User talk:Blue Edits/Archive 1

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Blue Edits! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:41, Monday, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Wikilinking "United States"

I see you've made United States into a wikilink in a number of geographical articles. Those links are OK, since these are article about geography, but note that turning "United States" into a wikilink in general articles (e.g., "XYZ was born in the United States") is one of the classic example of over-linking - creating so many blue underlined words that the section is hard to read. You'll see it mentioned in WP:Overlinking.

Just thought I'd mention it. Welcome to wikipedia! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revision

Hi there, I realized after making a revision about Hurricane Carol (1953) that the hurricane name lists for those two years were identical. I didn't know that was done back then. Anyway, I was about to change my edits back, but you beat me to it. Thanks for being on top of things. 🙂 SweetGirl 1978 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense– and it's not as though it would happen today, so it's an understandable mistake. Thanks for being nice about it! C: Blue Edits (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to live up to my username. 😉 SweetGirl 1978 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you for all of the time and effort you've been spending patrolling recent changes and cleaning up vandalism. It makes a huge difference and is very much appreciated! I won't lie... recent changes patrolling is certainly not an easy area that many editors enjoy or take time to help with; it's a thankless job that will go without appreciation or acknowledgement, it's repetitive work that is often the subject of criticism (especially if you accidentally mess up - something everybody does), and you'll occasionally find vandals and trolls harassing your user and user talk page to try and get under your skin in retaliation. Just remember that what you do is appreciated, and people do notice your hard work doing so. If you need help or if you have any questions with anything related to RC patrolling or removing vandalism, please do not hesitate to message me on my talk page. Thanks again! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :D Blue Edits (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Arsehole, and I hope you're not one too. Only arseholes revert the truth.

About your reversion to Arsehole, after I put in that Donald Trump is one (because he, in fact, very much is, and there's no question about it):

What are you, a TRUMP SUPPORTER?! Leave it be; THIS IS SOLID FACT! Donald Trump and his supporters, are in fact, THAT. ONLY TRUMP SUPPORTERS WOULD THINK OTHERWISE.

Please stop reverting the truth. Only revert lies. WAS THAT A LIE? --2602:30A:C7C8:660:206F:1E86:DC82:E79F (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple of things:

1. Arsehole is a disambig page. You're looking for Asshole, and maybe Asshole#Political_usage.

2. See WP:BLP. Saying a person is an asshole is an opinion. "Only revert lies" isn't quite right. Unsourced info, especially controversial claims about a living person, shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You'll have to find a reliable source where someone said he's an asshole, and even then it'd have to be in a form of a quote (e.g. "(reputable person) called him an asshole")

Please refrain from attacking me. I'm not a Trump supporter, just someone trying to uphold Wikipedian standards. Blue Edits (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Arsehole is a disambig page. You're looking for Asshole, and maybe Asshole#Political_usage.

I had to use Arsehole because Asshole is semi-protected; I didn't feel like going through the trouble to register an account just to edit that article.

• You'll have to find a reliable source where someone said he's an asshole, and even then it'd have to be in a form of a quote (e.g. "(reputable person) called him an asshole")

Oh, I will DEFINITELY look for any quotes of any notable people calling him an asshole. Once I do, the rest of you will get to see it, cited properly, on that article. --2602:30A:C7C8:660:D55C:AB34:91BD:775 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You not being bothered isn't an excuse to put content on the disambig page though. I recommend you make an account so you can add the sourced info to Asshole#Political_usage if you find it. Some stuff to read on sources: WP:RELIABLE and WP:QUESTIONABLE Blue Edits (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you refuse from talking about this?

You have yet to outline the problems with my edits, the 3:19 edit and my most recent one have been factually true, and I think it's important that wikipedia users know. However instead of replying to my previous talk message, you reverted it for apparently being a 'troll'. I'd appreciate it if you let the two of us share a dialogue instead of mindlessly reverting my contributions because of some apparent vendetta you have against Will Parker. 14.2.182.193 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

With the Will Parker business: I could not find a source to prove notability or even existence– there was no existing Wikipedia article for a Will Parker who fit your description, nor could I find anything on Google with various search terms. There's the rugby player Will Parker, whom you wikilinked, but seeing as he died before Llanishen High School came into existence I somehow don't think that's the right one. See WP:NLIST for what I mean– lists of notable alumni have to actually contain *notable* people and there's descriptions of what "notable" means in there.

Your edit about me was defamatory for very obvious reasons. Even then, I am not an alumna of Llanishen High School and I can't be both an alum and in high school at the same time anyway. Blue Edits (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for replying, I'll see about what I can do with providing sources for his notability, as he is quite definetely a notable person, as my articles said his cyber-activism has made him a house hold name in cardiff, so it shouldn't be hard, and about the edit about you, I must apologise as I suffer from various mental disorders that cause me to snap at people, and I let out my anger towards you.

Thanks again for not shutting this dialogue down as a 'troll' 14.2.182.193 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Song

HEY MR BLUE BALLS !? Did you even listen to the derp song !

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Drug Effectiveness Review Project. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Blue Edits (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Very important that you listen to it before you remove it !

Hi there. I did listen to it, and it wasn't bad. However, you know that Drug Effectiveness Review Project isn't the right place for it. I recommend that you try a social media site like Facebook or Twitter. Blue Edits (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The globalist claim

I introduced the term 'globalist' in the article on self-hating Jews for two reasons. First, it is factual. I will come to that shortly but before that let me state the second reason as well. It is patently unfair to lump together ALL Jews. This is why it is important to make this distinction. Now as to the factual part, it is the history of Jewish opposition to Zionism that is called self-hatred. This is not really self-hatred when you realize that the goals are different for different types of Jews. Let there be no confusion about this - Churchill wrote in 1920 about three categories of Jews - patriotic Jews, Zionist Jews and globalist Jews. He called the globalists as destructive and believed that Zionism can channelize the Jewish purpose away from the destructive Jews. Now, don't attack me. I am the messenger here. This was Churchill's analysis which you can easily find on the internet. For their part, the globalists hate Zionists and you can see why. In fact, a careful analysis of Jews who are labeled self-hating Jews will clearly highlight the fact that this term is applied only to globalists among Jews. One word the globalists hate is nationalist (patriot). You will see this term used as a dirty word whether it is applied on Russian Nationalists, Indian nationalists, French nationalists or Israeli nationalists. Who uses it as a dirty term? It is those who are in one of the categories described by Churchill and who see the nation-state as an impediment to the aims of globalism. I am sure we can agree that the antonym of nationalism is globalism. It will then be easy to see that the opponents of Zionism (Israeli nationalism) are the globalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.187.148 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! While I recognize your argument, the problem is that it is just that– an argument. As per WP:ASSERT, opinions can't be stated as fact on Wikipedia. For example, the current leading sentence is pretty much indisputable– what else is "self-hating Jew" if not a term describing Jewish people who are anti-semitic? Bring in the more specific terminology, though, and the usage of such terminology quickly becomes debatable, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. Opinions on what the term means would be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, perhaps in the History or Social and psychological explanations or even Usage sections. Keep in mind though that if you do intend to insert the above, you're going to need to add a lot of sources, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. See WP:OR. Blue Edits (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Jewish people are not anti-semitic. That is exactly the problem here. They are anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. The article unfairly makes it sound as though Jews are anti-semitic. The solution I gave removes this element of racist attack against the Jews from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.187.148 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so from what I can gather, you think the article as it is is biased/inaccurate and you want to make it less biased? In this case, I'd bring it up on the talk page Talk:Self-hating Jew and see what other editors think, since I'm not informed on the specifics of the topic. Blue Edits (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki

What is wrong with my Wiki? If I may ask. Enzeru Uchiha (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is not the place to be writing about your fanfiction characters, even on your user page: see WP:NOTWIKIA. While some autobiographical info is fine, your fanfiction character isn't exactly autobiographical (unless you're roleplaying? then again, this isn't the place to be roleplaying either). There is a Naruto OC Wikia (search it up!) which may be more appropriate. Thanks and I hope you stick around to contribute positively! Blue Edits (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thx! Enzeru Uchiha (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hi, Blue Edits. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for The Angel Esmeralda, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion criterion because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. You need to look at the history of an article before putting it up for speedy. It is not appropriate to put an article up for speedy because someone has vandalized it, blanked it, or hijacked it. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks!Meters (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I was a little hasty there. My apologies. Blue Edits (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No biggie. it was obvious what happened. Meters (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You also had a problem with my edit on oren hazan page which I made an edit that was know in the whole world and you deleted it Rushinchasid (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As you would know if you actually read the message I left on your talk page, statements on Wikipedia must be backed by a source, especially when the statement is about living people. Please read WP:BLPSOURCE. Blue Edits (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Evergreen State College edit war

