User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 53
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tide rolls. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 58 |
My account
You made an intervention at my Talk page and I responded. I remarked that I was hoping to find time over the next few weeks to write up Lindqvist, the precedent for the recent so-called "right to be forgotten" ECJ decision. I should now like to start doing that, but naturally I'm unwilling to do this if my contributions are to be reverted or blocked by an administrator because they believe I am editing too "adroitly" (I take it you were suggesting my account is in some way illegitimate).
In the first place I am requesting reassurance from you, without which I am not prepared to continue editing.
Thank you. RR 2014 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Help write something?
Since you've done some work on literally Everything, I was wondering if you could help build an article on the rather abstract concept of Something. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm
Not exactly rolling yet, Tide.
- Apologies, Professor. My internet access is severely limited on the weekends. Tiderolls 12:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- As long as your defense shows up. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tide, please pull out your admin handbook, and flip to the BLP section. Then look at this edit (and its edit summary, of course). I don't know if this is typical for such articles, but I strongly object to them, and, ahem, not just cause I'm rooting for you know who--I imagine that for Tennessee this would take up ten times as much space, and the same for the Ag School That Cannot Write Its Name (but pays my mortgage). Anyway, I expect to get reverted on this, and this might well rub some people in The Football Project the wrong way--and I'm interested in your opinion. (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Professor. BLP applies as far as I'm concerned, but I have a very restrictive view on such things. And, yes, I would apply the same principle regardless of the school. Notability might be another guideline that would apply; unless the transgressions were of such magnitude as we've seen exhibited by some NFL players recently. Anyway, I've watchlisted the article in the event that talk page discussion is forthcoming. Roll Tide Tiderolls 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Tide. Hey, we're up to #2. Not that that means anything. Somehow I see trouble on the way, though I'm glad I'm not a Florida fan right now. Purely for amusement purposes: my 5-year old is making sure there are no orange fun close to any blue things. Like, no OJ in blue cups. Aubs eat boogers! Drmies (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Professor. BLP applies as far as I'm concerned, but I have a very restrictive view on such things. And, yes, I would apply the same principle regardless of the school. Notability might be another guideline that would apply; unless the transgressions were of such magnitude as we've seen exhibited by some NFL players recently. Anyway, I've watchlisted the article in the event that talk page discussion is forthcoming. Roll Tide Tiderolls 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Tide, please pull out your admin handbook, and flip to the BLP section. Then look at this edit (and its edit summary, of course). I don't know if this is typical for such articles, but I strongly object to them, and, ahem, not just cause I'm rooting for you know who--I imagine that for Tennessee this would take up ten times as much space, and the same for the Ag School That Cannot Write Its Name (but pays my mortgage). Anyway, I expect to get reverted on this, and this might well rub some people in The Football Project the wrong way--and I'm interested in your opinion. (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- As long as your defense shows up. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
MoS disruption
Since I see you often protecting Asian network/channel articles based on MoS disruption, could you have a look at Sensasi and ONE TV ASIA. I have just reverted for the second time in a little over an hour. Thank you in advance for any help, Aspects (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, Aspects. Tiderolls 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Another observation
Hello. This is a response to the following message I got today, 11th september 2014:
Hello, I'm Tide rolls. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to German orthography reform of 1996, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tiderolls 21:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence where I added - or rather, started to add - my contribution was the following: "Some[who?] have suggested that the main cause of the current controversy over the spelling reform was the seven-year transitional period.[citation needed]". As a native speaker of Hochdeutsch (my mother's tongue) I believe there can be no doubt on the fact that the seven-year transitional period greatly enhanced controversy over the spelling reform; controversy which - on the other hand - is totally justified, being a gross oversimplification of some meaningful historical grounds of the German language. I therefore planned to add a citation (where it is still needed) of scientific literature apt to demonstrate this point, and for first I just put down a note - which is the contribution you undid - to be continued. Unfortunately, I could not find any literature on this specific subject, and therefore I had to renounce my intention. But I forgot to cancel the note I had jotted down. Now you decided to undo it; and I completely agree with that, as you can imagine. Thanks, 95.224.254.209 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- You may have seen the message 11 September 2014 but it was posted 4 November 2012. Also, don't indent with your space bar; use the colon. Compare the current version with yours. Regards Tiderolls 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The devil made me do it
