User talk:Breadblade

Hello, Breadblade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

Using self-published sourcing from the subject is perfectly acceptable on a BLP, especially for such a small amount of material. Read the policy you keep citing. As far as the "weasel" tag you have added, it does not apply. To say that there were concerns and then specifically outlining them is NOT using weasel words, not as noted in the policy nor as the term "weasel word" is defined. Please remove those tags.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of carrying this discussion to my talk page, when there is already an open discussion on the article's talk page. Breadblade (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Breadblade, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! 
SarahStierch (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Rob, probably we can summarize some of the existing stuff and leave up the link to the full article, now that we have one. I'll get a start on that now. Breadblade (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MR doxxing

Regarding my reverted edit, in this removal of content you may have overlooked the removal of my fact-tag of the "rape" claim in addition to death threats (which I made here) and which you ended up sort of taking the next step in removing it entirely. While I concur about it being a mistake, I wonder, in case there were allegations of some rape threat in addition to the allegations of death ones (perhaps in some news article either of us missed) wouldn't keeping the fact tag up encourage people to find the source if it does exist? I guess I'm wondering how long we should generally keep up tags asking for info before throwing out unsource statements, how long to keep that window open.

Also I was hoping you might consider the vast removal of the content. You called it "padding out the MR section" with "fluff". You said I didn't add any new information. Could you clarify what you think is fluff? I added new information in the form of direct quotes from the statements (ones where the report discusses the subreddit). Is this what you think is fluff?

I'm not really understanding why it is okay to post quotes from the Potok interview rebuttal, but not quotes from the original report that spawned the controversy. It seems like a 1-sided presentation here. Ranze (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the tag, looked at the sources, and found that 'death threats' were supported by them and 'rape threats' were not. It's not unlikely that the blogger received rape threats, but we need to back that up with a source. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. It seems like minor detail either way, since it's already clear the person was being harassed. If you can find a source that does claim that the person received rape threats, we can put that back in without speculating.

If you want to discuss the reverts, please create a section on the article talk page discussing what should be kept and why so that the editors of that article can establish a consensus. Much of what I deleted was already reverted at least once. Also, please review

WP:QUOTE as well for information on how to use quotations on Wikipedia. Breadblade (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I did actually create a section at the bottom of the article talk page regarding the reverts, could you explain the fluff/pad accusation about my edits there? I'd really like to restore my changes. There are several particular items and all got removed, not just some. I'll review WPquote though, thanks for the suggestion. This policy can be applied both to the quotes that remain up (Potok in March, SPLC in May) and those excerpts which were removed which I think should be restored since they are related to the rumours of hate-site labelling. I'm aware that what you deleted was already reverted, but that was under false pretenses in my opinion, except for the OR accusation about some stuff I already voluntarily removed. Far as I can see, OR concerns no longer apply and Rosc should clarify which aspects the OR accusation applies to. Ranze (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In light of the improper venue outcome of the DR/N discussion in which you participated, I am notifying you that I have asked Black Kite, the administrator that closed the AfD discussion for "Highest-valued currency unit", to review the result. The result of the discussion was "merge to List of circulating currencies" and I have asked Black Kite to reconsider the result because it appears that there was no consensus for the merge at the time of the discussion and because there is no consensus for the merge at this time. I invite you to give your opinion on the matter at the discussion taking place on Black Kite's talk page. I understand that this process has led to much contention between various editors. In the interest of expediency, I would like to suggest that you limit your comments to the issue of the AfD closure and not discuss any other issues. Thank you. – Zntrip 20:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I will have a look at that discussion. Breadblade (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Breadblade,

On the peercoin citations, my personal feeling is at the moment citations are thin on the ground for peercoin related topics. Some citation is better than no citation. My suggestion is to request further citation on some points but retain existing citations as well.VinceSamios (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC

Hi Vince, as it happens I have made a post about this on the article's Talk Page. I am going to allow some time, maybe a week or two, before pruning most of the bad citations, since they can help point the way toward good ones. For instance, the link to YouTube I removed probably draws its information from a good source, which might make for a useful citation. Breadblade (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to be appreciated, as rare as it is... danno_uk 23:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! They were good edits. Breadblade (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Breadblade is someone who doesn't read the sources and who erases edited wikipedia without even reading the sources!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.143.97.199 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! Please see

WP:Identifying reliable sources for more information on how to properly source your contributions. Breadblade (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I posted sources to Talk:Reddit#American_Censorship WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not experienced with the file upload process. I think I have updated this entry as requested. Breadblade (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs

Hi, you recently closed several AfD discussions as keep, but you didn't finish the closes - you should remove the AfD tag from the article and add the {{

Old AfD multi}} template to the talk page (it's included in full in the comments surrounding the AfD tag on the article); I've done them all for you this time. For more information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close. Thanks! ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I was having a hard time finding a set of complete instructions on how to do a proper close. Breadblade (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Reddit communities source Warning

Cease restoring Controversial Reddit communities content that says Outlet A describes something as B, when the source is actually, a blogger of Outlet A describes something as B. Take this as a warning.--JacktheHarry (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this warning is. The Huffington Post published that content on their official blog. They paid someone to write it, and their editors approved it for publication. Breadblade (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U of I History

In truthfulness the history section is an attempt to create the article in uniformity under WikiProject Universities, in similar examples to Michigan State University, Georgetown University and other notable university articles. The Steven Salaita controversy alone is deserving of it's own article because the sections are becoming to large which warnts a new section similar to every other university. Im working to expand the history of the univeristy of illinois. Pwojdacz (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U of I has been the subject of multiple notable controversies in the past decade or so, and as such has a large controversy section compared to, say, MSU or Georgetown. I'm not sure why that is an issue. Breadblade (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency task force/Invite

File:Altcoins symbols.png

Hello Breadblade. You are cordially invited to participate in the Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project.

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am not that interested in the topic these days but I will consider it. Breadblade (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UIUC

Under the enrollment section, it now says "As of September 2015 the university had 44,000 students" with a citation date Saturday September 19, 2015, then 2 sentences later it says "fall 2015 the University enrolled more than 43,500 total students." and that one is also dated September 19, 2015. it looks repetitive to repeat the enrollment of the school back to back. Originally, I deleted the 2nd enrollment numbers I added a few weeks ago with the merger of enrollment and demographics, because I felt it would be better to keep the newest added enrollment data. I am going to add data I found of 44,087 which is from the university's website. I just wanted to share this so it doesnt look like an edit war or anything like that :) Pwojdacz (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Breadblade (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Breadblade. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Breadblade. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BrigadorBoxArt.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]