User talk:Anne drew/Archives/2019/June

A message from Ejibron

Hello Andrew, I do understand everything. Actually, i went through the guidelines and noticed should be and what shouldn't be. Am glad you reached out to me and explained the reason.. Thanks.

Cbudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejibron (talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Anne drew 00:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Ifnord

Is there any way to speak with just Anne or Andrew but keep Drew out of the conversation? Asking for a friend. Ifnord (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I heard that! - Drew 00:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Comethazine117

I am Comethazine. literally, I'm trynna update my shit because the label dosnt know how to not put false information so I want to do it myself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comethazine117 (talk • contribs) 12:20, June 23, 2019 (UTC)

FYI Serols

Hey Comethazine117. Sorry for reverting your edit if you were just trying to add accurate information. If you could find a reliable website that lists Comethazine's name as Benjamin Counter we can put that in the article. The problem is that the only source we have right now lists your name as Frank Childress. Regardless, I've restored your edit for now. Anne drew (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I at least need to update my picture, I don't even have blonde hair anymore.

File:Comethazine office mag. jan.8.19-11.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comethazine117 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anne drew (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can research Benjamin Counter, or I can send press documents. its my name. let me know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comethazine117 (talk • contribs) 14:01, June 23, 2019 (UTC)

I've searched on Google but I couldn't find any reliable sources that say Benjamin Counter is your name. If you put your name in your Facebook bio we can use that as a source according to our verifiability policy. Anne drew (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to The Bye Bye Man: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Masum Reza^📞 02:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware of warning templates. I didn't think they would be useful in this case. Anne drew (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank YOU!

Very meta of you, Anne and Andrew and Drew. I appreciate it unironically. But also ironically, of course. You truly are welcome. Stay in school! Your hero, InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

WP:Office Actions

Well, it's been reverted again. I've asked for full protection. Adam9007 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 21:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from 188.71.232.36

Hi Anne Drew ... yesterday I deleted some continent from an article and that was by mistake... thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.71.232.36 (talk • contribs)

Okay, no worries! Anne drew (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Nomopbs

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Re your recent edit: Please read Wikipedia editor policies WP:NOTGOSSIP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Nomopbs (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomopbs: Ironic that you link me to WP:NPOV yet you reverted an edit that made the section heading more neutral. Please read WP:CSECTION and consider restoring my edit. Anne drew (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My extra note to you was overwritten by your note to me. I'll re-draft. Hold on... Nomopbs (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The DogsBite.org article was started out as a complete smear piece against DogsBite.org. An edit war ensued. The current rendition is the best I've gotten it. There were a few editors who insisted that the critiquing remain, so I at least got them to quote WHO said the criticism, WHEN, and WHAT did they say. However, if you change the heading of the Criticism section to Reputation, without also making a change to the sentences in the section, then you paint DogsBite.org WITH the criticism. That criticism is, however, NOT the reputation of DogsBite.org; it is merely a sampling of the opposition's viewpoint. I don't know why some hate DogsBite.org; they just count and report what's out there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. — Nomopbs (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, I still think "Reputation" or "Reception" is a more neutral heading for that section. If there has been positive reception from reliable sources, that can be added to that section. Anne drew (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I agree with Nomopbs (and I'm no big fan of such dedicated sections), the heading fits. Like the essay you linked says, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." IMO that applies reasonably well here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll defer to both of your judgement on this. Anne drew (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]