User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive November 2017

MrFlowerpot

Thank you for noticing and calling out this personal attack.

It is not the first time that this user, either under the name MrFlowerpot or under an IP that they have acknowledged as theirs, has made uncivil remarks. See:

• "User Zazpot has undone my removal of Evelyn Boyd Granville ... I'm doubting of either the sanity of who is contributing to this page..." (My reply.)
• "and you ask me to be civil, after coming off as patronizing and borderline trollish on the entire talk page?" (My reply.)
• "Dear Zazpot, ... someone might catch the faintest smell of sexism in specifically excluding top female scientists". (My reply - I have never excluded anybody from the list.)

If you have advice about how to handle this better than I have done in my replies above (i.e. asking the user to be WP:CIVIL, and otherwise avoiding the attacks and sticking to the substantive points of discussion), I would welcome it. Do you think it warrants posting on a noticeboard, for example? I am undecided. On the one hand, this is a new user. On the other hand, their comments are not appropriate.

Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: I have also noticed this pattern, and will warn flowerpot if they make another PA. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Good faith"? Nope, I don't recognize it. ... I can't believe in your good faith. ... [Us] citizens of the civilized world should not have to see Wikipedia entries defaced with random African-American entries ... [You] are continuing to use Wikipedia bureaucracy for all intents and purposes as a weapon against anybody opposing you... Even worse, you are a keen user of the old fashioned strawman, barricading yourself behind "we don't do original research". Does that justify a warning? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I left flowerpot a reminder to AGF. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

You need to keep the edit fixed on this page: "The legend went through much further elaboration in the following centuries, and eventually found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version" was corrected to "The legend went through much further elaboration in the following centuries, and is claimed to have found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version." Obviously this is a correct edit as the Quran is a religious Scripture believed by 24.1% of the world to be revealed by God (see Islam). Sorry for any confusion previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajwa.moneeb (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify this? I am not sure what you are saying. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bajwa.moneeb: Tornado chaser (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Bajwa.moneeb Sorry, to be more clear, the Quran is believed to be the Revelation of God by Muslims worldwide. The quote above that I corrected is a claim by non-Muslims that is being made, "...and eventually found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version," which is saying that the Quran is not the Revelation of God but rather a compilation of stories collected from various sources. Thus, I edited it to signify this.

@Tornado chaser: Hi, you seemed to have rejected my edit again. I did not see you responding to my post above so I thought everything was settled, but I guess not. I have posted a discussion in the talk page of the article as you recommended. Also, see this for more clarification on the Quran: (http://portals.whyislam.org/Portals/0/Order%20Literature/Literature/54.pdf). Bajwa.moneeb (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk 108.173.225.11

I did not vandalize any page. my last msg i added without the new section by mistake, but otherwise it is not ok to say i am vandalizing any page. I was simply complaining about the reality of users with ego issues removing correct information because they have the gullibility of a 10 year old. don't back the actual users vandalizing or you may have a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.125.11 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science . Zazpot (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fantino Edit

Hi Tornado Chaser,

Thanks for cleaning up my edit as I am new as you can see, but I think you cut some material that is supported by a reliable source: it comes right from Julian Fantino's signed affidavit that is cited etc. There is no better more reliable source about what Fantino's testimony is than the actual filed sworn testimony / affidavit itself.

Perhaps I should have referenced the page and paragraph number for each point? The issue is relevant because the nature of Fantino's evidence is 'stunning' and involves 'rogue' police officers (as Fantino calls them in his affidavit) selling confidential police information to lawyers and their clients.

J266 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@J266: No sources at all were cited for the material I deleted, if you have a source, feel free to put the material back, following WP:citing sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Citing the page number is not necessary or useful. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

edits on Necklace page

Hello! My student has been working for weeks to improve the Necklace page as part of a class project organized by WikiEdu. She began moving her edits from her sandbox to the live page last night, but you removed them. Can you explain why? FashProf (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@FashProf:Her edits contained some errors, but after looking at it again, I have restored most of what she added, minus an image that messed up the formatting of the page and the stuff about the page being Eurocentric, which should be put on the talk page, not in the article. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that I deleted more than I needed to (at first I couldn't figure out what part of her edits broke the formatting). Tornado chaser (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Castigating a user name

I recently objected to your impugnation of user FF-UK, solely due to the incidental spelling of his username. I once again find your actions quixotic with respect to username go here. In this case, I concur with your assessment. However, you created the user talk page implicitly by posting to it. He has no contributions (edits) whatsoever. It's a phantom account. Only a checkuser administrator can find the associated real account. In this case, it's not worth anyone's time. It would have been better to ignore this account, and not create the objectionably named talk page. He got what he wanted: notoriety. Sbalfour (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sbalfour: He had attempted an edit but is was blocked by the filter, I was assuming he would try to edit again. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sbalfour:. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Matt DeCanio's Page

I am Matt DeCanio and I am updating my own page because the facts are never written about correctly in any media so proper sourcing is impossible. I am an underground activist, author, and determined NRA member to bring American Justice. Failure to restore my wiki page to factual information will only result in a chapter in my book about wikipedia so choose wisely to censor me. Thank you have a nice day, and thanks for the motivation for my book until now I wasn't going to write it. I have had multiple death threats and don't think for a second you can stop my words (Personal attack removed) my freedom of speech will not be stopped regardless how hard the liberals try to censor American's. GO TRUMP! Winning doesn't matter and true love is ourselves. (Personal attack removed). I rode my bicycle in a hurricane and broke the national record, (Personal attack removed) You are in my book right now. The world will read my story and this will not be pleasant for you (Personal attack removed). you can do nothing to stop me. (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stolenunderground (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

FYI: Per WP:BLANKING, blocked users are allowed to remove anything they want from their talk pages other than declined unblock requests for a currently active block (and a couple of other not relevant exceptions). They may remove block notices if they wish. They can remove discussion of their block if they wish. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpgordon:Thank you, I had no idea of this. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

it:Television licensing in the United Kingdom

Help - not sure what the problem was here - I quoted the appropriate section of the law 'Communications Act 2003 Part 4 Section 368 (2)' which doesn't mention watching or recording. This is a fiction put about by Capita in their business of collecting the licence fee. "Watching or Recording" tv may be evidence of an offence as defined in the act, but are not in themselves lllegal.Ripov (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ripov: Could you provide a diff or a link to the page? I am not sure what you are referring to. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Never mind, I found the page. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ripov: Your edit did not cite a source for the change you made, and you edit appeared to be WP:OR. You need to find a reliable source for any changes you make, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

AIV report

I'm not sure if reporting Prettyboyswa6 to AIV was appropriate. They only triggered the edit filter once, and only have one warning. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I take that back. Widr blocked them. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)