Whatever404

comparison of netbooks

would you mind to undo the split of battery times?

1) the numbers are not reliable or comparable, as long as there is no real benchmark for this task. Apart from that, some cells show a faster degradation than others.

2) the comparison is a rough overview only. A split by battery time is a personal preference only - there may be more interesting questions, such as number of ports, thickness, keyboard size or special equipment which are of higher interest

3) the current classification as "same" does not qualify as a proper sort mechanism.

I'd prefer to keep the overview simple. It's interesting to learn about a different equipment choice. Usually this is not part of the named price. Thus it is more a kind of an extra option, which may be described on its product page instead.

--Traut (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edits to Scene (youth subculture).

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You removal of AfD notice for Okorie_Okorocha was reverted

Wikipedia is not a court of law. You didn't even indicate what was wrong with the template. VG ☎ 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a report has been filed against you on the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Please engage in discussion there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD filing method

This conversation was originally on User:RepublicanJacobite's talk page, but the user deleted the discussion from the page before archiving the page, minus this discussion (which follows):

AfD filing method

This was not "vandalism". My edit summary clearly states that as of the time of that edit, there was no entry at AfD. Indeed, you did not create it until nearly ten minutes after you placed the template. I was under the impression that perhaps the filing user did not know how to file an AfD, since one had not been created.

One way to avoid this kind of confusion is to place the AfD template, then click "Show preview". Use the red link in the template to begin editing the AfD page in a new tab. When you have the text ready, click to the first tab to place the AfD template at the article, then return to the second tab/window to create the AfD. Whatever404 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I know how to file an AfD, I've done many. Regardless, you should not have removed the AfD template, and you bloody well know it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have filed "many" AfDs, you ought to realize that leaving a gap of time between placing the template and getting around to actually filing the AfD looks exactly the same as some newb placing the template and thinking that that's all it takes. I prefer not to spend my time performing biographical inquiry on the AfD proficiency of every filing editor I encounter, and it's not reasonable of you to expect that of others. Use of the above-mentioned sequence would avoid future confusion. Whatever404 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Thanks

No problem, you have a nice day too :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Urolagnia

Please do not continue to return unsourced material to the article. Please read: WP:V. 207.69.140.32 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Scene (youth subculture)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --neon white talk 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the "Scene (youth subculture)" article

We need to write a new article to bring it back. It's a waste of time disputing the deletionists. They'll never get it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey I was trying to introduce an article called Scene kid but it was salted. So I am making an article in my sandbox: User:Graeme Bartlett/sandbox3 with stuff from around wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should work on an article to re-create. Someone just used the word, again, on Facebook the other day, a friend of mine was complaining about how the scene girls all turn him down. Let's do this. Pwnage8, any ideas? Sources? Whatever404 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked for sources yet. I also contacted User:Black Kite the day of the deletion, and he userfied the page at User:Black Kite/Scene. Graeme Bartlett might want to talk to him about that, because now we have two versions in userspace (although GB's is better). There's no reason why this can't be a great article. I look forward to its return. I'll start working on it heavily next week, as I am in the middle of a few things right now. In the meantime, you guys can do some work. Feel free to contact me if you need anything. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Urolagnia

The article's semi-protected now, so you probably won't have trouble now. Spencer^T♦C 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Right-o, thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} Do you happen to know the name of the template that makes it so that if a user adds an image to an article section, the next article section will begin below that image, rather than next to it? This template is used to avoid trapping text between images. Thank you! Whatever404 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know of a template, but typing <br clear="all" /> below the image should solve it. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bird nest

Hi Whatever: You removed a DOI from the Bird nest article earlier and said in the edit summary that it wasn't displaying in "3 column". Can you let me know what problem you were seeing? It seems to work okay for me, so I'm wondering if there's a platform issue we need to let the programmers know about... Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. What was happening was that the DOI was sticking out far into the margin, and nothing below the DOI was displaying, the page just ended there. If I can reproduce it I will take a screenshot; where should I send it? Whatever404 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Let me know if you can reproduce the problem, and I'll see if I can track down who to notify. MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Essential amino acids

