Freebullets

Thank you

I have semi-protected Women and government in Australia for a week. Thanks for reverting all of that vandalism. In the future, if you see a long string of edits that contain vandalism, you can save some time by clicking on History, go back to the last good version, click on it, and hit Edit, then Save. You can also grab a Rollbacker or admin, who have tools to clear vandal edits quickly. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that out after I finished. :P Free Bullets (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I Am The Walrus Corrections

Where do I explain it specifically? I left supporting information on the talk page. How should I refer to this? where do you get the gumption and authority to censor my contributions. why do you say it is not constructive> I am not familiar with the other change cited by your editor 74.197.35.71 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I reverted my edit. Next time, put the reason for your edit in the edit summary box. A large deletion of content will raise some flags. Free Bullets (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned Message

where do you get the gumption and authority to censor my contributions. why do you say it is not constructive>

I am not familiar with the other change cited by your editor

Thanks,,, I did not mean to delete any content

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.200.248 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned Message 2

The incorrect use of the term "female circumcision" is degrading for women who have to endure female genital MUTILATION. It does not have the same connotation as male circumcision. The correct terminology is stated in both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation and http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/. Here is more information : "While supporters tend to use the term female circumcision, drawing parallels to that of male circumcision, opponents deem that term biologically incorrect and euphemistic, favouring the term female genital mutilation as they see this to be what is taking place." http://iwhp.sogc.org/index.php?page=279 Please inform yourself before making changes of such sensitive and important matter. There is plenty more in the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.83.226 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Reverted the revert. Free Bullets (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned Message 3

why are you supporting them..we should not believe in these gurus and gurumata..i think you should not promote them its 21 st century ..we should educate others to staw away from them instead of promoting these gurus and gurumatas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.26.63 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating false information because you hate Indians is not okay. Free Bullets (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Zdeno Chara Entries

Freebullets, who are you to say the additions you removed were not constructive? They are presented neutrally and present a side of the story that is not fully presented there. And in fact, they clarify some details that, unclarified make the post lean towards a conclusion. Before you throw at all winds the word "constructive", perhaps you should look up the word yourself. If you have an issue with proposed changes, instead of being so presumptuous, perhaps you could discuss it with editors BEFORE you make changes. I've noticed a few such grievances on your talk page. Learn from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.142.117.98 (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was: As a result, he remains in the minds of many a sociopath and a criminal who should not play a professional sport. Your statement was incredibly opinionated and insulting. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Facts must be presented in an unbiased manner. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Free Bullets (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I thought your comment was in relation to other (less controversial) changes which initially looked like you had reverted, my apologies. I'm new at this and the system is not the easiest to decipher. Second, you could associate your comments directly with your changes, it would help & it would probably look less arrogant/presumptuous. Third, one cannot deny that there does remain significant controversy regarding this man as regards this vicious attack. And these two qualifications do come back regularly: "sociopath" and "criminal". This proposed change as to the continuing controversy was no more biased than the original in fine that said the matter is officially closed, don't you think? 118.142.117.98 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)118.142.117.98|118.142.117.98

No problem. Thanks for remaining civil. My current setup doesn't allow me to quickly link to the exact edit. As for your third point, I think it would be sufficient to just call the situation convtroversial to avoid a bias. Leave the name-calling to the media. Free Bullets (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sapporo Snow Festival

I'm wondering why you reverted the change I made to the end of "Sapporo Snow Festival". As far as I can tell, the redlinked "mr o and his magic shoes" at the end of the page is just some simple vandalism that wasn't fixed before that Bot (Addbot) came through to fix links. 206.239.33.97 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I misunderstood your edit. Reverted the revert. Free Bullets (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Criss One For All. "Space Ace" NOT TRIBUTE TO ACE FREHLEY

Space Ace was NOT a tribute to Ace Frehley! Peter clearly states in his book that it was about Aces betrayal of Peter.

Quote from Ciss' autobiography "From Makeup To Breakup".

I even wrote a song about Ace for the album: “Space Ace.” You might think it was a tribute, but I was really writing about Ace’s betrayal of me.

Have you ever been locked in a spaceship? / And lost in your lies? / Flying high above the highways / still trapped in the skies / I know the meaning of success / oh, but you got to believe / Evil has a way of showing its face

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.207.225 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see mentions that he did write that in his book. I'll leave it there then. I cleaned up your edit to fix typos and such. And we still need a citation for it, so I put a citation needed template on it until we get a reliable one.Free Bullets (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. The community is based around trust and integrity, so you should not abuse it. Next time you vandalize, I shall report you to an admin. This is first warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.58.194 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. Free Bullets (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Futsal

The futsal was created in Uruguay not in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.160.209 (talk)

Thanks for the information. I went ahead and changed it back and added references. Please try to cite any changes you make in the future. Free Bullets (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you work for the DWP or are you just a useful idiot? Its the same thing anyhow

What is "not constructive" supposed to mean exactly? Anything critical basically and you decide its "not constructive". Sorry, you think a Wikipedia article about workfare should sing its praises do you? If its critical you change it. The previous "constructive" version on the so-called and now defunct 'Work Programme' reads like a DWP or workfare industry press release, with a 'critics say...' comment for 'balance', and is awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.75.225 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit had quite a biased tone. I've fixed up the lead to make it a bit more neutral. Free Bullets (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Freebullets. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Biblioworm 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Buble pronunciation

Hi Freebullets. You recently informed me that changing the pronunciation of Michael Buble's surname was non-constructive. As a massive Michael Buble fan, I find those sort of comments highly insulting and frankly disgusting. When pronouncing his surname, most do find that the natural pronunciation is indeed "boob-LAY". Let's not get childish over this. I hope you will concur. Many thanks, Paddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.6.194 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No comment. Discuss it in the talk page if you think it's an important change. Free Bullets (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Morrison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Morrison

