Спасибо. - Бритта Мари — Предыдущий неподписанный комментарий добавлен 174.250.211.66 (обсуждение) 09:10, 16 июня 2023 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Будьте смелее!
Не бойтесь редактировать, худшее, что может случиться, это то, что кто-то не согласится с вами и отменит это. Надеюсь, они скажут вам, почему, если они не скажут, вы можете спросить. Возможно, вы двое тогда сможете разработать редактирование, которое подойдет вам обоим, а может быть, и превзойдет любого из вас. Дайте мне знать, если вам нужна помощь с чем-то. Prodego talk 21:13, 12 января 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Большое спасибо за всю вашу помощь и советы. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:40, 13 января 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Еще вопрос
В связи с вашим любезным предложением помочь мне, если мне понадобится совет, я хотел бы задать вам вопрос. Я заметил многочисленные несоответствия в начальных абзацах статей о странах. Я просмотрел WP:MOS и несколько других страниц, которые, как я решил, могут быть полезны. Не найдя однозначного ответа, я разместил вопрос на странице обсуждения Wikipedia:Manual of Style . После того, как я это сделал, мне пришло в голову, что, поскольку это страница обсуждения, может быть неуместно задавать там свой вопрос (т. е. страница обсуждения должна использоваться для обсуждения политики, а не для того, чтобы задавать вопросы о ней). Должен ли я вместо этого обратиться в службу поддержки, и если да, должен ли я удалить свой вопрос со страницы обсуждения? Заранее спасибо, и приношу извинения, если я доставляю неудобства. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:07, 14 января 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Нет неправильного места, чтобы задать вопрос (ну, может быть, внутри статьи!), в худшем случае кто-то направит вас куда-нибудь еще, чтобы спросить. Страница обсуждения MOS подойдет, я думаю, идеальным местом был бы Википедия обсуждение: Соглашения об именовании . И я считаю, что WP:PLACE — это та страница, которую вы ищете. Prodego обсуждение 05:35, 14 января 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ого! Какой быстрый ответ. Большое спасибо. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:07, 14 января 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Согласен, что красные ссылки не должны быть в начале, забыл викикод
Как видите, я пытался перенаправить и отвлекся. Спасибо за помощь! Brothercanyouspareadime ( talk ) 23:09, 20 февраля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мне очень приятно! Спасибо за замечание! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 23:19, 20 февраля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за поддержку проекта! Рабочее название: «Бездомность», потому что именно так думают большинство людей, когда речь заходит о людях без жилья, без крова и проблемах (человеческой) среды обитания. Но разве это название — точка зрения? Brothercanyouspareadime ( обсуждение ) 23:01, 24 февраля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы хотите сказать, что вся эта фраза является заголовком? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 23:31, 24 февраля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
05:15, 8 марта 2011 (UTC)
Саудовский
Я разместил ответ в WP:RDL . -- Soman ( обсуждение ) 15:51, 9 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо вам большое. Я сейчас немного занят и, возможно, не смогу вникнуть в это подробно в течение дня или двух, но я хотел бы сразу выразить свою благодарность за вашу помощь. Это действительно удивительное место. За последние несколько месяцев, что я редактировал, я узнал больше, чем мог себе представить. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 21:30, 9 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Да, редактирование материалов в чьем-либо пользовательском пространстве обычно не производится. Это зависит от обстоятельств, и в этом случае меня это вполне устраивает, и на самом деле я не хочу эту страницу - я попросил, чтобы ее добавили в мое пользовательское пространство, просто чтобы сохранить ее (ее пришлось удалить, не потому, что с ней обязательно было что-то не так, а потому, что она была создана забаненным пользователем, и такой материал должен быть удален).
Конечно, если вам интересен материал, вы можете переместить его в свое пользовательское пространство. У меня не было времени, чтобы действительно поразмыслить над материалом, но на первый взгляд я, вероятно, не в пользу того, что говорит автор. Я просто хотел сохранить материал, потому что я считаю его обоснованным и интересным моментом.