Please see here. I just do as I'm told.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, Bbb23, my internet access is severely restricted, especially on weekends. I took a quick look and at first blush I agree with your interpretation. Of course, as I've stated previously to the Professor, my stance on BLPs is probably more strict than may be reflected by our community in general. Don't let the good doctor's pithy mood wear on you too much; the Tide were letting the Gators have their way much more than we're accustomed. Tends to make a fan grumpy; I'm sure you understand. See ya 'round Tiderolls 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- We sure wuz. But all's well that ends well. Still, I want to see us run between the tackles, like in the good old days of the last three, four years. On a sidenote, I'm listening to Jimmy Witherspoon's Live at the Mint right now, an album without an article: is that Robben Ford on guitar? (Psst, Tide, Bbb couldn't care less for sports--I'm just pretending they're a Chargers fan 'cause otherwise I can't relate to them--remember, Bbb lives on the edge of the continent.) Drmies (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I make an effort not to prejudge folks based on their tectonic predilections. Tiderolls 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- You tell 'im, Tiderolls. Besides Drmies has probably never even been to So. Calif. He just believes everything he reads. We don't have earthquakes. It's a myth perpetuated by ignorant Alabamans. I reverted the other editor at the article. I don't see why I should have to take this issue to WP:BLPN - WP:BLPREMOVE and all that. He'll probably ignore me and revert, though. You get no respect around here for being an admin. We should all go on strike.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- An admin that actually contributes to the encyclopedia? Wow. You'd better have a screenshot; otherwise it'd be a tough sell. Tiderolls 12:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Does LA count as SoCal? And I don't mean our LA--Lower Alabama. Hey, Tide, come on man. 47 yards on the ground? Against Arkansas? And all those penalties? At least that ugly orange lost, so I don't have to look like an idiot in class. Please do better next week. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know, Professor, it doesn't bode well at all. Next week will be a trial as well, I'm afraid. At the moment I'd be content with 8 wins. We'll see what those kids can do. Roll Tide Tiderolls 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Saban praised the team for its spirit. I think our article should quote him in full. After all, it can be verified. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know, Professor, it doesn't bode well at all. Next week will be a trial as well, I'm afraid. At the moment I'd be content with 8 wins. We'll see what those kids can do. Roll Tide Tiderolls 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Does LA count as SoCal? And I don't mean our LA--Lower Alabama. Hey, Tide, come on man. 47 yards on the ground? Against Arkansas? And all those penalties? At least that ugly orange lost, so I don't have to look like an idiot in class. Please do better next week. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- An admin that actually contributes to the encyclopedia? Wow. You'd better have a screenshot; otherwise it'd be a tough sell. Tiderolls 12:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You tell 'im, Tiderolls. Besides Drmies has probably never even been to So. Calif. He just believes everything he reads. We don't have earthquakes. It's a myth perpetuated by ignorant Alabamans. I reverted the other editor at the article. I don't see why I should have to take this issue to WP:BLPN - WP:BLPREMOVE and all that. He'll probably ignore me and revert, though. You get no respect around here for being an admin. We should all go on strike.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I make an effort not to prejudge folks based on their tectonic predilections. Tiderolls 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
...not taking the bait. Tiderolls 14:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind...
...explaining what that action in my userpage was? Man, as of today I'm almost retired, moreso after being implied that I may be trolling by a user that has come into contact with me for the first time, I don't know if I will edit ever again, at least will wait a few days to know where I stand.
If you remove the template again, that will show that I have no control whatsoever over even my page(s), i'll leave it out, I don't need a template to know if I am retired or active.
