User talk:Lovetinkle

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Victoria Dillard, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand. I reverted a vandal's edit. You're saying I vandalised the article? Lovetinkle (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. If I made a mistake I'll fix it. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; that was my mistake. I've reverted my edit back to your. I'm sorry about the mixup --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. I'm sure these things happen all the time. Cheers, Lovetinkle (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some good work there. Just let me have a read through of those refs and I'll see what I can do for you. Lovetinkle (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Lovetinkle. At Wikipedia, one of our clear mission statements is to keep good, regular editors and not scare them into complete retirement. I noticed your comment on Giftiger wunsch's talk page, and while we appreciate input and feedback from all users, I personally think it is a little bit soon for you to be getting involved in RfA issues. However, if you feel sincerely concerned, perhaps you would like to read through recent posts and even contribute to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. When doing so, try to put yourself in the position of an RfA candidate. I hope to see you there. Happy editing, and if you ever need any help with anything, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page :) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. Am I not permitted to participate in RfA? Lovetinkle (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone and anyone is of course not only permitted to participate in RfA, but is most welcome to do so, but it helps if they have some experience in Wikipedia, and some knowledge of the processes it involves. My opinion is simply that you might wish to become more acquainted with our policies and processes before getting involved with the controversial areas of the running of the Wikipedia. You can also do this by following the links in my first message and this one. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. For the record, I have taken considerable time to acquaint myself with the various policies and guidelines here. I have also been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship most closely. To my mind it is clear that the current process for selecting administrators is flawed. I often wonder if a process similar to that applied at Wikiversity would be an improvement on what we do here.

With regard to Giftger's RfA, I think my oppose was valid but as I said on his talkpage I regret that I was not more careful in how I worded my comments. I should have made mention of his many valuable contributions and adopted a less severe tone. I was (and still am) somewhat distressed that the RfA appears to have caused him to leave the project entirely. You may rest assured that I will be much more careful in future when I comment at an RfA -- whether I oppose, support or express indifference. That said, I must say that I think his reaction to the opposition he received (not just from me but generally) and the manner of his apparent departure certainly indicate he was, and presumably still is, not suited to the role for which he was nominated.

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with me. I am most grateful. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll grant that he should probably have been just a little thicker skinned, it's no good being an admin if all one does is throw one's toys out of the pram every time there is a dispute. We have however completely lost some really good editors of first-class admin material because of the way they were treated at RfA. I've turned down many proposals to run for office, and I might even do the same, so I prefer to write for content, contribute to policy building, and generally gnoming around, and offering some advice. Please do not hesitate to chip in at RfA talk, if you can contribute some ideas for eventually making the RfA process a saner, safer place. Kudpung (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Lovetinkle has been around Wikipedia longer than his contribution history would reveal, and therefore probably has a better grasp on policies than the average new user. Most brand new users don't install twinkle on their 11th edit. Whether he wants to reveal to us who he used to be is up to him, per WP:RTV. SnottyWong ^babble 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry your RfA is tanking but your assumption of bad faith on my part here confirms my belief that granting you adminship would not be good for you or the project.

This is my only account. I spent 2 or 3 years reading wikipedia as an IP and last year created this account when I felt confident enough to begin contributing. Prior to doing so I had taken the time to read up on the various policies and guidelines. So no, I'm not new but I'm certainly not a vanished user. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribution

removing comments, only that serve to be personal attacks. if the person will be wanting to keep it, then choose his words carefully, other than that, it's a personal attack.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack against whom? It seemed to be more of a generalised slur designed to create a fuss. I agree with you, his comment was not constructive but I think simply removing it could only create a greater fuss. Perhaps mention something on his talkpage would be a wiser approach? Lovetinkle (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

towards people who don't get the joke. and using another certain word alongside with it.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still think just removing his comment is not the best approach. Have you thought about asking him to consider rewording his comments to be less abrasive? Lovetinkle (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing was best, if he still felt strongly to vote, he would obviously rethink his approach. his attack was intentional.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.47.118.12

Are you socking with this IP to vandalize pages and cause these disruptive edits?--Львівське (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I only edit with this account and never as an IP. I reject your assertion that I am vandalising those articles. Your insistence on inserting egregiously non-neutral edits is contrary to WP policy. Lovetinkle (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing non-neutral and the IP user in question is the one vandalizing. You, by restoring his edits, are complicit to his vandalism, it would seem.--Львівське (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much likelihood of us seeing eye-to-eye on this matter so any further exchanges between us are are not going to yield anything constructive. You're in danger of tripping over the three revert rule though. Be careful. Lovetinkle (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

