User talk:TNstingray

Your thread has been archived

Hi TNstingray! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Unreliable IP addresses, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed other users' comments at RfD

Hi TNstingray. Presumably you have something automated in your browser or whatever but FYI you removed "####", replacing it with "####" with your edit [1] to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28. I have fixed this. Regardless of your opinions of the word it was appropriate in context and wikipedia is not censored! A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@A7V2 Thank you for fixing the issue! One of the devices I use has an old automated filter that has caused issues before (it's a long story). Most of the time, I am mindful of this and can avoid the unintentional censorship when I am just editing one section. However, this was the first RfD I have filed using the Twinkle extension, so now that is something else I need to be mindful about since it automatically fills out the details. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hero Forge (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcmatter was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hero Forge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TNstingray! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi TNstingray! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, ClueBot archiving, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hero Forge (August 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hero Forge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Music section

So nice to have a positive discussion about this article with someone after all the toxic reception stuff! Hope you enjoy the show (and music) when you see it - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It really is a nice change of pace! Hope you enjoy it as well! Looking forward to continuing to work with you. TNstingray (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Coulter (disambiguation) has been accepted

Steve Coulter (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations

I was trying very hard to come up with a minor change to one sentence to actually retain the meaning of the sentence while removing a controversial element that is an opinion stated as fact and has been roundly criticized in the real world. I was trying to be collaborative, explaining my edits and modifying them in an attempt to find something acceptable. You met that with outright reversion and insults. Your reversion shows just how partisan you want the article to be. According to you, unadorned facts are "unnaceptable". I am certainly no less frustrated but a lot less amicable. LowKey (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You are not presenting unadorned facts. You are taking Tolkien out of context to insert your opinion of Harfoots into the article, or the inverse thereof. I believe my patience and attempts fo communicate justified the inevitable reversion, and you are not innocent of delivering insults. I am sorry it had to come to this, but if you would have just presented arguments based on Wikipedia policy at the beginning or after prompting. TNstingray (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed all adornment or description of harfoots and left in a link to the WP article that discusses them. Yes, I was presenting unadorned facts. I don't have an opinion of harfoots, apart from liking them greatly as I do hobbits in general (even poor Smeagal). I have an opinion about their inclusion in 2nd age depiction, but I have not inserted that into the article in any way. LowKey (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that for most of these points, I am referring to these [2][3] edits, so we might just be talking in circles at this point. TNstingray (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse thread

Normally, a bot notifies whenever a thread at the Teahouse is archived. I'm not sure why it did not happen this time, but I will leave a link here for posterity.

"Autofilling edit summaries" (9 September – 11 September 2022) [4]

TNstingray (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

In connection with your recent nominations at AfD, please be aware that an article does not need to be deleted before it can be redirected. Best, Ingratis (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ingratis. Hi, thank you for your message. Where would be the best place to discuss completely blanking pages and redirecting them to another? I figured that sort of change would need community input. TNstingray (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Not usually, if you stick to the guidelines in WP:REDIRECT. As far as I'm aware the usual sequence for blank-and-redirects, since they don't destroy the history, is for anyone who spots one and objects to it simply to revert the redirect and open a discussion on the talk page, and if there's still disagreement, at that point to go to AfD. There is also WP:RfD (i.e., redirects for discussion), which would be worth your while to look at, but this seems mostly concerned with newly-created redirects. Best, Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Lord of Rings Rings of Power

"Such a silly thing to edit war over. Critical response to the writing is not discussed in the body. Audience response is not mentioned at all in the lede. I assume it is all the same user, who I will once again request to go to the talk page for further discussion.)" CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE WRITING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY. REAT IT! I agree it is silly to have an edit war over. But the fact that you obviously didn't take the time to read the article makes your revision "silly". Not my insistence on citation. Which you also didn't read. If you have a citation (which shouldn't be too difficult to find. You might try the section "Critical Response" which you assumed didn't exist. Do you need a link? Some handholding? It wasn't a "war" until your revision. Why don't you get off your butt and do some work, instead of ruining other's? Cuvtixo (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC) PS I don't know what other edits you're referring to. I didn't make any others, so I have no idea what else you're referring to.

