Thanks for this edit! Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Daniel Case: You're welcome! That tiny little issue just kind of burrowed into my brain and I had to do something to try to fix it. Thank you for the kind note. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate many of the great edits you've helped out with so far. I would just like to ask you to keep WP:NPOV and WP:STICKTOSOURCE in mind while dealing with articles about anti-abortion extremism/terrorism. Even though these people committed heinous acts, it is important that we only relay what is in reliable sourcing, and try to not include our own views of the subject matter. I know this may feel like whitewashing bureaucracy or some such, but it's a matter of verifiability and that we (ourselves) are not considered reliable sources. If you feel some of the changes I undid are of absolute necessity, please feel free to start a discussion at the talk page of the relevant articles and garner consensus for your ideas. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Coffee: The lede on Wikipedia's article on terrorism says the word is used "primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants". NPOV can be frustrating in this situation because people like Donald Spitz, Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, etc., had to couch their violence in the sincerely-held belief that, depending on circumstances, their faith mandates violence against moral violators. This, however, flies in the face of WP:OBVIOUS, where these people, particularly Rudolph but certainly also Hill, knew their violence could hurt or kill people who weren't involved on any side of these moral questions. They knew it and they still chose to perpetrate it without even trying to mitigate these possibilities.
- I don't accept that Hill and Rudolph were acting out of sincere beliefs but according to NPOV (and, arguably, WP:BLP even though Rudolph and Spitz damn sure aren't suing anyone), I also can't just change article text to express such skepticism. The thing is, I didn't: my edits were rooted in WP:OBVIOUS. Paul Hill's anti-abortion beliefs caused him to commit violence against James and June Barrett. According to Wikipedia's definition, he's a terrorist because he knew he was endangering people who weren't heavily involved in abortion but he did nothing to minimize the danger and indeed ended up shooting them both. Eric Rudolph's anti-abortion and anti-gay beliefs caused him to plant bombs in areas full of people who he didn't confirm were involved in these cultural wars so, according to Wikipedia's definition, he's also a terrorist. I know that taking known facts and coming to unpublished conclusions is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH but if WP:OBVIOUS doesn't overrule original research restrictions, it carries no weight. WP:OBVIOUS isn't policy but it is vital; without it, we'd need a source saying the sky is (usually) (a shade of) blue. But it also gives us an end run around another problem. The word "terrorist" is sourced at Timothy McVeigh's article but it would stand even if it were unsourced because it would be so insulting to say that we need a professional to weigh in before we can add that word, we can't just go with what we know McVeigh did. I was disgusted at the lack of use of this word at these articles because I know what these people have done.
- Although now that I think about it, there's another possibility. "It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants." My reading is "violence during peacetime...against non-combatants" or "violence in the context of war against non-combatants." If that's wrong, this sentence is saying "violence during peacetime" is terrorism but adding "non-combatants" to that concept is either unnecessary or inaccurate. I honestly don't know but if that sentence is saying terrorism can be defined as "violence during peacetime...against non-combatants", there's no way to parse that in a way that the violence against anyone except the aforementioned moral violators would qualify. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Chill the fuck out. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Drmies: I sent this through Google Translate and it came out as: "Automated editing tools are to be used in situations that don't require a lot of attention, work, or care so by nature that can go wrong sometimes. You're worked up but it's understandable since your edit, which fully repaired damage that's been on a highly-visible article for months, was accidentally caught up in my effort to fix other, actual problems. Sorry about that. Next time someone undoes a good edit of yours, assume they didn't mean any harm."