Concerning your edits on Protein in nutrition, I'm sort of confused by your apparent doubt of the "essential amino acids" statement. The very term "essential amino acid" itself describes the amino acid as "essential", and so it logically follows that without it one would be nutritionally deficient. If a reader is still uncertain what an essential amino acid is, they have only to click on the link to essential amino acid and find out; I don't see how a citation is needed for such a statement. If you could explain your reasoning I would be very much obliged, otherwise I will remove the {{cn}} template since in my understanding there is nothing possibly contentious about the statement, and the reader could simply go to essential amino acid if they needed references. I think there must be some confusion about what the statement means, and I'd be happy to make it clearer if there's some misunderstanding. -kotra (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I decided to remove the sentence, because it was redundant. Basically, it just said "a deficiency can occur if there is a deficiency". -kotra (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Abortion-related violence CFD

Hi, I just noticed that the CFD you started is incomplete, as you haven't actually listed Category:Abortion-related violence in the United States in the CFD itself, although you've tagged it for renaming. Also, you forgot to sign your nominating statement. Best, Cgingold (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assist; where is "the CFD itself"? Whatever404 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be the section that you created at WP:CFD where you argued for renaming. I didn't realize you had replied here, so I went ahead and finished it up for you. (I just added the other category & your user name.) I'd recommend checking in on the discussion from time to time so you can respond to comments if necessary. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clothesline

Mr. Whatever, your edits on the clothesline article are close to becoming disruptive. Please don't delete entire sections of the article because of style objections from unrelated areas.4.233.155.204 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those "sections of the article" are not established article content, but newly-added, improperly sourced material (Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources per WP:RS). I have removed this material as there are no non-article sources cited for these recent additions. I have also changed the wording from "clothes" to "laundry items" because towels, sheets, blankets, and other non-clothing items can be dried on a clothes line. Whatever404 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Donnie McClurkin song list

I've posted the list to the talkpage with some notes. Personally I'm not terribly bothered as it's the start of a list and needs time to be improved. Likely these are songs he's famous for regardless who wrote them. That is in keeping with most singers, otherwise they are singer-songwriters and then we likely specify which songs are co-written or covers. Deleting doesn't seem like the best option here though but I won't revert again on this. -- Banjeboi 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Strap-on dildo edits reverted

Hi there! In the reorganizing you did, quite a lot of information got lost (~2.5K worth), the TOC became two screens long, and there were a number of changes that didn't quite work... So, as much as I dislike doing this, I reverted them until I'm feeling well enough (nasty flu right now!) to try to figure out what happened. I gave more information on the article's talk page, and would appreciate any comments you have about these issues. Please reply on the article's talk page, as then everyone can see it. Thanks! Bushytails (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, while I'll continue to AGF, I just looked at Pegging (sexual practice)... and what the hell?! The article is now a third as long, reads poorly, and has more useless maintenance tags. I'm not going to revert without checking which edits were actually beneficial, but the article was definitely not improved overall here.... Bushytails (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not curse on my talk page. My responses will appear on article talk pages.Whatever404 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a mention about an advice columnist (Dan Savage, I suppose) but now there is no source in references and one user seems asking it now. Uikku (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