From Portugal (ex-user Always Learning), attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you're retired, then go. If you want drama and attention, you will not find it here. The only reason I removed the template is that you were leaving. Now that you're back, you need to remove it. It's silly; the page is not yours. The template needs to go. Tiderolls 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't understand the major aggressiveness (remember talking to you two or three times when I had the account, and we were always on good terms; also, when I said "my page" I meant it as a mere technicality, not that I owned anything), really, but I must abide by the site's rules. Template has been removed, and will only be restored when I leave without the intention of returning.
Sorry for the inconvenience --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're mistaking plain speech for aggression. Stay, go. It's your choice; but, to hang around talking about it...that's not a choice. That's a time sink. Tiderolls 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that I butt in since he anonymously mentions me here. I just politely told him on the other user's talkpage that he was (in my opinion) Wikihounding editors which is covered by the Harassment section 1.1 and possible 1.6. Instead of taking it as a cautious and friendly reminder the above user already in my opinion have stalked users like SLBedit and Threeohsix on their talk pages. As far as I can see, user SLBedit even removed his numerous complains which implies he is already sick and tired of it. After my post, he assumed that I am treating him like a vandal (which I never did) and came to my talkpage for the same rant. Like, correct me if I am wrong, by isn't his behavior classifies as harassment according to our policies?--Mishae (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's harassment, Mishae, so much as just a waste of time. I personally can't be harassed online because I don't find anonymous individuals very intimidating. If you or any other editors are feeling harassed then I would advise posting to this noticeboard. However, my personal advice would be to simply ignore those messages that do not concern themselves with article content development. Tiderolls 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I personally ignore them, but I feel bad for other editors who's talkpages are being full with complains about editors not articles. According to our policies we need to discuss articles, not who did what revert. Apparently the anonymous user doesn't (or doesn't want to understand) that his long threads of complains are only showing that he is using Wikipedia as a forum, which against our policies too. I checked his previous log, and although I still assume good faith of any editor even if they were vandals in the past, they need to show that they changed. In this case, the anonymous user changed from removing contents and edit warring as he did here (for which he got blocked), to current complains about editors that you see on yours and many other talkpages, and this is not in any way positive change of behavior. Is it better then being an edit warrior? Yes, but it is still disruptive and is against our policies. Besides, realize that he was still editing after being blocked which means that the current IP user is just evading a block. For which I would like to report him to AN/I for sock puppetry. Your opinion? Update, I checked his current IP address and it appears that he used 2 IPs at one time (the second got blocked). He then returned to his previous one and started complaining. What's your opinion on the whole matter?--Mishae (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the original IP address I could compare the edits. Many times such a comparison is inconclusive, though. I'd be happy to check into the matter. Tiderolls 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- His original is this one User talk:188.81.115.107. I hope now you can look into the matter? He used to use this one since 2013, then he decided to do some sock puppetry (in my opinion), and switched it to the one that I called the original after that one was blocked in August 2014 as user's talkpage indicates here due to his constant edit warring on numerous football/soccer related articles, he returned to his old one with which you see him on your talkpage right now. So, if its not hard can you compare the 2, and issue your verdict/opinion on the matter.--Mishae (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- None of the IP addresses you reference are currently blocked so evasion is not being perpetrated. If the individual is using multiple accounts to gain editorial leverage then action can be taken to prevent, or minimize, the abuse. This process is time consuming and many times the result is less than satisfactory. Regards Tiderolls 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- His original is this one User talk:188.81.115.107. I hope now you can look into the matter? He used to use this one since 2013, then he decided to do some sock puppetry (in my opinion), and switched it to the one that I called the original after that one was blocked in August 2014 as user's talkpage indicates here due to his constant edit warring on numerous football/soccer related articles, he returned to his old one with which you see him on your talkpage right now. So, if its not hard can you compare the 2, and issue your verdict/opinion on the matter.