Dingsuntil

Reddit doesn't have verified accounts so while I'm pretty sure that is her, it probably isn't appropriate to link to it on Wikipedia. We don't cover the topic of the link because there is no reliable source for it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is the problem that the account isn't verified as her, or the lack of reliable sources? My understanding was that the topic wasn't discussed due to the BLP bias towards privacy. It's not clear to me how reliability of sources is an issue here. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Primary issue is that there are no reliable sources that report on the topic (Breitbart has, but they're not considered an RS here.) Once that happens, if that reddit account can be verified to be her's then her statement might be useful for deciding whether to cover it in her biography. However since we don't have any reliable secondary sourcing for the topic discussing her opinion on the matter is putting the cart before the horse. —Strongjam (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Has there been previous discussion on this? It seems like the community has decided it's not talk-page appropriate (fair enough), but if there's some more obscure forum where people have been over the arguments for & against, I'd like to see it, if only to understand wikipedia policy better. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

WP:BLP is the policy. There hasn't really been an discussion about how to cover it because policy is that we don't even mention it unless there is a reliable secondary source for it. Once it's in a reliable source that's when the editorial discussion about how to cover it would happen. Biographies of living people are strict that way. If it were a company or a dead person then a discussion about something that is poorly sourced is fine for the talk pages, but for living people we have to take great care. — Strongjam (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re your deletion of the auto-archiving code, someone must have disagreed with you since the code was added back in February. The page was auto-archived once since then, with the stale threads (no replies within 30 days) being moved to the Archive. Most of the remaining threads left on the main talk page (after the last automatic archiving in February) had no posts until the past few days, when the Charlottesville Police Department's announced the results of their investigation. What's the harm in having threads with no posts within three weeks (or whatever timeframe) being archived? If someone posts a thread, there's a discussion, but then no activity within however many days, why should the threads remain on the main talk? If you'd like for threads to remain on the main page for 21 or 30 days or whatever, that's fine with me. Especially with articles such as this, that dip in and out of the public consciousness, IPs or new editors will come along, make a post and then disappear. Many editors don't even realize that there have been replies to their posts or they'll post a reply to some thread that's had no other replies for a couple of years. Would appreciate some discussion abourt the auto-archiving remaining in place. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to mention that I will not be able to get to crafting a meaningful addition (sourced!) regarding the three friends until maybe later this weekend or possibly Monday. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring the editing, but Real Life interferes. Shearonink (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unacceptable! If you don't complete the edit by midnight tonight, a member of the Audit Committee will kill you in your sleep. Consider yourself on notice. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heh....at least then I won't be coughing. But then again, I won't "be"... oh no, the existential meaning of coughing! Shearonink (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Even though we may disagree on some topics, you have been one of the few here to show real respect and decency. It's very appreciated. I am beginning to think I came to wikipedia at a bad time - it seems like everyone is very much on-guard and defensive. Anyway, thank you. Cavalierman (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Cavalierman: actually, you edited a contentious article without (iirc) editing other things. such articles always lead to trouble, but if you create an account just to edit an article that's popular for edit warring, people are going to think you're a sock puppet. anyway, the solution is to play it cool. guy thinks you're a sock puppet, just say "ok, dude, go ahead and checkuser me if you want." don't take it personally. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Glad you said "annoying both side" in this context and not "rubbing people the wrong way":) DMacks (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@DMacks: I suppose it's not too late... Dingsuntil (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teckyoung Kwon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Wright. 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) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For supporting me against the personal attacks by Sp176 and defending Wikipedia from the dangers that bias and improperly cited information pose. ~LL~ (talk) (requests) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hereby welcome you into Lord Laitinen's Anti-Vandalism Army and grant you the rank of Private First Class. Your insignia is at the left, your topicons will be placed on your user page and user talk page, and this is your official welcome message. Over time, with hard work and dedication (and by request), you may be promoted to a higher rank. Congratulations! ~LL~ (talk) (requests) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed and deleted two of your userboxes. Their content was unacceptable and they must not be restored. Frankly, if some administrators had seen these userboxes before I did, they might have blocked you indefinitely. Having checked your contributions, I think you probably were just messing around, but I caution you not to do anything like that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Newyorkbrad: Maybe you could ask those administrators instead of taking the decision yourself. I'm willing to risk it. Did you notice that the Jimbo box had been patrolled by (IIRC) another administrator? Dingsuntil (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't notice that, if it's true, but it doesn't matter; it was still unacceptable. But frankly, that was the less problematic of the two. I seriously don't think you want this matter raised to a wider audience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for the advice. Assuming I did want it before a wider audience, what would that entail? Something AfD-ish?

In any case, I think you were out of line to straight up delete my pages. You should have advised me that they were, in your opinion, unacceptable, and pointed me to the relevant guideline pages (which, IMO, they don't contravene). You could also have removed the include directives from my main page rather than deleting the pages themselves. You can always delete the pages later. This would have made it more obvious what you were objecting to (I didn't actually remember what "Part" referred to immediately, although "Jimbo" was pretty obvious), as presumably you're trying to guide me as well as clean up userspace (otherwise you could have just banned me). It would have also made it easier for me to edit them into acceptability. Maybe you didn't think that was possible in this case, but the point is that you don't actually have to go to the trouble of figuring it out if you take a less heavy-handed approach. I know that you're allowed to remove bad userspace content on sight, but that doesn't mean you have to or you should. It's an inherently hostile act that's going to fight the whole converge-to-consensus, lets-all-build-an-encyclopedia-together vibe I understood we were going for here. Dingsuntil (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can e-mail me if you've forgotten what the other userbox said. It would be grounds for an immediate indefblock and siteban if I didn't know better than to take it seriously in your case. Trolling on that particular subject is not tolerated here. Please don't dig yourself further into a hole. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Newyorkbrad: I said I didn't remember immediately. That wasn't a troll, it was a joke. If joking about that subject is not permitted, fair enough, but the guideline page doesn't say so, so I'd ask you to point me to where this was hashed out, if anywhere. I don't know what you mean by asking me not to dig myself further into a hole. Dingsuntil (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello PFC Dingsuntil. I am currently being stalked, perhaps even harassed by User:ScrapIronIV. He reverts many of my edits (which were perfectly licit) and is trying to get my sandbox deleted. I ask that you come to my aid and support me in this difficult time. In return, you will be promoted to a higher rank in LLAVA and given one or more service awards. Thanks; I hope I can count on you, my child. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lord Laitinen: As much as I'd like to help your grace, I'm afraid I see his point. WP:NOTWEBHOST and all. And not really knowing the subject, his own edits seemed reasonable enough as well. I understand if you want to have me Cashiered. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about me cashiering you. I realized that I was probably going to lose this battle. Take it from me, it had nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines at all. When you have strong opinions and speak the truth louder than the rest, you attract negative attention. A price I am willing to pay to spread the Word of God. Thank you for your honesty; your admirable behaviors will certainly earn you a promotion in the future. Vigilate mecum et ego vigilate vos. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply