User talk:72.14.126.22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated welcome![edit]

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 72.14.126.22! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Do you know about the advantages of getting a free account?

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits. If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (72.14.126.22) is used to identify you instead.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also welcome you, and suggest you consider creating an account per above. Jusdafax (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name Inclusion reopening[edit]

Hey just so you know, you seem to have not voted in discussion yet although have replied to others. So I thought I give you heads ups! My understanding is IP's are allowed to vote for discussion, just not broader account locked things like adminship. - LoomCreek (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks ... I will vote soon. Just need time to come up with a good reasoned response. I'm hoping the new RfC stays open for a while to allow everyone to have their say. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Given the community input and suggestion of doing it. I don't think there is really a case to say opening a new RFC was at all unreasonable. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it (which should be obvious but whatever). LoomCreek (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also a heads up, try to respond to claims unrelated to the name inclusion in the discussion section.
If you could move your response to raven about the accusation of forum shopping down to that section it'd be greatly appreciated.
I'm just trying to avoid clutter is all in the voting area to make it easier to parse through LoomCreek (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(if not that's fine obviously just something to keep in mind. I've just noticed a pattern with people talking in circles, that only ends up with long threads. My advice is not to feed that type of pattern and learn to recognize it, even though it's usually good faith.) LoomCreek (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "P•••• killed Neely, period." — He and another passenger say otherwise. – .Raven  .talk 09:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

KoA (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: Feel free to further explain the wholesale removal of content on the Paraquat talk page, thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: I'm not sure how including an image like that is beneficial to the conversation or relevant at all really when talking about gender pronouns, and honestly, I've never seen other editors include off-topic images in discussion threads before. I'm aware that it is poor form to alter comments, but including an image like that seems like a poor practice in and of itself.
I've looked for talk page policy, but don't see anything that comments on best practices related to the posting of images (only stuff about non-free content restrictions). Perhaps this best falls under WP:NOTFORUM. Thoughts? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's comment appears to be on topic. If the editor chooses to illustrate his/her/their point with an image, it is not for another editor to moderate. Removing the image as poor form can also been seen as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.14.126.22&oldid=1162968121"