Ad Orientum for this, but it does need to be going for the 7 full days and assessed by an admin due to the SPA/socking circumstances. Tutelary (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just ask an Admin to take a look at this instead of trying to handle it on our own? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Tutelary (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Hopefully we can resolve this quickly and with minimal heartburn. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a good case for all future editors to see why wikipedia sometimes fails to be fair and neutral. Sad. Disclosure: I went to a screening of the subject's film and absolutely loved it. DinkyExpress (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:AVOIDYOU
It seems you plan to comment on your "Cunt" reversion on the talk page, so I will wait to comment on that there, but I would ask you a favor. Please review Help:Edit summary and WP:REVTALK. I look forward to reading your reasons for reverting my edits, which I hope are about content. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Star Wars
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Star Wars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the Christian Party (UK)
Dear Tutelary, please forgive my poor editing skills. I am really struggling with my iPad. I had not finished editing this page but I do take your point about cross referencing. I will have another go in a few days when I have a better computer access. the information on this site which you have reinstated was clearly biased and did not represent the organisation's views accurately. if you see me editing it again, please give me some time until I say I have finished. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcsamuels (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)