User talk:Bumblebritches57

July 2013

You're right, facts are facts, and the fact of the matter is, Misandry has been around since the early 1800s, where it came from the German word Misandrie, Source: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Misandry%20-%20The%20Word Bumblebritches57 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Google Chrome may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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) 20:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--Cailil ^talk 20:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I can't comment on the talk pages? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it means that there are certain restrictions on editing, which are explained in the detailed description. The above notification is just that, a notification. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: High Fidelity Pure Audio (October 1)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High Fidelity Pure Audio.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the submission as well. It's not written in a very encyclopedic way and the references aren't reliable. I found one or two somewhat reliable sources on the internet, one in English--this editorial, which is really interesting and useful (and true: see the comment on the writer's lack of high-quality audio equipment and the reason why), but suggests HFPA is a losing proposition. For what it's worth, it may be, as yet, that this is too new to be included as an encyclopedic article; the matter can be revisited in a while, when more coverage is available. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't write it originally, I was going to write an article on it and found that that one had been declined, so I edited it slightly, and had forgotten to include new references, I agree that it wasn't very encyclopedic in format, but I do think it's important to have a page about HFPA. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:BlackBerry 10 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio (October 15)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Bumblebritches57, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on Talk: Jessica Chobot ('anything about damaged goods' section)

That post was made by an anonymous IP back in 2008 - I doubt that the person who posted it is around for a reply at that particular IP 6 years later. I did some digging and the sentence is a quote from a possible Chobot account (or an Internet doppleganger) made in an IGN.Com thread/article [1]. I am clearing the article's talk page of stale posts and am including the 2008 post (+ your reply) since the initial quote does not seem to be directly about improving the article and the quote itself cannot be clearly attributed to Chobot herself. Shearonink (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah I should've paid attention to that, thanks for the heads up, and thanks for the lead, I couldn't find anything but dead links. :D Bumblebritches57 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio

Hello Bumblebritches57. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm Dermoid. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Clyde Lewis because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dermoid (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my question is why specifically? the house of representatives made that edit, and it arguably doesn't fit WP:NPOV, because the language is more incriminatory over a TV show appearance, there was no official criminal or civil prosecution, it's just entertainment, therefore I feel that the new language is inappropriate. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal on Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture

Hi, I noticed you made a revert to a rev that's about a week old. Just wondering if that was intentional since it seemed like it was a mistake. Thanks. --RAN1 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a mistake, I wrote about the mistake on the talk page, sorry for the confusion and trouble. here's a link to my post on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture#CongressEdits Bumblebritches57 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Replied on the talk page. --RAN1 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment, you can "revert your revert" by going to the page history, clicking "undo" next to the revert that you believe was erroneous, and then clicking "Save page." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Also, I gave you that warning because you edit Pearl's user page, not their talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking other editors, I removed your vandalistic edit from my talk page, If you fraudulently comment on my talk page one more time, I'm reporting you for harassment. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Gender related controvery and disputes are under discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

FYI Bumblebritches57 gender related controversies are under discretionary sanctions since a recent ArbCom ruling. Behaviour is monitored in related topics, you've been making comments at two articles Talk:National Organization for Women and Talk:Men's rights movement in relation to a controversy about the SCUM Manifesto. Your comment here[2] makes your action look WP:POINTY--Cailil ^talk 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made two comments on talk pages, so now I'm in trouble for proposing changes? what exactly are you trying to say that it looks pointy? The S.C.U.M. Manifesto was widely supported by feminists in the past at the very least, and to try to brush it under the rug violates WP:NPOV pretty severely.

If you don't like that we can always call in @Jimmy_Wales and see what he thinks? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't responded within 24 hours, I'm going to have to make the edit myself. Cailil

So what you're saying is that I violated some rule by bringing up Wikipedia's complete lack of extremely relevant content due to a recent shitstorm feminism has faced, so instead of the people covering up past controversies getting in trouble for trying to sweep shit under the rug, I'm in trouble for trying to fulfill WP:NPOV? plus, you're an admin. I have no recourse but to contact Jimbo himself... well I don't want to just call him in without you at least responding to my possible misunderstandings, but I'm not going to wait forever. Bumblebritches57 (talk) Cailil

I'm saying "FYI (for your information) gender related conflicts are under discretionary sanctions". If you want to make a dramahz out of it that's your problem. And no, me being an admin makes no difference your "I have no recourse but to contact Jimbo himself" is neither accurate nor logical. You've received an informational alert that these topics are under scrutiny. There's a line in the message that says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct". If you want to make a fuss, well then that's your prerogative--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not supposed to sound like a threat? because that's precisely what it sounds like... I don't even know what the hell this "warning" is even about if it's not a threat tbh... Bumblebritches57 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of request

You are notified of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bumblebritches57. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic ban