Если вы хотите работать над этим или что-то еще, то, конечно, переместите это в свое пользовательское пространство или куда-то еще (если вы не знаете, как это сделать, спросите меня). Вероятно, его можно переместить обратно в основное пространство как эссе, если кто-то захочет это сделать. Herostratus ( обсуждение ) 02:16, 14 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Кажется, страница снова была удалена. Меня это устраивает; на самом деле, даже предпочтительнее. Я тоже не был за. Извините за запоздалый ответ. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:07, 15 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не думаю, что есть установленный протокол, где отвечать. Некоторые пользователи помещают уведомление в верхней части своей страницы обсуждения - многие говорят "Я отвечу вам здесь", некоторые (вроде меня) говорят "Я отвечу вам на вашей странице обсуждения", многие не говорят. Когда я оставляю сообщение, мне не нравится смотреть и проверять страницу обсуждения этого человека в поисках ответа, но многие пользователи, очевидно, не против этого. Есть также шаблон = Template:talkback - который говорит "Эй, у меня есть сообщение для вас на моей странице обсуждения". Это своего рода анархия. Я думаю, вы можете сказать "пожалуйста, ответьте здесь" (если вы не против того, чтобы смотреть страницу обсуждения этого человека) или "пожалуйста, ответьте на моей странице обсуждения" (если вы не против разрозненного разговора, который получится). В довершение всего, есть пользователи, которые не будут отвечать на вашей странице обсуждения, даже если вы этого хотите, и пользователи, которые будут раздражены, если вы ответите им на вашей странице обсуждения, вернувшись на их страницу обсуждения. =/
Да, страница исчезла, я удалил ее, следуя совету нескольких пользователей, так как я не хотел этого, и, похоже, никто другой тоже. Интересная идея, но я склонен оставить ее пока в покое. Herostratus ( talk ) 04:33, 15 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Звучит хорошо для меня. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:40, 15 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Что касается проблемы страницы обсуждения, последний сценарий, который вы упомянули, это тот, которого я пытался избежать. Мне все равно, где происходит разговор, но я знаю, что некоторые пользователи хотят, чтобы соблюдалась точная последовательность. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:13, 15 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обратная связь
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения в Talk:Frank Buckles . Сообщение добавлено 07:52, 18 марта 2011 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.
Я так и сделал. Спасибо. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 16:25, 23 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Измерения
Что касается вашего редактирования здесь, да, измерения включены в шаблон инфобокса Playmate и, следовательно, есть в каждой статье Playmate. Это обсуждалось ранее, хотя я должен признать, что я не могу отследить обсуждение прямо сейчас... По крайней мере три исследования были написаны с использованием данных, предоставленных Playboy в Playmate Data Sheets: [1], [2], [3]
Просто подумал, что стоит это высказать... Dismas | (обсуждение) 04:34, 29 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Если вы заметили, я сам вернул его обратно, как только понял это, хотя я все еще считаю его неэнциклопедическим. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:55, 29 марта 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обратная связь
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения на странице обсуждения Ronhjones . Сообщение добавлено 19:50, 5 апреля 2011 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.[ отвечать ]
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения на странице обсуждения Neutralhomer . Сообщение добавлено 02:16, 10 апреля 2011 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.[ отвечать ]
