User talk:Whiskeymouth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:59, 30 April 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Whiskeymouth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 08:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You don't just re-add the table on airport-only victims without making the necessary modifications and just expect someone else to do it. It seems disrespectful to have people put more effort into finishing your work. Either you learn how to make that table first before implementing it, or let someone put his/her effort into creating a full table from scratch. (I for one don't know how to do it, for your information.) Parsley Man (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hello, I just noticed that User:Parsley Man created a user page for you with no content. There was no obvious edit summary and nothing on your talk page to indicate you had asked for him to do this. If you do not wish to have a user page, I can request it to be deleted immediately. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 03:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firebrace did the exact same thing with mine, with no editsum or request from me either, so I thought it was okay. Parsley Man (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think such edits are discouraged. By all means, ask about it on their talk page. Likewise if you want your page deleted I can do the same, Parsley. Jolly Ω Janner 03:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way, but if it works better for everyone to have my page deleted, by all means, go on ahead. Parsley Man (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Parsley. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jolly Janner, User:Whiskeymouth may well be the same person as User:Parsley Man. Similar loose, confident, aggressive, style of edition. Similar explosion onto Wikiepdia in a burst of energetic editing. Similar incongruent fmiliarity with Wikipedia policies and confident, easy editing in areas like AFD where new editors are likely to tred lightly or with patent ignorance. I suppose that it is perfectly simple for individuals with access to more than one server to regularly create new identities here. Just not certain why anyone would, unless, of course, they had been banned. What seems truly strange here, coming from a purportedly new editor, is the moment when Whiskeyman thanks Parselyman for creating a blank Userpage for him. It just doesn't add up. sign me, puzzled.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely not true. Trust me, I'm definitely puzzled too by why Whiskeymouth would thank me for something like that. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wrong reference ......

Hey, you must have had a copy/paste that went bad - your recent edit to the Ingrid Lyne article refers to an NBC weather report! ( Phil Helsel. "Record Rains Could Hit Plains as Storm Stalls Over Region". NBC News. Retrieved 17 April 2016. ) Might want to fix before that edit-warrior jumps into it. 68.19.7.65 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Ingrid Lyne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Reactions to the death of Prince

A tag has been placed on Reactions to the death of Prince requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Reactions to a death does not warrant it's own article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Reactions to the death of Prince

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Reactions to the death of Prince. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Prince. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Prince – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trump Force One for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump Force One 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/Trump Force One 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Reactions to the death of Prince for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reactions to the death of Prince 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/Reactions to the death of Prince 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Death of Prince for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Prince 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/Death of Prince 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

=

April 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Knowledgekid87. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Warning is in regard to this comment "I suspect Softlavender and his friends will remove it, being the contentious and aggressive bullies they are." found here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of all people, you display nearly the worst disruptive behavior. You may be a saint but your behavior doesn't show it. Try harder to show that you are a good person, if you are. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Sorry your now being stalked. Your a good editor and don't deserve it. The community will catch up to him soon. 166.171.187.207 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very calm. I observe the rules. Bullies and those that cause trouble don't like the upright and logical way that I act. Thanks for the barnstar. However, good does not always rule over evil as I probably will stop editing because of their aggressive behavior. It's not worth wasting time over them. In the long run, Wikipedia loses because of their disruption. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make any more edits like this one. --John (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, I like so many other editors are now noticing you for the first time, I would like to take some time to remind you about Wikipedia's principals WP:PILLARS and how an AFD works WP:AFD, these are some things that may help you while editing on Wikipedia in the future. Thank you. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince edits

Are John and Soft Lavender always so protective of this article? I see that you have been reverted repeatedly. I am attempting to correct a minor grammatical error, and they act like I am trying to sacrifice a child. Are their other editors who are party to this clique? I'm not interested in edit warring, but I now discover that the error has been previously corrected repeatedly, only to be reverted to the incorrect version. There are no "bylines" here, because no one owns their articles. Is that all this is, or is there more going on? I noticed that someone added a mention in a London paper of AIDS, only to have it instantly removed as "poorly sourced," which, I suppose may be justified: the British press is quite a different animal than that of the U.S. But I can't help wondering if the info had been about someone less popular... Rags (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 Hey, I like so many other editors are now noticing you for the first time, I would like to take some time to remind you about Wikipedia's principals [[WP:PILLARS]] and how an AFD works [[WP:AFD]], these are some things that may help you while editing on Wikipedia in the future. Thank you. [[User:Adog104|'''<span style="color:#8FBCE6">A</span><span style="color:#092C5C">dog</span><span style="color:#F5D130">104</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Adog104|<span style="color:#2EB347">'''''Talk to me'''''</span>]]</sup> 15:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
+== Prince edits ==
+Are ''John'' and ''Soft Lavender'' always so protective of this article?  I see that you have been reverted repeatedly.  I am attempting to correct a minor grammatical error, and they act like I am trying to sacrifice a child.  Are their other editors who are party to this clique?  I'm not interested in edit warring, but I now discover that the error has been previously corrected repeatedly, only to be reverted to the incorrect version.  There are no "bylines" here, because no one owns their articles.  Is that all this is, or is there more going on?  I noticed that someone added a mention in a London paper of AIDS, only to have it instantly removed as "poorly sourced," which, I suppose may be justified: the British press is quite a different animal than that of the U.S.  But I can't help wondering if the info had been about someone less popular...  [[User:Ragityman|Rags]] ([[User talk:Ragityman|talk]]) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)