User talk:Pinethicket

Dear Pinethicket, I hope you are well. I am a bit concerned about the bio page on Tricia Walsh-Smith. One user who calls herself Fruitinlondon claims actually to be Tricia Walsh-Smith. On the talk page I have encouraged this user to treat the BLP page with great care and to comply with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines. I have drawn this person's attention to our need to be very careful with verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. In my opinion, this person has recklessly edited this page at times. I will be very grateful if you will please have a look at this person's edits, as well as my thorough advice to him or her, on the Tricia Walsh-Smith talk page. I've never had the experience before of dealing with an editor who claims to be the subject of the article. Please offer me and / or the user any advice that will help to keep the page neutral, factual and scrupulously verified. Thank you for your time.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorgeCustersSabre: I looked over the edits, and you have done about all you can do. I'd recommend turning the editor and their edits in to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. They have the ability to block the editor or to place restrictions on the article. I will take a closer look at the article tomorrow. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Pinethicket (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks Pinethicket. As per your suggestion, I have raised this on theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks again for your advice.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take note that the disruptive editor received a NPOV warning for their edits. To me at least, that gives you authorization to issue NPOV warnings for subsequent edits. Then after the fourth warning, to turn the editor in to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for blocking. I know that is a bumpy road, but sometimes you have to take it. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never visited "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_general"..so how could I have edited it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.111 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220.255.2.111; I do not know what you are talking about. I cited IP address 220.255.2.142 for vandalizing that site. Although close, 220.255.2.142 ain't 220.255.2.111. So I am at a complete loss about what you are referring to. My only suggest to you is to register and I'll assure you that this will not happen again. Pinethicket (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinethicket, we both saw the IP's edits at Prunus × yedoensis and hit the rollback/revert at the same time. Mine was just a split-hair before yours. Please see if you meant to remove the hidden note by Allens (maybe you did, but I don't think you did). Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Hamamelis, for pointing that out to me; I restored the note. I saw that the IP user had added a long, involved editor's note with refs and I was attempting to remove it along with the genus change and obviously went back too far. I was trying to get all the genus discussion out of the article and on to the talk page. I do admit that you get hits on a web search both ways regarding genus. The issue might warrant discussion, but the talk page is the place to do that and not the article. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite agree. I left a note at the anon IP's talk urging the same. Thanks for responding. Hamamelis (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to remove the "jacking off" and other disgusting stuff from the description, stop reverting my edits, did you even read the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.117.137 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sure did. And I stand by my edit. Have a nice day! Pinethicket (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude what the fuck i made a good edit and you changed it

Hey 198.60.181.227: Thanks for leaving me a message. It will serve as a reminder to keep an eye on your contributions. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does noting that the flag is upside down constitute vandalism? The flag is UPSIDE-DOWN for christ's sake. It would be an improvement to the article if the flag was the right way up. If you must edit war (whichis what youare doing) at least put something on the talk page (which you haven't done). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a correct version--then correct it! Pinethicket (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could. But if you you knew anything about Wikipedia, you would know that I cannot. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know; please explain if you can. Perhaps the registration key on your keyboard is stuck? I'll tune in later to see how this drama turns out. Thanks for an interesting morning! Pinethicket (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered editors cannot load images. There is no registration key on my keyboard. I have no desire to create yet another username/password to go with the large collection that I already have (15 for work related accounts alone) if I don't have to. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit, 109.145.22.224, that I was wrong in my earlier edits; your edit looked suspicious to me. Wikipedia is a weird place; you have people making good edits right next to people making bad edits. I misinterpreted yours--sorry! I have trouble, however, believing that there is no correct orientation of the British flag somewhere on Wikipedia; that seems incredible but . . . . Is there no acceptable version at British Flag? If not, maybe this exercise will correct the problem. I'll keep an eye on what is resolved. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, please do not leave a bad image file of your nation's flag floating around on Wikipedia. Even an unregistered can put a note in the summary of a picture file. Perhaps you can delete a picture file or to have it tagged for deletion. Other sites using that faulty image are also in error--not just the British English page. Pinethicket (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you and DVdm are the same user. Funny how you provide input at exactly the same time and support each other in the same incorrect allegation on a perfectly valid edit. And that neither of you have any idea which way up the flag should be. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. We try.Pinethicket (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK we'll call it quits. At least the removal of the dodgy image can be regarded as an improvement, which is what we all ultimately want. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]