- But since I don't speak whatever language that is, all I can respond to is the English version and your remarks aren't worth a lot by way of the apology you owe me so the best I can do is try. For the second time today, I'm going to correct a substantial mistake thoughtlessly perpetrated at a valuable article by a veteran editor who would have known better but had no reason to care. Check my next edit summary and let me know what you think. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
- That was not an automated edit: it was a revert to an earlier version. Now, I'm sad that I did not catch the error you did; I thought I was actually furthering your cause by removing more vandalism. It took me a while to figure out which edit you were undoing--it was this one, and you could have mentioned that, with date and editor, but you were too busy pontificating. Really, next time someone undoes a good edit of yours, assume they didn't mean any harm. So I will give you that little part of the apology I just gave you. But that you want to continue to talk in this particular way, that doesn't surprise me--every single edit summary of yours shows that you are here not to improve the project, but out of anger management. On top of that, you misunderstand what plagiarism is; that you feel the need to insult other editors is sad, and I'll give you a fully automated warning for that. For the next admin: there's also this IP address, and no doubt a bunch more. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
 This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [1] Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- @Drmies: And while I'm here, have a personal attack: Drmies, your defense of plagiarism, dishonesty, and stealing surely conflicts with how you were raised; did your loved ones really want you to become a thief and a liar? You exist as a living monument to the failure of people who wanted you to turn out better than the person you are. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
Create an account
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Learn more about editing
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
Get help at the Teahouse
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Volunteer at the Task Center
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, and best wishes! I notice some of your WP:Edit summaries state arguments or reasons rather than simply explaining what you've done. WP editors are supposed to use the WP:Talk pages to explain their reasoning; the Edit summaries should simply summarize the edits. Happy editing! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @BeenAroundAWhile: Per WP:EDITSUMCITE, that is not correct. Your preferred type of summary is validated by the list's first entry. The idea that it's the only type of appropriate edit summary is contradicted by the very next entry, which states in plain language that an editor ought to use a summary "Give reasons for the change, if you think other editors may be unclear as to why you made it." Clarity for the sake of avoiding contentiousness has always been the reason I write the types of summaries you find problematic. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
 Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed content from Marty Sampson without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. The content was neutral and sourced. Nothing inflammatory present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- @Walter Görlitz: No idea if I was on a different IP but this isn't the first time I've dealt with you lying to undo an edit that was the result of a lot of hard work. What have we got, Wält? A block-worthy violation of WP:NPA where I made a good-faith effort and you responded by claiming I was lying about the reliability of a massively biased source, you lying that my top-1% extensive edit summary was inadequate, you characterizing an article with a blatant, proven lie as reliable, and the fact that your restoration was soundly rejected by a logged-in user who you'd love to revert except you're a giant coward and they're not an IP you can use as a punching bag.
- You're as damanging a presence on this website as any long-time editor and for that matter, your habit of beating up anonymous users while remaining thoroughly shit-scared of account holders is so bad that "long-term abuser" describes you exactly as it describes official honorees. Please find another hobby because as I bet you've suspected and as your titanic embarrassment of a block log proves, you're atrocious at this one. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I'm sorry you think I was lying, but I stopped when I read that and I'll tell you that I have fought on the Sampson article to keep the content as neutral as possible and sourced to WP:SECONDARY content and let those sources make their claims. Please find another hobby or get an account so I can get you blocked for calling me a liar without proof. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- And I just read your misrepresentation of fact: no one reverted my restoration. Last I checked the SECONDARY source was in-place and a WP:PRIMARY one was added refuting the claims that evangelicals (who for the most part are afraid of people questioning their interpretation of "the faith") placed on him. This is a vindication of my reading of Sampson's primary sources and my attempts to keep the section neutral.
- As for beating-up on anons, you're sadly mistaken there as well. I managed expose a registered editor who had vendetta against anons showing him how they can be excellent contributors. No, I beat-up on editors who mess with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Walter Görlitz: You stopped reading because you realized you'd been caught for being a serial harasser of anonymous editors who, when reverting such editors, absolutely never takes a single second to be a considerate person. Consequently, after you lyingly said you stopped reading, you somehow concluded I'd said you'd been reverted and fired off "no one reverted my restoration" as a correction of something I didn't claim. A truly good person would read criticism and grow from it but anybody who knows you knows you'll just keep lying. You read to the end of this just like you read to the end of my last one. 108.73.104.136 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- No, I stopped reading on my first pass because you called me a liar, and in this section on Marty Sampson I knew immediately that you were delusional.
- I re-read my content, and then I asked myself, what further delusions is the anon from Cleveland working under and actually read your full, rant. Not a word of truth to your statements here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kang Kek Iew without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Firestar464 (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- @Firestar464: He/she explained their removal at extreme length in the edit summary. If you're going to use Twinkle to template them, you should at least bother to use one that's accurate... jp×g 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
|
This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
Hello, I'm Engr. Smitty. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Megan Ellison—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