my mistaken revert on Same-sex attraction

Hi Hi, sorry to cause your time to be wasted by my mistakes. When i was reviewing the edits to Same-sex attraction i thought part of the information was being presented from reference materials directly out of International Healing Foundation which would clearly not be a Reliable Source for Neutral information on some of the topic. However, i was reading the citations incorrectly, and the IHF website was only being used as a source to describe the statements of Richard Cohen, in a paragraph which was subsequently deleted anyway! Terribly sorry to mix that up, i will be more careful in the future. Meanwhile, a much more clear-headed editor has done a better job of improving the article, i leave it in their more capable hands. That will teach me to read the footnotes a lot more carefully! Thank you ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Have fun editing! Whatever404 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Nice tiny tweaks to that article, though I objected to one of the tweaks and reverted it to its original version (only one of them, not all of your tweaks). I explained in my edit summary about that. I hope that you can see that I was not trying to be difficult. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoy the challenge of preserving all of the useful information while carving away the wordcruft, leaving a nice, sleek phrase. I did re-edit the item in question, due to a concern about equity in wording. I do not think you were "trying to be difficult" at all; WP:AGF and all. Thanks, Whatever404 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And I like the new re-edit you did to that part. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimarkup testing

I have responded to your message at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tool for editing and viewing wiki markup, offline?.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

WP:AN#Article involving the Tiller tragedy that is not getting a lot of oversight. hmwithτ 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

George Tiller "death", "murder" etc

I agree that "Shot to death" is unwieldy. Earlier you changed either "Reactions to murder" or "Reactions to death" to "Reactions to killing" (I think). I'd prefer "killing" to either "murder" or "death" - you know my views on "murder" (WP:POV), my rationale for preferring "killing" to "death" is that he was clearly killed (death, while true, makes it sound like he died naturally).

I've raised this with another editor and it sounds like they'd be OK with it.

Obviously this is probably a discussion that should be taking place on the talk page, but it's getting quite crowded and emotive!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Children of God

You recently moved Children of God to Children of God (disambiguation) with the move summary "Primary topic"; but you didn't then redirect the original title. What is the primary topic? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

You seem to have a large interest in this Project by all your questions, hopefully you won’t mind me asking one. What is your connection to the Montana Meth Project, Montana, or methamphetamine in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine1786 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how answering these personal questions would improve the Montana Meth Project article, or further the goals of the Wikipedia project. The reason I asked you about whether you were the person who engaged in revert-warring and blanking under other names or IP addresses is that you engaged in this edit, which removed much of the criticism of MMP from the article (which other names/IPs have done recently). Whatever404 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Apserger's

Hello Whatever404, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Apserger's - a page you tagged - because: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OCD Spectrum

Please stop moving that article to a name that doesn't conform with Wikipedia naming conventions; an admin already moved it back, and you are edit warring without discussion. Please see consensus at WT:MED and also review WP:3RR; discuss your edits before reverting. I am also concerned about your reverts without discussion at autism. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

They didn't "move it back", they moved it to deal with capitalization problems. If there was a problem with the new name I would have thought someone would say something.

Why is it being called a "spectrum disorder" when 1) it is not recognized by any major medical body 2) it is not any specific disorder? Whatever404 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither is PANDAS a recognized disorder; please review naming conventions and consensus at WT:MED. You are edit warring on several articles, and you've now also inserted incorrect dashes at OCD spectrum (see WP:DASH). Please try to work with other editors to understand and develop consensus before making changes. OCD spectrum needs to be restored, but an admin will need to undo all the incorrect changes you've made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the purported edit-warring occurring? I am using the talk page in places where I am aware of disagreement, one of which has already been resolved.

What you call "incorrect dashes" are the dashes that my computer produces when I hit the dash key. I was not aware that the dash my computer produces was the wrong dash; why would anyone assume that? I will look into figuring out if there is a keystroke combination that produces the correct dash.

It should be obvious that I was working under the assumption that the dashes that were in use on the page were the wrong dashes, since they were not the same as the dash my computer produces when I hit the appropriate key. Why would anyone insist on using a specific dash that is against WP conventions (instead of trying to change the conventions)? I get the sense that you made an incorrect assumption.

