User talk:Emeraldflames

76.101.18.118 (talk · contribs) changed your post at BLPN. If that was you, please try not to edit while logged out. Thanks. (I reverted the IP's change). Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I have a habit of doing so. Thanks for heads up.

I regret that several people have not been allowed to add the reported background events in the article, despite being noted in several major sources and confirmed by multiple people in various reports. I tried 7 times to convince people that Wikipedia policies actually insist that non-gossip information be stated in an article, such as text confirmed by school officials, parents and attorneys, while also cross-checked by respected journalists. As you might know, when censorship of mainstream sourced text reaches this level of obstruction, then Wikipedia experiences a total deadlock, as most wp:admins are reluctant to enforce policies to stop people from removing sourced text. Such deadlocks have happened in several other articles, not all about Florida issues.
As a long-term cure, I have advised changing Wikipedia policies to impose per-article edit-limits on suspected users who seem to obsess, rabidly, on removing text in a wp:OWNership attitude. By limiting users to perhaps 70 or 80 total edits to an article, or talk-page, such as 3 edits per day, then that would allow a broad spectrum of normal editors to also add text, or discuss opinions, without a small core of intense editors always second-guessing or removing all comments they do not like. As explained with wp:IDONTLIKEIT, no editor is entitled to keep removing text because they personally do not like it, and think it violates imagined policies, when many level-headed editors have concluded the policies allow, or even require, the inclusion of that censored text. Again, I am sorry you have wasted so much time trying to add the obvious neutral text, while a small group of unusual editors had decided to take obsessive control of the article. I hope you can find other articles to work, and do not let this extreme, repressive experience ruin your interest in Wikipedia. This situation is very rare, and happens only in limited cases. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Homeboys from prior school: I have begun to find the troublesome major connections to handgun culture, which many of us had suspected. Your questions on the talk-page led me to investigate Carol City High School (MCCSH), which was 86% black, and Martin's transfer in 2011 to Krop, which is 70% white (29% Black). According to recent sources, MCCSH was a "ghetto-like" environment, where all the guys posted Myspace photos posing with handguns or semi-automatics. The school after 2007, talked of "The Curse" of student deaths (source: ), and now more than 20 teenagers were either shooting, shot or killed since 2006, every few months. The drive-by shootings in Miami Gardens, FL had been bad since, at least, 2006, with more than 20 bullets shot at some houses. One Carol City High student joked in 2009, in response to Columbine, "We bring guns to school, but we don't use them". With all that happening, it is like a guy being suspected of illegal fishing, who grew up in a fishing village where all the other guys took photos with illegal fishing rods. Martin's father even warned him, "Society is bad" and expect to fight everyone, rather than most people with guns rarely use them. I doubt that any of this would be "allowed" into the article yet, but the main point is that Wikipedia has provided a forum to uncover these connections, which helps explain what happened that night. With Zimmerman's prior assault events plus burglary suspects, and Martin's recent 2 years at "Handgun High" then it is reasonable to assume that a confrontation between those 2 was likely to end with a shooting. Certainly, seeing a handgun drawn was likely to spur a "do or die" fight. All of this was masked by photos of a 10-year-old kid, or scenes of snow-skiing in Colorado, and conveniently ignoring years in a school neighborhood surrounded by periodic shootings, involving over 20 students. Perhaps as similar issues are noted during the criminal trial, next year, then the article would be allowed to state the obvious facts. Thank you for your talk-page questions which made these issues a focus for consideration. We will see what testimonies are given next year. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with all of your conclusions, but the background information and articles are very interesting. Emeraldflames (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with the Timeline that I hope you can fix. The Timeline shows Martin completing his purchase at 7-Eleven BEFORE he left to walk to the store. Tried to view the video to discern the time stamp but was unsuccessful. Can you see it well enough to fix the problem? Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't really see the hour on the timestamp part, but you can see the minutes and it shows about :24 after. I'm not sure whether the clock was accurate on the camera, but the date was. The 6:40 time given by USA today offers no specific source of it and it's mentioned as approximate. My guess would be that the time he left is inaccurate, in part, because that seems like a lot of distance to cover- there and back again. I would say if there isn't another source for the 6:40 time to get rid of it, because it doesn't really make sense. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Emeraldflames. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
Message added 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's changes to the lede have become a matter of discussion. Would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Fair enough. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to issue any warnings just now but I will tag a note on here to say that recent editing from this account seems to be getting rather too close to trolling. It's time to step back from that! The intervention at Talk:Imane Khelif was particularly unhelpful. DanielRigal (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's absurd. I stand behind my statement. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing at all trolling about anything that I said. The article came across exactly how it is, very much point of view in support of her perspective, with minimal representation of sourced criticisms. If there is some trolling involved then I don't see it.

