User talk:LynnS79
Welcome!
|
November 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Winner 42. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cli fi with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cli fi with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Falcon8765 (TALK) 00:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Sci-fi and Cli-fi[edit]
You made a post to Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines suggesting about sci-fi and cli-fi. You may have meant to post somewhere else. Please check. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry! I meant to make this to another page. This interface can be very confusing.
- Simon223, and i am glad you have finally heard of the cli fi term, see more at The CLi FI report, a private website set up by an IT firm in Calfoprnmoa for me, and full of nothiognt but linsk to articles and acedemics papers for reseach to mull over, at cli-fi.net --- how about we let this page stand as it, with the current title but give me a page title for anew stub that reads....Cli-Fi (disambiguation) ....which DGG has already said was a good idea. Let me disambiguate and let Professor pontificate, on different pages with differen titels and all is good, no? Professor W could set up her own private wbstie on climate ficiton if she wants, but she prefers to be a bossy Wikipedian ed here and waste both her time and my time, although I must say this has been an interesting case study about how Wiki works and how arugments and disagreemnts are finally...settled... or abirated. I have learned a lot here and I ap;ogize for my poor typing skills and any misfires i might have said in the heat of any of the arugmetns that have ensued. NOTE: I am no longer going to address Prof. W directly here. game over. Whatever i say, no matter what i say, she just goes on and on with her PHD bradao thinking she knows More about cli fi than I do. The nerve! The chutzpah! See you in Arbitration, Professor. May the best man win!(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).
I will take "Cli-Fi (disambiguation)" as a title for a new stub, and I will stop pestering the learned professor here whose views i respect but disagree with. Can't we all get along? (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk • contribs)
talkback[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DS Alert (climate change)[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Lynn, welcome back from spring break. The ANI was archived without action while you were away. Could I persuade you to WP:DROPTHESTICK in your personalized battle with the other ed? At the talk page, you should NEVER really talk about the other editor. Instead, you should ONLY talk about the article's content. See WP:FOC. To put it blunt, chill out until you can just talk about the subject matter of climate fiction? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't receive the ANI until I returned from break, and may take further action considering the other user was on a self-admitted roll of trying to identify who I was and made a ton of untrue statements about me or who he supposed I was. I am wondering why I am the object of this WP:DROPTHESTICK when the other editor continually has attacked me from the get-go. I have ignored many of the personal attacks but tried to defend myself (in regards to having a neutral agenda). Can you please be specific where I have not talked about the article's content but instead talked about another user? Have you not been following the article where I've been constantly under attack for: my identity, my supposed non-neutral agenda, and so on? All you have to do is go back and look at the Talk sections he has revised to make himself look better. As far as I can see, every contribution I've made to this page has been to support the content I introduce. I would like specific examples of where I have talked about the other editor without it being relevant to the actual content of the article. I was perfectly chilled out today. All I did was the following:
1. Defend myself against another attack that was a lie. The user accused me of admitting to having a non-neutral agenda. I never admitted this, and it reflects on me negatively as an independent subject expert trying to help along this article. If I am going to contribute positively, and another user is constantly attacking my credibility, where does that leave me? I don't think I wrote more than a sentence about it, nor was my own sentence anything but chill. Why don't you instead ask the other user to quit making me the object of his ire and lying about things I have said or not said? 2. I reintroduced a deleted Talk section from the other user, which he has now twice deleted, that supported my response on the idea that the history section be expanded with good content (which it was, when I was gone). Without that section, my premise-building made no sense. 3. I offered more RS to support Herzog's HEAT as being early climate fiction.
I'm actually baffled right now and would appreciate further clarification of why you think I'm talking about another user at all. If you would like I can make a further arbitration about this, but honestly, it is going to take a lot of time and I was just hoping that the article was looking up and there would be no further back-and-forth. But if you are going to allow him to just keep attacking me, then I feel it's my right to at least uphold my own credibility as I try to build substance on this article, don't you think? Now, if he were no longer allowed to do this, then I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself.LynnS79 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I worked hard to get Chiya77 to FOC at article talk also. If you insist on renewing the personal tit-for-tat at article talk instead of using an appropriate forum then no matter how WP:DISRUPTIVE the other ed may have been, you will be disruptive also. As I told you before, the appropriate venue for editor behavior talk is
- As for Chiya77, they seem to have chilled out, and unless you kick the sleeping bear it might stay that way. Can we let the threads be archived and move on? If you feel there is RENEWED harassment, I'll be glad to give tips on dealing with it, provided you keep your reply out of article talk-land. To catch my attention, type
- {{ping|NewsAndEventsGuy}}
- and I'll get a tickle no matter where you post it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- To me this harassment was new since last I read the page. In more than one place he accuses me of having some agenda--all new as of when I went on vacation. Other than the one-sentence reply to the fact that no, I don't have some agenda, I don't honestly see where I would have egged anything further on. So it's kinda hard for me to know what I did without specific example, and to me, defending myself isn't really a non-chill thing to do. Or maybe it is. Next time I will tickle you!LynnS79 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)