My name is Jeff Harris. I am the assistant GM with the Victoria Royals Hockey Club. Ryan Morrison in no way is affiliated with our hockey club. In fact he does not appear to be a real person. Our twitter account was impersonated yesterday and it appears this individual has also created several twitter accounts of fictional players including "Ryan Morrison." To add legitimacy to the profile they have created wiki pages so they will be able to sell his profile on twitter. We would like it to be removed. I am happy to share my contact info with you to confirm my identity and my position within our organization. 216.81.48.178 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. On the Victoria Royals page, does the current roster look correct? Is the source of the information here? If so, you may update the page, citing that, or let me know if you don't feel comfortable doing that. Free Bullets (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Why did you remove my edit it wasnt vandelisum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.53.36 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what edit you're referring to. This appears to be your first edit. Free Bullets (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Y dude stop removing shit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.53.36 (talk)

omg y? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.53.36 (talk)

Gun laws in Australia

You sent me Hello, I'm Freebullets. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gun laws in Australia seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Free Bullets (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

the section of this article is woefully inaccurate and highly biased against firearms ownership, there is actually no evidence that Martin done the shooting at Port Arthur other than his confession they got after he was in solitary confinement for 6 months and the only DNA evidence they could find is on a bloody knife even though he wasn't injured and ate a meal at the cafe before the shooting and media interviews of people who know him said he was kind and caring and played often with the kids in his neighborhood. there are media videos of a member of the National Coalition for Gun Control said "unless guns are banned there will be a mass shooting in Tasmania" and a politician (bob hawk i think)said there can be no reforms in gun control until there is a mass shooting in Tasmania, this being said in 1988 if i remember correct when there had been no significant mass shootings in australia except those preformed by the government and a small skirmish between to Asian groups in the 1800's

also neutral, for or against is lying, there is only the truth. wishing to remain neutral means lying to people or omitting certain details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.191.132 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

seems the information gathered in the questioned parts of the article is all sourced from one book of lies and requires much further research and i find it highly offensive and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.191.132 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject of the material. Please try to maintain a neutral PoV and cite any changes you make.Free Bullets (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop changing this article

the article about Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is under attack from some wiki moderators that want to remove all positive information about the group and fill it with only negative information about the group. This is abusive and dishonest. Please look at the edit records and the talk page to see where some are removing citations and sources and then turning around and asking for the article to be deleted because it lacks citations and sources! This is abusive and we dont need another Wiki editor jumping in with the others trying to vandalize that page and remove many sources added by many editors years ago.

Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.148.22 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clara Blandick sources

Thanks for helping me with the Clara Blandick article! I was getting nowhere with the other user who kept reverting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.147 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Freebullets: And we know those references are good, reliable, and accurate because... why? For your information, the IP user above has been edit warring at the Blandick article for some time now. While the current IP they are using is new as of today, they've been here a while already. Next time, please investigate before you bite experienced editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless you've discovered that the references in question are false, I'd suggest leaving them alone. Verify the information if needed, but don't remove sourced content simply because you have a hunch that it's unreliable or incorrect. I understand the user was edit warring, but the last edit removing his citations was uncalled for. You were also very close to edit warring yourself. Free Bullets (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The content and the malformed references were removed because: the content was unsourced and the "sources" were malformed edits that screwed up the article. The IP has been edit warring at the article for some time now, not just today. Interesting how you know so much about what's appropriate and what's not with less than 2000 edits and are lecturing editors with nearly 10x as many edits to their credit. Regardless, next time, before you make accusations, please do some investigation. And just for the record, as far as I'm concerned, those edits and the content is still unsourced. None of it is verifiable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd recommend not resorting to ad hominem attacks. With your extensive history with Wikipedia, I'm sure you already know that WP:Edit count is a worthless measure. Bringing it into the conversation is childish. Secondly, at first glance, the references appeared to be legitimate. I see now that there is no way to verify them. I will revert my edits and advise the user to find more verifiable sources. Free Bullets (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How are they not legitimate? They are newspaper articles and legal documents. If I provide you links to these sources, will you revert your edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.147 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. However, there are a couple things to note. One, sources need to be published and accessible. I couldn't find any record of the referenced documents online. Additionally, Wikipedia advises against using primary sources and prefers secondary sources whenever possible. Free Bullets (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just give me a few days on that

The passenger lists and passport application were found on ancestry.com, and the newspaper articles were found on newspaper archives.com. I will have to rejoin to get you the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.147 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Be sure to run your new findings by me, and I'll give you a thumbs-up. Free Bullets (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

About primary sources

Why are they discouraged? Any other scholarly publication prefers them to secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.75.147 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the link above, secondary sources ensure that the topic is notable in addition to providing a third-party interpretation, as original research goes against WP policies. In the case of a biography, I don't see an issue with using primary sources to state facts. Free Bullets (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would a book (a biography) of Clara Blandick be a valid source?

Or, does it need to be a source that can be clicked and viewed on the internet (ergo, the problem with the newspaper articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.160.52 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that says you can't. Obviously, accessible sources are preferred, but if the information only exists otherwise it would be ok to use that source. Free Bullets (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Firearm Receiver edits

"Hello, I'm Freebullets. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Receiver (firearms) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Free Bullets (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)"

The existing text in the article was/is biased and not relevant to the subject. I removed the biased text in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.143.72 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Freebullets!

Happy New Year!

Freebullets,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 19:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Freebullets. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Freebullets. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Freebullets. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)