Я думал о том, чтобы поместить рамку цитаты в разделе статьи последнего раздела, как своего рода «последнее слово» по теме, а затем переместить изображение со страницы обсуждения на то место, которое сейчас занимает цитата. Что вы думаете? - Neutralhomer • Обсуждение • 01:47, 12 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Если предположить, что это изображение является общественным достоянием, что, судя по всему, так и есть, то я думаю, что это отличная идея. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:02, 12 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Думаю, я решаю исход этого вопроса. AYW не понравилась эта идея, а тебе да... так что мне пора подумать. - Neutralhomer • Обсуждение • 05:10, 12 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думаю, что это выглядит великолепно. (Однако я признаю, что мнению AYW, возможно, следует придать больший вес, чем моему, поскольку они, безусловно, внесли в эту статью гораздо больший вклад, чем я.) Но, если это имеет значение, я полностью за. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:32, 13 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я поговорил с User:The ed17 и человеком, мнению которого я доверяю, и мы решили (вопреки тому, что вы и я считали правильным), что цитата должна вернуться туда, где она была (сбоку), а третья картинка должна быть удалена (слишком много картинок). Так что, если мы получим больше информации, возможно, мы сможем добавить картинку обратно. В любом случае, она все еще находится в Commons, поэтому пользователи могут получить к ней доступ. - Neutralhomer • Обсуждение • 01:36, 13 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не уверен, что понимаю ход рассуждений, но меня это устраивает. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:41, 13 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Причина в том, что больше нравится наоборот (с 2 картинками и цитатой сбоку), чем с 3 картинками и цитатой внизу. - Neutralhomer • Обсуждение • 04:50, 13 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Нет проблем, NH. Спасибо! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:31, 13 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
НПОВ
Привет, я думаю, что ты, вероятно, хочешь переместить свой пост из WP:NPOV в WP:NPOVN , который является страницей доски объявлений для вопросов NPOV. Страница политики обычно предназначена только для обсуждения самой политики, а не ее применения к отдельным статьям. Cheers, Ocaasi c 16:12, 14 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обзор класса A для статьи Фрэнка Баклза был закрыт и размещен всего несколько минут назад. Я хочу лично поблагодарить вас за помощь в написании статьи и надеюсь снова поработать с вами над FAC в ближайшем будущем. :) - Neutralhomer • Обсуждение • 10:24, 21 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это здорово!! Мой вклад был минимальным, но я был рад сделать то, что мог. Вы должны гордиться собой, поскольку вы были одним из тех, кто проделал тяжелую работу. Я тоже с нетерпением жду, когда это дойдет до FA. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 14:09, 21 апреля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE Drive
Вы получаете копию этого информационного бюллетеня, поскольку являетесь членом Гильдии редакторов текстов или участвовали в одной из наших акций . Если вы не хотите получать будущие информационные бюллетени, добавьте свое имя здесь. Отправлено от имени Гильдии редакторов текстов с помощью AWB в 07:30, 4 мая 2011 (UTC)
Тина Маристатьи
Хорошо, что вы делаете со статьями, но имейте в виду, что большинство из них либо не имеют источника, либо имеют плохой источник, и это более серьезная проблема, чем эта. Пожалуйста, сосредоточьтесь на этой проблеме в первую очередь . Спасибо. Я помогаю, когда могу. [12] 20:14, 14 мая 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Что? Если это вас беспокоит, почему вы не сосредоточитесь на этом, а не попросите меня сделать это? Я не должен вносить незначительные правки, чтобы привести статью в порядок, если я сначала не внесу существенных улучшений? Вы серьезно? Поистине самое странное сообщение, которое я когда-либо видел. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:54, 15 мая 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Гэри МакКиннон
Привет, Джо, я добавил важный новый раздел «новые доказательства» для Гэри МакКиннона, который вы удалили 29 апреля 2011 г. Можете ли вы сказать мне, почему? Nosli (обсуждение) 09:33, 26 мая 2011 г. (UTC) [ ответить ]
Раздел был помечен как оригинальное исследование . Все в наших статьях должно быть проверено надежными источниками . Это особенно верно в случае г-на МакКиннона, поскольку он живой человек . Пройдя по ссылкам, которые я здесь предоставил, вы сможете получить больше подробностей. Всего наилучшего. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 14:54, 26 мая 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мой кузен Винни