Hello Bumblebritches57. Based on your recent behavior, particularly this edit (oversighter access only), and your history of being warned for similar behavior, I am placing you under a topic ban from a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, and (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. This topic ban will run for a duration of one year. For details on how to appeal this sanction if you wish to, please see here; note that since this sanction is placed partially on the basis of information that has been oversighted, you will need your appeal to be evaluated by arbitrators or other functionaries, rather than just by administrators, in order for all evidence to be examined. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's illegal to comment in the TALK SECTION ABOUT A BIASED ARTICLE? jesus fuck wikipedia what the hell is wrong with you? This site is a mockery of an encyclopedia, and freedom of speech. You people disgust me.

you're literally censoring the facts in order to promote an ideology, and since you've got admin powers nobody can shit to stop the corruption. time to talk to @Jimmy_Wales, huh? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to ping Jimmy Wales you're doing it incorrectly. You're meant to use the {{Ping}} template. If you are trying to appeal your ban to Jimmy Wales, a better way to do so would be to post on Talk:Jimmy Wales, however I would strongly recommend against this because (as someone who's seen a lot of people be topic banned in this area) I do not believe there is any chance whatsoever of him reversing your topic ban. I just wanted to make sure you knew all the avenues available to you, to alleviate any possible complaints of being overwhelmed by bureaucracy. With that in mind, it would probably be better for you to do something else like help with the massive dead link backlog. Bosstopher (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure you knew all the avenues available to you

You forgot his right to appeal at WP:ACDS Besides giving Ryulong the boot, a year is the worst anyone has been give under these sanctions... it does seem excessive. Marteau (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I messaged him on twitter, but yeah pinging him here is a way better idea. Anyway, as a result of this general fuckery, I've given up on Wikipedia entirely. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying, I don't give a shit about My personal ban, I think it's just disgusting how far you admins are going to keep your feminist echo chamber alive, and was commenting on the state of corruption on Wikipedia in general. as the owner of the site, I'm sure he'd be intrested to hear about curruption, regardless of if you feel that's overboard or not, and it may be. but that's for him to decide. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the year over already? I think not. (Pinging @Fluffernutter:). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumblebritches57: That diff does indeed appear to be a violation of your topic ban. Given that it's been a while since your topic ban was put in place and you haven't been editing much in the meantime, I'm going to assume you forgot about it. With that in mind: please remove your comment from Talk:Social justice and keep your topic ban in mind from here on out. If you can't or won't do those things, the only option left will be to block you from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Bumble, you can remove my response as well.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not removing threats from my talk page. if you don't want the world knowing about them, don't make them in the first place.

second off, I really don't give a shit how many times did I say that I don't care if you ban me permanently?

Third off, why are you stalking me? seriously why are you following me around that's fucking creepy. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraphine Gryphon: Oh hey, I found the perfect quote for you on your own talk page archive no less! "Encyclopedias are supposed to present facts not support any ideologies propaganda or mythology by misrepresenting or manipulating facts." ring any bells? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You violated a topic ban. That's pretty straightforward. Please don't do it again. Now, it's probably a good idea for Jeraphine Gryphon to post notifications elsewhere, like on User:Fluffernutter's talk page, given the reception they got here. Let me add, Bumblebritches, that personal attacks aren't allowed, not even on your own talk page. See WP:NPA and consider this a friendly warning. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did I attack anyone? I merely asked why they were stalking me (which is a valid question, albeit slightly rudely worded).

also, I can't help but question the legitimacy of Wikipedia when everyone that calls feminism out for it's bullshit (like how there's no mention of [blp redacted] on the page on feminism, the S.C.U.M Manifesto, Ti-Grace Atkinson's own page, the page on criticism of feminism, and every single other pertinent article, but I'm in the wrong for trying to educate the public on the facts, instead of caving to the predominant ideology here. No wonder Wikipedia was demoted by Google. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a generous mood, so I'll make you a deal. I'll find a reliable source for Ti-Grace Atkinson's aforementioned actions, you add it to the pertinent articles and I'll leave Wikipedia forever, deal?

Block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating a discretionary sanctions topic ban, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Have the biased administrators been booted yet? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lossless Video Compression concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lossless Video Compression, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lossless Video Compression

Hello, Bumblebritches57. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Lossless Video Compression".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm done with wikipedia. I'm not putting work into articles when the admins remove all of it because it doesn't fit their agenda. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different varieties of English

Hi Bumblebritches, please don't change Wikipedia articles from one version of English to another. We have a long established compromise of sticking with the version of English that the article started out in. Like all compromises it isn't ideal, but when I tried to get us to move to a system where you could display Wikipedia in the version of English of your choice it was not a popular suggestion. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't listen to brits. you've had enough imperialism over the last half millennium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs)

OK I've asked at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non UK_Admin needed_re_ENGVAR for a non Brit admin to comment. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Brit Admin commenting. The WP:MOS clearly states that an article is to remain in the version that it was created under, outside that of a topic having strong national ties to a specific form of English. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

In a recent edit to the page Money Made, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is as a result of repeated actions, most recently demanding that a "non-Brit admin" explain why your edits were in violation of a Wikipedia policy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do most of my edits as an IP geniuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]