User talk:Eminence2012

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your edits at Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA article

Two things here; firstly, I *have* to revert as the official site is on the spam blacklist (tho it's not a spam domain - go figure). Secondly, the logo currently in use was uploaded to Commons by LiteralKa. I think we both know who that is, and he should pretty-much know what the official logo is or isn't - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that their website would know what the logo is more than this man. Eminence2012 (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your "child pornography" edits

I suggest you abandon your campaign on the Suicide of Amanda Todd article. The WP:BLP policy does not only cover living people, but also the living relatives (and friends?) of recently deceased people. I can't imagine what encyclopedic benefit you imagined was gained by your categorisation of the article, and the wikilink you added. The topics of other posts here on your talk page give me some ideas, though. Consider this a final warning regarding WP:BLP - you know what it is and you know what it means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your tone. Can you tell me where in WP:BLP it says that categories describing reasons leading to suicide are not a viable inclusion in an article? Eminence2012 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is another specific reason why you need to stop. WP:BRD would be the general reason why you should take challenged, contentious additions to the talk page. Reso lute 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how I violated WP:3RR? Eminence2012 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't violated it, but you're right up against it: [1] [2] [3]. I think Resolute means that one more reversion would be a violation, so, you need to stop reverting. As far as BLP goes, now that you've provided a source on the talk page, I don't think that's really a problem, since BLP is about unsourced or poorly-sourced claims. Still, though, it might be better to tread a little bit more lightly when dealing with sensitive subjects like this in the future, okay? :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:3RR, so forgive me if I don't appreciate receiving thinly-veiled threats regarding it. I also don't see how adding a category could cause this much of a problem for people, really. I am starting to think that Demiurge1000 just enjoys starting drama. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, have a quick look around. You will quickly find that there are others who might flock to that banner. Banners are useful, because I would appreciate your all coming along at the same time. It makes things simpler.

On the other hand, if they think a little, they might not flock to your banner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could rephrase that in a more coherent way. Eminence2012 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit-warring. Please stop it or you'll be blocked. Demiurge, no need to stoke the fire any further here. The category is out unless there is a convincing consensus on the talk page that it's in. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire seems adequately quenched - editor has been indef blocked under a checkuser block. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]