Hi Blue Edits,

  You recently reversed edits that I made in the Evergreen College page regarding the situation that took place May 30th, June 1st and June 2nd.  Please note that if you wish for Wikipedia to have creditability, the facts must be conveyed through neutral means including via neutral sources.   If you took the time to watch the video of the event, in its entirety, you would realize that this was no protest.  There were threats against staff, faculty and other students during this event.  White staff, faculty and students were specifically targeted.  I know that most wikipedia editors, including yourself, tend to lean to a specific political persuasion such as liberalism.  But if you want Wikipedia to have creditability as a encyclopediac source and to be considered trustworthy, you cannot let your own ideology change facts or the true undisputable history of a certain event. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.108.179 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 

Hello,

1. One revert hardly constitutes an edit war on my part.
2. You are missing my point. Coming up with your own description of an event violates WP:OR, as original research (including original syntheses from sources) is not allowed. Since you were so adamant that "EVERY SOURCE HAS CONSENSUS THAT IT WAS *NOT* A PROTEST!" I decided to check the referenced sources on my own, and they used "protest", not "riot".
3. My political position is totally irrelevant. I have no opinion on this issue. (Funnily enough, I have now been accused both of being excessively liberal and a Trump supporter.)
4. I would rather you didn't attempt to guilt trip me by placing all of Wikipedia's credibility on a single revert that I made.

If the description doesn't match the sources you are free to rewrite it, but again you must stick to the sources, which you did not (though you insisted you did). Ironically, it seems that you are the one who cannot dissociate their ideology from this article. There is also a discussion on the talk page you should read. Blue Edits (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tise (app)

Hello Blue Edits, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tise (app), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 12:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Blue Edits (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry am a musician that's why if you could help me out I would really be thankful. Mostly if it was just me and you too. :x. Cheriolett (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's alright. I understand that it can be discouraging that all your articles keep getting nominated for speedy deletion, but I wish you would read the links in the notifications instead of repeatedly recreating similar articles with the exact same content.

1. Wikipedia has policies on what we can write articles about, and one of those policies is the notability policy. (Since your articles are music related we should also be looking at the music-specific notability policies).
2. Note that all of these policies need notability proven by reliable sources, and every article you've written so far has been unreferenced. I did try to look for references for your articles but couldn't find anything, which is not a good sign for notability.
3. Another problem is that given your username it seems that you are writing articles about yourself/your ventures which you really shouldn't do.
4. In fact I don't think you've written anything that isn't about yourself. This is a large issue because it also indicates that you are using Wikipedia as a venue for advertising rather than because you want to contribute to the encyclopedia.

I would advise you to stop writing articles about yourself, especially since you do not seem to be a notable musician, and to contribute to parts of Wikipedia that you don't have anything to do with.

Blue Edits (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hasty tagging

Hi there, we don't want to be discouraging the new editors by hastily tagging new articles for speedy deletion, unless they're blatant vandalism, attack pages or copyvio. I usually wait an hour before tagging less important pages. - TheMagnificentist 16:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Vegas Golden Knights

Ummm I thought that change made sense as I was pointing out that vegas has a fair shot at winning the cup, because all of those other teams have never won. so Vegas has a fair chance and shouldn't be judged based on being new, because even old teams don't win cups. JJ The Dude (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on a team's chances is not appropriate to write on Wikipedia, for starters: see WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Moreover, the tone of your edit could be construed as passive-aggressive (saying that X teams are as non-accomplished as a team that hasn't played yet). Blue Edits (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blue Edits. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's the truth

That factory fired me because I cost them $8,000, even though it was their fault for not properly teaching me a scanning function. They lost an entire pallet over it. They have a reputation for incompetence in the Auburn area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6E02:1569:856A:494B:E4AF:8642 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Statements must be cited. Your anecdote is not evidence: read WP:NPOV. Blue Edits (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Blue Edits for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Blue Edits. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision Advice

Hello, recently you gave me some pretty good insight on my last post on the overwatch league page. I was wondering if you could look over the Boston Uprising's page and tell me what you would change to my recent edits? Maybe give some ideas and advice on the page. Bakih1 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Blue Edits, Just to drop a note to say thank you for sending me a welcome message almost 2 years ago which not only make me feel inclusive but also provide me the links to familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and info for a newbie back then. Thank you and cheers.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to have helped! Blue Edits (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)