@Cuvtixo. I don't even know who you are, unless you are the one behind the IP addresses (WP:SOCKPUPPET?). In this [5] edit, your edit summary was: edit war started!. So, there goes any and all credibility as an editor right off the bat, and possibly suggests that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Please direct me to where critical response to the writing is listed. "Writing" is used on the page thirty times, none in the context of actual critical discussion. The Critical Reception also does not list writing. Ledes typically avoid citations (see WP:LEAD, as the material is referenced in the body. Read the article yourself, along with the pages on Wikipedia policy, some which can be found on my user page that I have found helpful. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I often edit anonymously, trying to avoid personal retaliation, because I've been through these. I don't even check my account very much anymore. As for "edit war", I certainly wanted to attract attention that you are reverting my edits, three times now. Twice before I added the note "Edit War", because I suspected you'd just revert again. I wanted editors to weigh in here, because you cannot be trusted, and then you blame me for "not being collaborative". As if you're not willfully participating in starting the war. "No credibility", ha! Yes, ledes typically avoid citations, which is one reason I removed it altogether instead of . I have no idea what "writing" you're babbling about. I didn't say anything about writing. I think that's you're own idiotic assumptions about someone else's edit being mine.

All I did is remove the sentence about "generally positive reviews from critics" that was fairly subjective, firstly, and premature before all episodes were put out. I'm going to leave it now since the part about "but some criticism for its pacing and characterization", because that's at least somewhat evenhanded. You will see in coming days and again before the next season just how badly it gets rated without money pouring into fake "criticism" sponsored by Amazon Studios. that "generally positive" is fake promotional activity, although I can't cite yet, I at least want to minimize this false narrative. Critics know the writing is horrible, just horrible. The plot itself is awful, just nonsensical. The "generally positive" critical response is fake. Ratings and reviews on IMDB.com, for example. Paid for by Amazon. You will find this out soon. Cuvtixo (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cuvtixo. So you admit to sock-puppetry to avoid personal responsibility and accountability. Got it. Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. It would be helpful if you would declare which edits were yours, because I see no evidence of an edit war on my part. I don't even see a revert of your "Cuvtixo" account; those were all done by other editors. So the only evidence for an edit war is your self-declaration that you were starting an edit war in the edit I highlighted in my earlier response.

While I would want to assume good faith on the part of an inexperienced editor, you really seem to just be trolling and wasting my time. You removed a portion of the lede with no explanation, apparently multiple times under multiple puppets. Said information is reflected in the body, and instead of explaining yourself, you escalated the situation with an inflammatory edit summary and this random conversation.

I have no idea what "writing" you're babbling about. I didn't say anything about writing. I think that's you're own idiotic assumptions about someone else's edit being mine. Um... in your 6 October post on my talk page, you quite clearly spelled out CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE WRITING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY. REAT IT!. I would advise you to "reat" this conversation again. The show's writing was a huge part of your complaint.

Critical reviews of the series are generally positive, and those areas of critique are highlighted. The only false narrative is your web of conspiracy theories. Of course, you are writing this from an 18 October perspective after the series is completed, but you were removing material in early October. That is inappropriate, and Wikipedia does not predict the future.

Audience reception does not equal critical reception. If you as a "fan" do not like the show, that is your prerogative. That's not what we reflect in the lede. That isn't a false narrative; that's just how the Manual of Style on Wikipedia has always operated and will continue to operate under community consensus. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse thread (again)

Hmm. Once again I don't get an archive notification for my Teahouse question. Oh well. Here's the permalink:

"Searching for a specific phrase or source in Wikipedia" (15 October) [6]

TNstingray (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Have a day

• [7] "Hipocrite wants to selectively remove pieces critical of Cruz/Littlefeather that quote social media, but use ones that rely on social media that are critical of the sisters and/or Keeler."
• [8] "your continual pushing to trash her based on social media flurries is rather over the top. And you are continuing to misrepresent the miscommunication by one of the sisters."
• [9] "Hipocrite... Again, these are talk pages and I'm asking you to AGF."

I hope you're having a wonderful day. Please avoid giving me civility advice on my talk page further. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)