--Mishae (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the original IP address I could compare the edits. Many times such a comparison is inconclusive, though. I'd be happy to check into the matter. Tiderolls 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I personally ignore them, but I feel bad for other editors who's talkpages are being full with complains about editors not articles. According to our policies we need to discuss articles, not who did what revert. Apparently the anonymous user doesn't (or doesn't want to understand) that his long threads of complains are only showing that he is using Wikipedia as a forum, which against our policies too. I checked his previous log, and although I still assume good faith of any editor even if they were vandals in the past, they need to show that they changed. In this case, the anonymous user changed from removing contents and edit warring as he did here (for which he got blocked), to current complains about editors that you see on yours and many other talkpages, and this is not in any way positive change of behavior. Is it better then being an edit warrior? Yes, but it is still disruptive and is against our policies. Besides, realize that he was still editing after being blocked which means that the current IP user is just evading a block. For which I would like to report him to AN/I for sock puppetry. Your opinion? Update, I checked his current IP address and it appears that he used 2 IPs at one time (the second got blocked). He then returned to his previous one and started complaining. What's your opinion on the whole matter?--Mishae (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's harassment, Mishae, so much as just a waste of time. I personally can't be harassed online because I don't find anonymous individuals very intimidating. If you or any other editors are feeling harassed then I would advise posting to this noticeboard. However, my personal advice would be to simply ignore those messages that do not concern themselves with article content development. Tiderolls 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that I butt in since he anonymously mentions me here. I just politely told him on the other user's talkpage that he was (in my opinion) Wikihounding editors which is covered by the Harassment section 1.1 and possible 1.6. Instead of taking it as a cautious and friendly reminder the above user already in my opinion have stalked users like SLBedit and Threeohsix on their talk pages. As far as I can see, user SLBedit even removed his numerous complains which implies he is already sick and tired of it. After my post, he assumed that I am treating him like a vandal (which I never did) and came to my talkpage for the same rant. Like, correct me if I am wrong, by isn't his behavior classifies as harassment according to our policies?--Mishae (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I am seeing, I am now being accused of being this person (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107). No, I engaged in a heated conversation with this person that was nothing but a vandal that wanted to write what he wanted in football-related articles, including insults. When I confronted him, he started taunting and insulting me. This IP, if you check, hails from Viana do Castelo Municipality, I have lived all my life in Beja (Portugal), never even have visited the former city.
Regarding the serious sockpuppetry accusation, have already contacted Mr. Mishae in order to receive an apology, which I know I won't. He also says that Mr. SLBedit has removed my posts because "...he is already sick and tired of it.", he has not done such a thing, my last post is still there. What he has done is remove several others because he cleaned up his page, he still has not heard of the great archiving service WP provides, I also did not for several years and had to remove old/very old messages in my talk page manually --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the edit conflict, but please read my message above this one, I am being accused of sockpuppetry and am trying to defend myself, surely I can do that no? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, and sorry for "dropping" into this conversation. I "worked" with 84.90.219.128 (also known as Always Learning in his registered days here) and he always was pretty helpful to me, and we worked together to make the Spanish La Liga players look better (it worked smoothly). As of SLBedit, he tried to say that I was wrong in Victor Andrade (see the discussion in my talk page), when he was overlinking almost every page that he edited before my messages. And if SLB is "sick and tired" of his complains (and maybe mine too), I'll ask you two to tell him to respect the guidelines and write his pages with a better level of English overall.
- Also, I didn't get it why you guys are comparing AL to another Portuguese IP (who doesn't edit for months now). These two are completely different, with 188.81.115.107 being a vandal (removing UEFA contents and saying it's biased), while AL was fixing it.
