User talk:Quasimodo Remissa
Welcome!
[edit]
|
June 2014
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Pink slime, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
September 2017
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ima Groinitch", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Clearly an attempt at juvenile humor.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
November 2018
[edit] Hello, I'm Catfish Jim and the soapdish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Caledonians have been undone because they 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Response: My contributions to the Caledonian page were eventually accepted and installed by other editors. All of my changes were helpful and legitimate. There was no need to suggest I use the sandbox nor disparage my contributions that they were merely experiments with Wikipedia. I have made hundreds of contributions to Wikipedia over the past 10 years and have donated a large amount of time to help keep it properly maintained and encyclopedic. More professional behavior would be appropriate. Ima Groinitch (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're arguing over something from three years ago, but your edit summary did not sufficiently explain your edit. There was nothing that User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish said that was in any way inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Steven Crowder
[edit]Hi there. I'm not sure what your intentions were on Steven Crowder but I can't help but notice that your edit summaries seem to give a misleading impression of your actions. They make it look like you were restructuring content and eliminating duplication when the net effect was just to remove a big chunk of valid content from the introduction. Maybe that was unintentional, so I am not going to issue a warning template this time. Even so, I am a little suspicious. You initially moved the content into a different section adding the word "allegedly", which has been repeatedly discussed on the Talk page and rejected as a weasel word when used in this context. Following that you removed the paragraph completely. That makes it look like your concern is more to launder Crowder's reputation than to improve the article. You also marked both edits as minor, which could give the impression of an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Again, maybe that was not your intention, but please be much more careful in future.
Please remember that that this is a controversial topic and it is always best to discuss any major changes, such as yours, on the Talk page before proceeding. Also, please remember that any edit that is more than a simple spelling, grammatical or formatting correction should not be marked as minor. If you have selected the option to automatically mark all your edits as minor by default (in the Preferences) then I recommend to turn that off. It is far better to accidentally not mark a minor edit as minor than to do the reverse. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Response: My intention on the Steven Crowder page header was no more than to remove non-descriptive information from this area and place it in an appropriate location. The header section should only contain information that is a summary of the article's topic. In this instance, a single complaint from a Youtube user against Crowder, where Youtube eventually sided with Crowder, does not constitute information vital to his description. The information was moved to his "career" section where there was other similar content.
I did not mislead with my summaries. I moved the information from the opening summary section to the career section, then realized most of the information I moved was redundant, so I made a second change and removed the redundant information and left the remainder. If non redundant information was deleted it was accidental. I shall revisit the edit page to see.
I perhaps should not have checked the minor edit box, however, the moving of information from one category where it does not belong to an appropriate category, and the elimination of redundant information, could easily be considered minor and should in no way be considered controversial. I made no deletions to the article save the redundant information and no additions to the text save the word "allegedly". That is a minor edit that I will discuss on the talk page. The refusal to allow changes to the article appears personal, to maintain the page in such a way so as to make this single controversy Crowder's defining descriptor, which is far from the truth and not encyclopedic. Ima Groinitch (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
[edit] Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page MacArthur Study Bible has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. I have warned you before about misleading edit summaries. You say "A disagreement by an unnamed source is not sufficient" which is blatantly misleading as the source of the criticism is very clearly named in the reference which you removed. It is Robert P Lightner. I think that you are playing games with us. This will not work. We are not stupid. DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There is no need to address me with the tone you are. I am reasonable and polite and have been an editor on Wikipedia for 10 years and have made hundreds of contributions. I believe we can talk this issue out civilly. The summary of my edit is not misleading in any way.
"Removed criticism which appears to be mere opinion. For inclusion in article criticism needs to be more thorough. A disagreement by an unnamed source is not sufficient."
The information deleted did not have sufficient information to be relevant to the article. The line deleted from the wiki article was as follows.
"It has also been criticized for its views on dispensationalist premillennialism in eschatology, and limited atonement."
This merely states that there is someone who criticized certain elements of the work. It does not state who that person is or why they are critical or provide any other relevant information that would warrant its inclusion. The name of the author in the footnote is not sufficient and not the point. Statements such as these could be tagged on to every Wikipedia article ever written. Just because someone has a different point of view does not make for relevant encyclopedic inclusion. Wiki information must be more than a single, unmentioned individual that disagrees with some of the topic. As it is, the insufficient information could easily lead one to believe that this criticism is so prevalent that it dismisses the validity of the entire work. If there is legitimate criticism worthy of inclusion, a case should be made by providing adequate and proper information, not a casual comment to say "it is criticized".
Two other things - the footnote is from a book which would only address the subject of atonement, not eschatology. It is not an adequate source for both. Secondly, the sentence deleted begins with "also", when no previous sentence speaks of criticism. This too is misleading Ima Groinitch (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
September 2022
[edit] Hello, I'm VickKiang. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You've been editing for quite a while now, so please read WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:RSP. IMDb, Spotify, AllMusic are between situationally reliable and not reliable. Next time, I'd advice you discuss on talk before rm tags that are obviously valid from articles you created. VickKiang (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Love Being Here with You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swing. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kirkland, Washington, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)