I think the fact that my concerns were removed from the talk page simply reinforce that original concerns. There is clearly an effort to present a specific point of view on the controversy to the exclusion of other reasonable opinions and fact-based interpretations.

It honestly comes across as left wing talking points. As a moderate member of the left wing, I support transgender people, yet it is fairly clear to me that the issue is far more complicated than presented in that article. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the most recent discussion you started at Talk:Imane Khelif per the consensus at Special:PermanentLink/1312320500#Proposal:_Moratorium_on_discussions_related_to_Imane_Khelif's_gender. This is the first and only warning I will give you. Continue with this sort of behaviour and I will take you to WP:AE seeking to have you topic banned. TarnishedPath^talk 09:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

As I stated absolutely nothing to do with her gender (she is a female), there is no legitimate basis to remove the discussion.

There are no *legitimate* "violations" to threaten to ban over. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that I did not make any edits to that article whatsoever. I made it to the talk page to bring up points. So, even that premise of your statement is not accurate. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You removed George Zimmerman’s use of a racial slur according to Florida police from the header of his page, writing “ Removed a dubiously sourced claim that Zimmerman used a racial slur.”

“Dubiously sourced” according to who, exactly? CBS news, one of the outlets that reported on it, is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. JPHC2003 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 I didn't see the link to a CBS article, however, this would have been hearsay at best and was not a documented, verified wording. It is also inflammatory to the point that it needs to be very solidly established for it to be reported as fact.

There is a history of him having been accused of other highly inflammatory statements that were not actually applicable. (and some, very well sourced and established, that were). Emeraldflames (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 I looked again by doing a web search on those terms and Zimmerman and I did not see anything come up that was a reliable source. Can you please link the CBS source. It wouldn't necessarily change my take on its inclusion in the article, but I could at least read it and see what you're referring to. Emeraldflames (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 okay, I did find the link. The other ones I saw were slate and another one that was not reliable. The CBS is considered a reliable source but no other major network reported that, a copy of the police report would presumably be publicly available for verification, and again, given that it's a biography of a living person and the history of inaccurate statements of an inflammatory nature concerning him, I think it's important to err on the side of caution. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 I created a discussion on the talk page of this article laying out my thoughts on it.

at its core, what we have is a police report that states that individual X- involved in an altercation with Zimmerman- stated that this is what he called him.

That's just hearsay and it is not solid enough to be included in a BLP in my opinion. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the wikicode you reverted I don't think @Bluethricecreamman intentionally hatted the second discussion but rather only the first. There was a {{cot}} where there should have been a {{cob}} tag. Would you be open to re-closing the first of the two discussions as WP:1AM and leaving the second, where there is an actual discussion, open? Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

absolutely Emeraldflames (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

oops. yes, meant to do a cob. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Np. When I was on a desktop it was a lot easier for me to edit stuff. I find it extremely difficult on mobile right now. Or I would have just fixed it. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I hate the mobile interface. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JPHC2003 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@JPHC2003 I don't see anything there. If you can give me a direct link I'd be glad to respond but there's nothing there. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Howdy. At WP:AE, you're not suppose to post/comment in another editor's statement section. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@GoodDayThank you. Are you talking about Riposte's statement? I saw a bunch of people commenting and replying on it, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you link to the edit you are referring to please? Emeraldflames (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

What you posted (at 18:17 UTC) in Piposte's statement section. Should be moved to your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, just out of curiosity, why are there so many other people commenting in his statement section? I wouldn't have done so otherwise.

Emeraldflames (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody else has posted in Riposte97's statement section. PS - Merely move your post to your own 'statement' section. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I moved it. I am still confused though. I see a number of comments from multiple people in that section as pasted above. I'm just trying to understand how this works. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody else has posted inside Riposte97's statement. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to things like "@Theleekycauldron"? Those are pings, rather than others commenting in Ripose97's section. The signature at the end is how you tell who said what. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was cutting and pasting what his section looked like with others commenting in Riposte's statement, just to show him what I meant. I forgot it would ping everyone. Oops! Emeraldflames (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Caral–Supe civilization. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, this edit was generated by a clanker: Diff/1342285347. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I did use it to assist me with the wiki formatting. I double checked all the links in citations and they seemed legitimate. What was wrong with it? Emeraldflames (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with your edit is that you did not write it yourself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)