- I hope you guys understand my point of view. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 20:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Mishae has now produced an apology in a fellow user's page, and I duly accepted it. Case closed on my part, sorry for dragging this for so long. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of article content
May I ask why you have deleted article content on Henley High School Adelaide South Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew AdamFrancis (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Matthew AdamFrancis, which part of my message on your user talk is unclear? Tiderolls 12:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
About my issues
yes sorry I have accidentally managed to copy and paste some content without re writing it myself I have worked out the problem and my laptop is now fixed. Can you please send me the links on were there are issues on pages and I will fix them? Matthew AdamFrancis (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Matthew AdamFrancis, simply click the "Contributions" link at the top of your browser screen and you will be able to find all your edits. You will then be able to remove that content that might be problematic. What you need to take away from this is that the content on Wikipedia licensed so that anyone may use it freely with proper attribution. For that reason we cannot host content that is not original; we are not able to release for publication content that is owned by someone else. Thank you for recognizing the problem and offering to help. Regards Tiderolls 12:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit war at Astro (television)?
- Lowlihao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Astro (television) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recently you filed a complaint at WP:AN3. I closed it with a note that it could be refiled if the problem continues. Due to the complaint, Lowlihao received this warning. The user resumed editing on November 6. Can you check Astro (television) to see if you think User:Lowlihao is continuing the war? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do, Ed, though I don't think they understand the problem. It's been my experience on these Asian media articles that there are non-communicative individuals that insist on adding unsourced, and mostly trivial, content without regard to guidelines. Tiderolls 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Phew
Hell of a game, Tide rolls. Good thing I have lots of bourbon here. The other good thing: the Auburn game went down to the wire, so I could drive past it before they all got onto I-85, and made it home in time for the second quarter. Here's another shot: *clink*. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Concur. On all points. Tiderolls 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- SEC Network is showing the Auburn game. Maybe they'll win this time! So what happened was I was driving back from Columbus, GA; when they had first and goal with three minutes to go I pulled over to take a piss off Wire Road. When I got back in the car, they had fumbled the ball. Best leak I had in a long time, I suppose! (Looking at the replay I don't see how they didn't give it back to Auburn...) Drmies (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- So far so good Tide. Did I just see your face in the student section? Look up at the skyboxes: I'm waving at you, with a glass of champagne in my hand. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not me, Professor, I'm ensconced in the recliner in the Port City. I like the progress so far; hoping the pace can be sustained. Tiderolls 22:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, not bad. Well done Tide. I would have liked it better without the last TD, but hey. Good work by Sims, good work by the defense. Now I have to decide who I dislike more: GA or AU. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not me, Professor, I'm ensconced in the recliner in the Port City. I like the progress so far; hoping the pace can be sustained. Tiderolls 22:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User talk:63.116.232.250
You left a message at User talk:63.116.232.250 (registered to the Tenafly Board of Education) indicating the IP was blocked for a year (for good reason). However, no block seems to have been applied since the last one expired. I independently looked at their contributions and decided that after several one-year blocks a two-year block was in order, and then I replaced your block message with my own. I hope I have not tread on your toes in the process.-gadfium 21:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, gadfium, for picking up after me. I'll pay better attention next time. Tiderolls 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Re:your thanks
I'd welcome the tips; thanks for the thanks; it was from a sockpuppet I've been dealing with for years (who obviously isn't very smart about it either). Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Iron
You ready, Tide? Wearing your lucky shirt? Enjoying Ole Miss right now? Oh, Florida, only two points in it... OK, who hates FSU? Drmies (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
user created page being blanked
Hi I noticed that this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Rizzwan/Women_in_Hinduism keeps getting banked, can you keep an eye on it, I gave a warrning to the last person who blanked it. Thanks. --Rowland938 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Downgrade to pending changes? --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, George. It seems that the reason for protection has passed...probably a while ago. Thanks for reminding me. I've removed the protection entirely; if you still think that pending changes are necessary, let me know. See ya 'round Tiderolls 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia genealogy project
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
