MissPiggysBoyfriend

Third opinion

For anyone reading the [now deleted comment] later, the article in question was changed, and TheGracefulSlick was the one who was overstepping, as exemplified by the above prediction of what other users would say, as well as the opinion that the issue in question (relating to an overstatement of the criminal charges against someone) is not worthy of fixing.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: I don't see anyone coming to your talk page anytime soon, so no one will read your false statement. Assuming good faith is also better than a battleground mentality. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think is false? And why all the anger over a simple correction?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anger? Please I couldn't care less about this little ploy, I just said you need to assume good faith which you clearly were challenged in accomplishing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Far from a ploy, I was, and am, genuinely concerned. What is wrong with wanting to correct an article? Why not just say "yeah, I overstepped, sorry."? I would react quite positively to something like that; I would think "OK, the user goofed, but they are willing to admit it, so let's forget the matter." Instead, I am apparently misusing 3O, making a false statement, failing to AGF, and so forth. Look, if the issue is what happened to Freddie Gray, obviously it was terrible. If the issue is the Baltimore PD, obviously they have big issues, not just Freddie Gray, but also the whole Adnan Syed mess where they appear to have railroaded an innocent person for murder. But none of that is a good reason to say someone was charged with manslaughter when they weren't.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the error in the charges, though I'm glad it was fixed. I'm not apologizing for it, since I did nothing wrong. But your lie in the opening of this section is ridiculously pathetic. Honestly, do you really need that statement (that no one will read, but you) for your own self-gratitude? Anyways, I don't care anymore, you are not doing anything here, so I won't see you around. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What is a lie? I am happy to correct any mistake I have made.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested to let you continue this. I'm more intrigued with your account. Are you a first time user? By your minimal edits, you only seem to leapfrog across talk pages, highly irregular of a newbie. This is not an assertion, so just answer honestly as this is just out of curiosity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I stopped using my former account a few years back. I was in good standing at the time.WP:CleanStart MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May I know your former account than?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, it's very easy to obtain the info from an admin who I know will give me it so your "cooperation" is not required. Thanks. You definitely aren't hiding anything, I'm sure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Re threatened outing from TheGracefulSlick.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous you take that as outing. I just asked for the username of your past account. What seems to be the problem?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

RESPONDING ADMIN: This [1] is the edit that concerns me. I would appreciate it if it could be oversighted, honestly.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm done here. I just asked for your former account's username. If that is so hard, I feel it's suspicious, but I guess it's someone else's problem. Have fun with the admin that is going to have his/her time wasted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not outing for a user to ask the name of your former account. You are under no obligation to reveal the name of your former account. The diff does not qualify for revision deletion or oversight, both of which have very strict and limited criteria for their use. Hope this answers all your questions, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dianaa, just the outcome I thought would happen. The user is hiding something, but since he is hardly contributing (at least on this account) to articles, I don't see a reason to dig further as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiHounding

Usually when a user (you) makes a baseless allegation against another because they disagree with them, I would say it should not be taken seriously (not you overall, which you are trying to say). If anything that allegation is against policy, and you should start writing respectful remarks to veteran users who actually want to improve articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. your drama is no longer allowed on my talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Please discuss such huge article changes (splitting article) on the talk page first, thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Hi Prokaryotes, MissPiggysBoyfriend have just messaged me. Out of good faith I have removed the warning and reverted the article back to her edit. If you are not happy with her removals, I suggest you and other involved editors seek consensus on this. @MissPiggysBoyfriend:: Please seek agreement from other users on mass content edits. Thank you. Optakeover^(Talk) 14:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: After reading the ArbCom enforcement, I wanted to go back and undo the removals again, but it has been done by another person. Thank you for your attention. Optakeover^(Talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DS alert (climate change)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed split of Scientific Opinion of Climate Change

Please follow WP:BRD procedures for testing consensus on this proposal. Besides the general guidelines under BRD, see also the context specific procedure at WP:SPLIT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am following it. I just did the B, someone did the R, and I've started the D on the talk page, waiting for some D from others. I am not going to go into a revert war over an article split, good grief. I do hope others contribute to the D. It certainly looks to me like the split is sorely needed, but obviously I can't do that if others disagree.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I thank you for the discussion thread very much. I might even agree it's a good idea! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

New stuff in talk threads

Never overwrite a post after others respond to the substance. That's impossible to decipher for others, or after passage of time. Always add new stuff at bottom of thread, or if in reply to a specific comment, using standard indentation tricks to show the threading. See WP:TPG, WP:THREAD. I restored the first poll and moved the second version to the bottom of the thread so new replies can be posted to v2 in a sensible way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Rfc bottom}}

Thank you for your recent RfC closes! When using {{Rfc top}}, {{Rfc bottom}} should be added at the end of the discussion being closed. I've added them to all of your closes. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Could you take a look at this edit

I have corrected it. Anyway this fellow has no knowledge in Korean, I guess. Oppashi (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ArchuletaOfficial.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ArchuletaOfficial.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)