Further, I find your chastising tone (reminiscent of an irate mother of a toddler saying "Now, look at the mess you've made!") to be inappropriate. We have to edit alongside each other. It would be nice if you'd do other editors the courtesy of speaking to us as you would a colleague. Whatever404 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted over consensus several times at autism, Asperger syndrome and on the various OCD spectrum articles, causing work for others; please see WP:3RR and discuss your edits on talk once they have been reverted once. The dashes are not against WP conventions (please read WP:DASH). If you read the guidelines, it will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that SandyGeorgia is right, at least as far as Autism and Asperger syndrome goes, where I've been observing the edits. Those are two high-quality articles that have seen lots of attention and are scrupulously based on reliable sources: the "obvious" edits have all been done to them. Insisting on promoting abbreviations like "AS", or objecting to commmon names ending in "disorder" on the incorrect assumption that "These terms are outdated", is causing needless work for other editors and is not helping to improve the encyclopedia. I echo SandyGeorgia's suggestions that potentially-controversial edits like these be discussed on the talk pages first, with a few days for other editors to chime in (we're not all 24-hour editing beasts, after all). Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

En dash

It's normal for the minus-sign on your keyboard to generate a hyphen. If you want an endash, one way is to press the endash symbol (it's normally the first special symbol listed below your edit window, after "Insert"). This requires Javascript; if you don't have that, you can just type "–", which always generates an endash ("–") but is uglier to edit. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project

We are both editing the MMP page. I removed a dead link without correcting it; you put it back without correcting it and asked why I had removed it. I do not believe that the statement requires citation, so I think no citation is better than faulty citation. What are your thoughts?

I posted on the discussion board at the bottom of the relevant section my reasoning for rearranging text, and I like it the way that I put it. Could you respond on the MMP board to say why you like it the way you put it? Thanks for your attention, Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy (anthropology)

Either the merger discussion is complete or it isn't. Which one is it? If the discussion is complete, the article needs to be merged. If it's not complete, we need to leave the merger discussion notice on the article. Kaldari (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:Kaldari#Patriarchy articles. Whatever404 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the MMP

Hey, so I have a lot of ideas, they are all on the talk page, you have told me that it is hard to take them all in at once, and so I want to cut them into categories. I do not feel they can be summarized, I do not want to delete any of them, and you do not want me to hide them. Would you have any problem with me categorizing them? I did just that, just now, but in the past you have reverted this and I am not sure why. cheers Blue Rasberry 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"you have told me that it is hard to take them all in at once" — No, I certainly have not. I have said that it is unreasonable to create a long, rambling proposal on a Talk page, with no summary.

"you do not want me to hide them" — Yes. Also, I don't want you to include changes to existing comments in the process of "archiving", to hide my comments, or for you to describe a decision, made by you, as "mutual", when you never even discussed the issue with me.

"I do not feel they can be summarized" — Then why did you say that providing a summary would be "no problem"?

" Would you have any problem with me categorizing them?" — They already are categorized. There are italicized headers with asterisks to denote each section. It is unreasonable to add section headers and new signatures to your long comment, after the fact, making it look as though the material were originally presented in a different way from how it actually was presented.

You still have not provided a summary; meaning that the amount of reading required for participation in major decisions for this article is just as unreasonable as before. It is not right to try to skirt the requirement to be concise by breaking up an existing comment into smaller pieces.

This is my third and final request that you provide a summary of your ~1,000-word proposal. Please describe each proposed action in one or two sentences, and describe the reasons why you want to do that action in one or two sentences. We are talking about five sections, in total; ten sentences. Also, I am still not clear on your reasoning, and a summary would help. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to provide a summary of my previous request. To simplify, I would be in favor of removing everything I have thus far posted on the talk page entirely. I regret the inaccuracy of my saying that I could provide a summary of my posting thus far, and I apologize for whatever inconvenience it has caused.

Since I would like to propose several kinds of changes, each unrelated to the other, I would like to create new section headings for each change. Each section would contain fewer than 100 new words, and be unrelated to all other sections. I do not want these new sections to be a part of that enormous section that now contains my proposals, and furthermore, I no longer have interest in fielding inquiry about the format of those contents.

I see two ways for me to do this meaningfully. One way is that I can remove all that I have said so far, and then post short proposals. The other way is that I could just post the short proposals, but keep them separate from what I have already said, and in different section headings. How would you feel about either of those ways of presenting my proposals? Other than providing a summary purporting to connect unrelated issues, which I am now telling you that I am unable to do, what favorable option do you see? Blue Rasberry 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Sorry, I must have made a mistake. I probably mistoke it as vandalism or maybe it was a mistake I made using Huggle. I am fully aware to policies, and automated talk page messages...I am not new here and I've been editing and fighting vandalism for a while. I do make mistakes however and thanks for telling me your opiion;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thread at AN/I

Just to let you know, I've created a thread at AN/I. It's entirely possible I may have posted in the wrong area, so it wouldn't surprise me if it gets closed very quickly and I'm told to post elsewhere, but I'm still notifying you just so don't think anyone's trying to talk behind your back.
Incidentally, all I'm looking for is to handle messages addressed to me as though they're addressed to me. Nothing more at all. I don't see why it's so important to you that other people be pestered by messages left for me. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

MCDD

See discussion. The referances requested is explained there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.101.145 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gardening

Actually, those are mentions of a Philippines showing of the original, not of any hypothetical "Filipino version" of the show. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

God, I'm tired... thanks for weeding. Whatever404 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Laura Schlessinger

Hi, I've taken a bold whack at integrating the notable controversies, some of it was duplicated across three sections so I generally used chronological basis and removed all the extra bits. Just some extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nipple -- duplicate photograph

Hey Whatever404! I just noticed that your edit of 17:56, 28 August 2009 to nipple duplicated the photo. Had you intended something else? -- Thinking of England (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chima Simone

Why are you trying to delete a perfectly valid redirect? If you don't think it should be a redirect, then please go to the redirect target page and nominate that for deletion, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a better way to go about this than reverting to a redirect. The article was improved since the first speedy-delete request, and at the second request, another editor added the hangon template. This person is noted in several major news sources, notability could be argued on these grounds. Please give the creating editor time (a day or two) to give a reason for the hangon template. There is no reason to rush this process; there are no BLP violations. Whatever404 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's being written by her agent, as they told me when they threatened to sue me. So, you're saying that we should delete it, instead of redirecting? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Since the agent has been blocked, there's nobody to explain why the hangon should apply. Are you? So what's going to happen is an admin is going to come along, see the db tag and delete it, when a redirect would solve the problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that it might be unpleasant to be threatened in that manner; I hope you have not suffered for it.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying "we should delete it", I don't think I said anything to that effect.

The issue of the agent editing WP is a separate issue from the merits of the article content; the editor's COI is handled separately from the scrutiny of the article itself.

At this point I have done enough work on it and added enough sources from major news outlets that if you want to delete it, I think AFD is the right avenue for that.

I imagine that saying this might only irritate you further, but please consider reviewing WP:NAM; I've encountered several edit conflicts and your responses are growing hostile. Have a glass of water, step outside for a moment, eh? Hope your day improves. Whatever404 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I have no dog in this, I just think it's silly to leave it with a db tag instead of a perfectly valid redirect. I won't edit it again, unless somebody re-adds the blp violations. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

if you want to delete it, I think AFD is the right avenue for that.. But you are the one who reverted to the speedy delete tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite: I did work on the article, deemed it strong enough to try standing on its own, then removed the template. Turian added it back. During a flurry of edits and reverts, the creator of the article added the hangon template. That was the point at which I restored the db and hangon templates. Whatever404 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