For background to this complaint please see my earlier complaint on the Admin noticeboard on 10 December [1] regarding User:Dino nam's disruptive, non-RS editing and generally argumentative style on Battle of Cửa Việt and Battle of Thường Ðức and his 3R on 324th Division (Vietnam). This is just a tit-for-tat response from User:Dino nam. It is not my original research, the words that User:Dino nam wishes to delete have been on the page since 2011 and while a CN tag is appropriate deletion at this point isn't. User:Dino nam often relies on non RS such as Nhan Dan (the Vietnamese Army newspaper) and as here something from the People's Army Press, which it has already been established are non RS. I am trying to locate an explanation as to why the Division was called 324B and what the B actually means, without success so far. An Osprey book suggests that the North Vietnamese cloned various Divisions which does accord with User:Dino nam's source above, but there is no evidence that there was a 320A Division alongside the 320B Division or a 324A Division alongside a 324B Division, rather it seems that this was just done to confuse U.S. order of battle analysts, but that, at present is OR Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- My post to your user talk had nothing to do with content. I leave content to those that have the capacity. Read the links in my post; if you should require clarification it will be provided. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Tiderolls 07:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacy of Kain
IP address 95.235.108.195 is claiming that the Legacy of Kain games were inspired by Jewish literature, eastern mythologists and to Gnosticism, but doesn't provide a source to that. It does have a source stating that Inspired by the literary style of playwright William Shakespeare.[2][3]
IP address 95.235.108.195 is also deleting info with no explanation. There's nothing I can do, that user is not going to stop.[4]68.75.18.121 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
He-Man
I not sure what user Catastros[5] is trying to state on the Powers and abilities section on the He-Man page[6], but this user clearly doesn't have enough experience at typing or to be editing on Wikipedia. The info on that page where it says, "He can remain as He-Man for as long as he wants but if he takes too much damage or uses too much raw force, he will revert back to his original form of Adam", user Catastros has give no reason as to why that should be deleted. Personally I think this user is a little kid who can't stand to see one of their favorite character's come across as weak.68.75.18.121 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've explained edit warring to the user and warned them of its consequences. You have been edit warring as well so I need to let you know also that to continue jeopardizes your editing privilege. If you need more info read WP:Edit warring. If the user does not begin to engage in discussion please let me know. Tiderolls 14:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
SEC
What's happening, Tide? 2-3? Let's hope that tomorrow will be different. Happy new year, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Come on Tide.
Pistol talk page
The section I deleted was from a topic I started that another user hijacked and turned into a forum for personal attacks. I have asked an administrator JamesBWatson to delete the section, and the user followed me there to continue the harassment. I will not revert the page, however it is not being used to discuss, it is being used to harass. Prodigy 16 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- as a side note, your post on my talk page said to read the section header, it clearly states to assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks, both of which are being ignored by the other user, this was the content I was trying to remove as it did not contribute to the discussion. If I was in error, I apologize, I was simply trying to get rid of the conflict. Prodigy 16 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for...
... this. Pardon my language, but what the hell? IP's only two edits are to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of JamesBWatson? Jeh (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I know, Jeh. Someone's idea of fun...meh. You're welcome, BTW, and I beg your pardon for butting in on your page. I do realize you're capable of handling it. Some things I just can't resist. Tiderolls 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's vandalism or harassment cleanup it's not "butting in". Thanks again. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Also thanks for...
... helping with the vandalism on Vince_Lombardi_Trophy. 65.220.37.9 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- It appears you were working there as well. Thanks for your help. Tiderolls 21:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsorced
Hi. I see that you deleted my family trees for beeing unsorced. Usualy they are translated from chinesse with the informations from the monarchs articles. The vast majority of the family trees from wikipeduia does not cite any source. They are just made from informations collected from the articles, which are cited, in my case the source is the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Guan, or the Bamboo Annals in case of the Shang dynasty. Daduxing (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be copying this to your user talk, since that's where I originally posted. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please locate and cite a source for your content. Tiderolls 14:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Tide rolls. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (60th to be specific), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I remembered voting on that proposal so I checked out the archived page. I saw my vote (#158 on the date question), but I could find no diff to provide you here. I don't know why that was my only participation unless I either misunderstood the format or came to the party late. Anyway, I hope that helps. Tiderolls 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting back to me! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)