Ejaculata Lovetinkle? How in the world does someone even come up with that? It's absolutely hilarious. Swarm ^X 14:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it somewhere on the internetz. For the life of me I cannot remember where, otherwise I would give due credit. I'm glad you like it. Cheers, Lovetinkle (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a doozey, must count double :7 --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for twice reverting the vandalism of my user page. Surprisingly this is the first time in my nearly 3.5 years on the project when I have had to deal with a spat of this :o) Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. It was rather nasty stuff too. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I see you have opposed due to concerns around temperament, and feel I cannot be trusted with the tools. I am wondering why you feel this way and what I can do to improve. Thank you. N419 BH 07:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRC

FYI, it's not a question of finding references; there was a recent (and extensive) RfC on the talk page leading to a consensus that the material should not be in the lead. It is, however, in the body along with several references. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was my edit to the lede? I didn't think it was. But if you've taken the time to bring the issue here I must have made a mistake. Please accept my apologies and continue as before. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're correct in that the edit was to the history section, not the lede. Sorry. However, the information is already presented in the existing section Family Research Council#Listing as a hate group by SPLC per the aforementioned discussion. Sorry for any confusion... --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So long as that relevant information appears in the article (appropriately referenced) then all is well. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter with me. I am most obliged. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knock if off

Your personalization of issues on an RFA do not belong on the RFA, where we should focus on the contributor and his content-- you aren't helping yourself or the matter, please stop disrupting the RFA. I suggest you might want to remove your comments to talk yourself, which is where they belong, and refrain from personalizing issues and badgering opposers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned my comments stand. Your conduct in that RfA has, frankly, bordered on the distasteful. I will neither move nor refactor so much as a single character. That is for editors uninvolved in our exchange to prosecute. If I might offer an opinion I would suggest that you would do well to turn your piercing insight on yourself, young lady. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's the end of this conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope so. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lovetinkle. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians.
Message added 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi I hope that opening a discussion here might be helpful. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents comments

This is really not appropriate. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic-humor or seriously proposing an action against Mathsci. Former is not obvious, latter is invalid without evidence (and WP:INCIVIL to boot). Now your edit-summaries too have devolved. Please stop. DMacks (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deadly serious. I dispute that I have been incivil and I repudiate your warning. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's time for you to put up evidence...accusations without them are not viable. The edit-summary in this response continues your now pattern of poor wording choices. I sense a block in your future if you choose to continue this way. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have cause to block me, then I invite you to do so. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you are "deadly serious" about Lionelt being a sockpuppet of mine, then I suggest you file a report at WP:SPI. Just for reference I edit with the fixed IP 82.66.163.12 from the South of France. That might save you a little time. Alternatively we can go together to the talk page of Jclemens, a checkuser and member of ArbCom who has blocked several of the accounts under discussion. There you can explain with a little more care (a) the evidence you have for sockpuppetry by Lionelt and me and (b) which edits I have made that deserve a community ban. Making unfounded assertions that you know to be false is spelled out fairly carefully in WP:NPA#WHATIS. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, doing that would be more than tedious. I think we'll just stick with my claims on AN/I. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:ANI. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now put your templates away, Lionel dear. Isn't there's an abortion clinic you should be picketing? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lovetinkle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Whilst I may have been abrasive, I've not been disruptive in the slightest. I have edited within policy and respectfully request that the block be lifted. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Posts and edit summaries such as this, this and this are hardly within policy. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Where does policy provide for making sockpuppetry accusations while presenting no evidence? And where does policy say it's OK to tell someone to stick it where the moon don't shine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crossin said this is how I should handle such a situation. And he should know, don't you think? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve told you to make unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry? Where? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue making baseless claims of sockpuppetry against either me or Lionelt on this talk page, your talk page access could be revoked and the length of your block extended. Now please stop this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But my claims are not baseless. You and Lionel are one and the same. A simple CheckUser will reveal all, don't you agree? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can file an SPI once your short block expires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No really? You really are a fucking idiot. That said I prefer it this way. The block will expire and then I can go back to my several endeavours. Given that CU is not magic pixie dust or to be used for fishing I feel confident that my malign purposes will not be revealed. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by emailing ArbCom, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]