Regarding this [1]. No, other than a standard cursory look, which on this occasion highlighted no obvious edit warring, I will not go picking through others' edit histories. I couldn't care less about any grudge you have with 217... or anyone else. My point was and is this; your edit summary 'no reason given for edit' was extremely poor and irrelevant. How ironic the you use a crap edit summary to complain about the lack of someone else's edit summary. If your going to undo and a seemingly normal edit, like [2], explain yourself in the edit summary or talk page - it's what they're there for - and it may save others having to question your actions. Mannafredo (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect editors to give a cursory look at the edit history of a page before they revert. You're quick to characterize me, though: I have no "grudge" or personal vendetta over something like an encyclopedia. The points are that this material is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA, and that the people editing this page have been over this with IP editors who want to insert this material, many times before. If you had taken a moment to check the edit history, you would have known that. Whatever404 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just said I gave it a cursory look - can't you read properly? 'Characterize you'? I wouldn't waste my time bothering. 'Grudge with an encyclopedia'? Wow, you really can't read properly. No, the point is this; if your edit summary wasn't so crap, people wouldn't have to go checking out the history behind it. Any edit warring your involved in is of no interest to me and I ain't gonna waste my time investigating it, or replying to this thread any further - especially since you seen to unable to grasp the whole point of my edits. Mannafredo (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Whatever404 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

move discussion

Dustbin Baby (film)

Discussion moved to Talk:Dustbin Baby (film)#Phrasing of content addressing Asperger syndrome

If you're going to advertise a discussion, the least you can do is word it neutrally. How would you feel if I went to the reliable sources noticeboard and said "I'm currently in a discussion with someone who has never edited this article, who believes that we should ignore what reliable sources have said, and instead discuss a minor point of the article in his preferred style, ignoring a point of interest about the film that has been carefully considered by the producers"? J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, what in Hell are you doing running to a project focussing on disabilities? Do you not see the irony in that? The whole issue is that you're convinced that everyone in the fucking world apart from you mistreats those with Asperger syndrome by "pretending" it is some kind of disability. Seriously, have you got nothing better to do? Go and fight a battle worth fighting... J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you completely ignore my warning and run to someone else while continuing your attempts to villify me? Regardless of the debate itself, these kind of underhand tactics are completely unacceptable; I've seen people blocked for similar actions. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not responded to you because you have ascribed false, unflattering motives to me, used profanity, and insulted me personally (here and elsewhere). Civility, besides being a policy on Wikipedia, is an absolute minimum threshold for interaction with me. I invite you to rise to the occasion. Whatever404 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Autism

Hey I appreciate your edits to Ryan's Law. How do I remove the tag that it is just a stub. I'm working on the one that too few article link to it. Thanks! 129.252.67.2 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Megligence

Anti-abortion violence

Why did you revet my edit where I removed US info out of Anti-abortion violence to its own page at Anti-abortion violence in the United States? I did it to lessen the systemic bias of the former and the topic was a large part of the original article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you broke it out: the US-centric article seemed to me to be without context, as it was merely a list of incidents, and it seemed odd to have the main article be lacking in the descriptions of the incidents in the area where they happen most. I don't understand the purpose of breaking it out, could you explain? Whatever404 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of birth control methods

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of birth control methods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Buildings used to confine animals

Category:Buildings used to confine animals, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of LGBT Anti-violence groups for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LGBT Anti-violence groups 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT Anti-violence groups 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pubic piercing

This is the most adorably well-intentioned yet head-scratchingly weird edit I have seen in ages. I am all reading along and am like huh? Why wouldn't a pubic piercing stimulate a trans woman's clit just as well?

Clearly what you meant was not "natal women" but "people with vulvas", which of course also includes post-op trans women and many trans men. Do we have a word for that? Maybe "vulvaphore"? Or am I mixing greek and latin roots? —April Arcus (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Olfactory reference syndrome listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Olfactory reference syndrome. Since you had some involvement with the Olfactory reference syndrome redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Lesion (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

American Mental Health Counselors Association listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American Mental Health Counselors Association. Since you had some involvement with the American Mental Health Counselors Association redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)