User talk:Myrrhfrankincensegold

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Myrrhfrankincensegold. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scythians

Hi Myrrhfrankincensegold. Your edits to Scythians are far removed from what encyclopedic content is supposed to be. Please read WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it isn't worthy, go ahead with what you want to do. Perhaps the reason it's so messy is because it's a theory I believe. :) Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nymph

Hi. I'm sure you mean well, but the Waterhouse picture is entirely relevant to the topic, and to traditional imagery of nymphs - who are seldom "decent" in myth - actually, the Waterhouse painting is quite restrained in what it shows. The pic you substituted is cute, but seems to have been drawn by someone very young - nothing wrong with that, but it somehow misses the point. Just fyi, Wikipedia is not censored. Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted censorship

Will you please, please not substitute pictures because existing pictures are (per your contributions, edit summaries, and apparent personal opinion) "not decent". A picture can be "decent" enough to satisfy a Saint, yet still fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements of competence or relevance in the use of images. Please read WP:NOT CENSORED. I fear that if you're offended, disturbed or in any way distressed by partly-naked ~~female~~ bodies, Wikipedia may not be for you. But let's hope otherwise. Haploidavey (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, maybe you're right, or at least I won't visit that part of Wikipedia, because I will not, I repeat, will not, consent to see immodesty. Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC) P.S. Is there a way to make it so you don't see certain images on Wikipedia? Because if so, I could use that instead of "censoring".[reply]

There is no way that I know of to selectively block images from personal browsers; when you download a Wikipedia article, you download everything, images and all; and the mark-up used on Wikimedia doesn't make the necessary distinctions that would be required for a selective blocking. If your notions of modesty outweigh your curiosity, then I suppose you might just have to avoid certain topics or topic areas altogether. Haploidavey (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it wouldn't know beforehand whether you would want to see it or not, but the pictures have individual codes, so if you clicked on a picture and it had an option "Hide this Picture" and you clicked it, then it could hide that picture on that page, or, for that matter, any page, no? Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's feasible - but would almost certainly require than an editor or several, with near-infinite time on their hands, went through the entire index of images, and marked all the relevant images individually. I don't thinks that's going to happen - not least while we've a policy against censorship. (By the way, I restored the format on your talk-page, which was damaged in you r last edit. I've not changed its content in any way, apart from adding my reply). Haploidavey (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the individual users, if theycome across the picture, can mark that they don't want to see it again. It would only affect the individual users, and would take much less time. Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might well be able to do that, using their browser - I don't know how that would work (blocking elements, rather than entire sites). Haploidavey (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you, too! Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add that to your talk page? (Just wondering) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 22:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user might be having problems with Visual Editor, without realising it; see the various diffs in page history. Could be an old browser, or non-VE compliant skin (?) The unwanted changes to others' posts seem an unintentional and unwitting byproduct. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Science's stand on History

Several pages talk about "Mainstream Opinion". Is there any way I can cast my vote? :) Myrrhfrankincensegold (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]