Mmsavage
Your recent edits
edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Removal of material
editYou recently removed an edit of mine on the Talk page of the Elephant article. Why did you do this?DrChrissy (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I did that. I am new to Wikipedia. I did not realize that I was or could tamper with another's work. MeMyselfAndI
- At some point you had to know that you were doing this and even then, what you were posting was pretty much an off-topic rant that only barely dealt with elephants at all. Wikipedia is not a blog or a repository for original thought/rants. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea that I was removing any content from anyone else. I swear. I wouldn't do this. I would let it stand for the record whether I agree or disagree. I do not believe I was off topic. It may appear that way. However, I was very much on the topic of elephants and then to elephants in captivity. I can get colorful in my rhetoric, but the issue applies also to the way people observe nature. I touched on many different and relevant topics. And, maybe, I'm a bleeding heart to the suffering of what I perceive the elephants may be experiencing.Mmsavage (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- At the same time it was still pretty much an OT discussion about your personal opinions on homosexuality. After a point it really stopped being about the elephants at all. Wikipedia is not a forum. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No. It is not my personal opinion on homosexuality. It is my personal opinion on whether or not the elephants are homosexual. The two statements that I quoted indicate that there may be another reason for the behavior observed only in captivity. I was also thinking of posting that perhaps when discussing animals activity of a sexual nature between same sex animals might have another term, because it may or may not actually be of a sexual nature in the terms of how humans perceive sexual activity.Mmsavage (talk)
Off the topic: I took Artificial Intelligence in college. And, when people talk about Artificial Intelligence I get really annoyed. I think it is a terribly misleading name for computer programs that grow or are dynamic with data. I think it is a poor choice for a name. It is similar to the study of the behavior in animals. In this case, I think there needs to be a different term, esp. since only observed in captivity where they are completely outside of their natural environment. Again, repeating myself, the two statements which are supposed to support each other immediately lead me to a different thought on the matter. It seems that the author should propose other theories or ideas and that the blanket statement was not a fact but a theory.Mmsavage (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know what edit I am being accused of removing. I did remove some stuff from the bottom that had a lot of tags. I thought that Wikipedia's system was adding them automatically like ebay or other websites. I did not see any text nested inside or even look for nested text. Again, I am very sorry for unintentionally removing anything.Mmsavage (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The "tags" you removed were DrChrissy's responses. Also, this isn't a good time for you to start making OT comments since this is pretty much the reason you were blocked in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place for you to make personal opinions/original research posts on various talk pages. It is not a forum. End of story. At this point I'm not really seeing where you're really here to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way than to use it as a forum or where you're even interested in getting unblocked, so I'm extremely tempted to revoke talk page access. I can't see where you're likely to positively contribute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
However, given all of the fuss that surely I knew that I was removing an edit from another user would now lead me to think it was a personal attack on me directly. Is this a correct conclusion?Mmsavage (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Again. I am new to Wikipedia. I had never used this website before. I did not even know to append my comments with four tildas to indicate the user. I don't know what else I can say. And, no, again, although, I seem to be off topic, I am drawing from other areas into the discussion of the topic. If you guys like I can go back an modify the content to seem less off topic. You might be able to tell from all of my grammatical mistakes that I am having to correct that I am very tired. And, I should have probably gone to sleep a long time ago. But, demands from other parties are preventing this. I supposed I shouldn't take breaks from my paperwork to comment on elephants.Mmsavage (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- It was not a personal attack against you. What happened here is that you went on to the article for elephants and make a long post that was ultimately a rambling personal essay on your personal opinions about homosexuality. You claim that it had to do with elephants but you started to discuss homosexuality in general, which gives off the impression that you were just starting on a long post about a more general topic. You also made several posts on other pages that started on topic but then devolved into a more rambling discussion about other things. The thing about all of this is that you've continually ignored the fact that I posted several times that you were blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than going off topic you should have been more worried about showing how you were going to change and positively edit Wikipedia. I've told you multiple times that Wikipedia is not a forum and you've pretty much ignored that. I've also told you multiple times that you were blocked and you showed absolutely no concern over that. Most editors, upon discovering that they were blocked, would have tried to actively contest this by showing how they would start to positively edit Wikipedia. Your only response was to say that you'd edit the OT post on elephants. The problem with this is that even if you stuck only to elephants the post would still have been a long, rambling topic about your personal opinions on elephants. It didn't seem to have been written with the intent to improve on the article at all. At this point I have to assume that you're clearly WP:NOTHERE to positively contribute to Wikipedia, so I'm going to revoke talk page access. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- My first post to you was about abnormal behaviour in captive animals, homosexual behaviour in elephants and indicating that verifiability is essential for posting to wikipedia. I was politely and directly addressing your questions, so I can not think why you would have deleted this if you were genuinely asking questions or wanting to engage in discussion.DrChrissy (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)- If you are interested in getting unblocked you can e-mail info-en
wikimedia.org since I have revoked your talk page access. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