Джо, прежде чем снова менять имена двух мужских персонажей, либо в статье о Macchio, либо в статье о фильме, пожалуйста, расскажите об этом здесь или на одной из страниц обсуждения статьи (статья о Vinny, вероятно, имеет больше смысла). Насколько я помню, в фильме Винни всегда называл своего кузена Билли. Однако во всех списках актеров за пределами Википедии, а также в некоторых обзорных статьях, которые я читал, его имя указано как Билл, а имя его друга — как Стэн, а не Уильям или Стэнли. Какова причина, по которой вы меняете их на более «правильные» имена? Неважно, является ли Билл прозвищем Уильяма или Стэн прозвищем Стэнли; важно то, как они указаны в титрах фильма. — Bbb23 ( обсуждение ) 12:56, 5 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Некоторые вещи не стоят споров. Если вы хотите, чтобы их называли «Стэн» и «Билли», то вперед и балуйте себя. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:06, 5 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
На самом деле, я использую Стэна и Билла, а не Билли - как я уже сказал. Надеюсь, что вы использовали фразу "побалуйте себя" небрежно, а не снисходительно.-- Bbb23 ( talk ) 13:16, 5 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Тогда Стэн и Билл. Поехали! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:28, 5 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Принес извинения на странице обсуждения пользователя за некорректный ответ от моего имени. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:50, 7 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обратная связь
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения в File talk:Artiodactylamorpha.jpg . Сообщение добавлено 02:52, 20 июня 2011 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.
Спасибо. Я, возможно, не очень хорошо объяснил свою проблему, но я вернусь к ней, когда у меня будет немного больше времени. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:51, 21 июня 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Предстоящее интервью с Бенни Уркидесом
Я планирую прямое интервью с Бенни "The Jet" Уркидесом для публикации в течение нескольких недель. Если у вас есть какие-либо биографические вопросы, на которые вы хотели бы получить ответы для включения в его статью в Википедии, пожалуйста, оставляйте их на моей странице обсуждения. Пол Маслак ( обсуждение ) 22:43, 9 июля 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE Drive
Отправлено от имени Гильдии редакторов с помощью AWB в 16:33, 21 августа 2011 г. (UTC)
РЕ Спасибо
Пожалуйста, и вы забыли последнее "буйвол". Tb hotch . ™ Грамматическая ошибка? Исправьте! См. положения и условия. 23:42, 21 сентября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Красная ссылка — удаление вами скобок
Привет ... можешь объяснить, что ты имеешь в виду под своим резюме по редактированию, которое, предположительно, призвано объяснить, почему ты удалил соответствующие скобки? Спасибо.-- Epeefleche ( talk ) 05:21, 20 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я чувствовал, что эта тема имеет мало шансов стать статьей, и поэтому красная ссылка была просто бельмом на глазу, которое отвлекало от статьи Гилада Шалита. Если вы не согласны, пожалуйста, не стесняйтесь вернуться. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:15, 20 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я был бы рад самостоятельно вернуться по запросу, если вы обеспокоены нарушением 1RR. Просто дайте мне знать. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:18, 20 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хахаха... теперь, почему вы думаете, что у меня есть беспокойство по поводу 1RR? ;) Мне придется изучить это немного глубже. Я разделяю с вами отсутствие интереса к красным ссылкам с небольшими шансами стать статьей. Я просто подумал, что у этой может быть что-то стоящее. Я, кстати, создал статью от сотрудника Красного Креста, упомянутого в статье, подсказанный красной ссылкой. В ней десятки новостных ссылок и тысячи гайтов, и она датируется несколькими годами. Единственное, что меня смущает, когда я ищу ее дальше, это то, что я не знаю, смогу ли я найти ее веб-сайт и смогу ли я найти достаточно информации о ней. Я вернусь, если у меня будет возможность это сделать. Tx. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk ) 12:29, 20 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Использование «Бегство» против «Уход» вЧарльз Линдбергстатья
Чарльз Линдберг («CAL») и его семья бежали из Соединенных Штатов в Европу ранним утром 22 декабря 1935 года, чтобы спастись и таким образом защитить себя от постоянного преследования со стороны средств массовой информации и других угроз их безопасности после похищения и убийства младенца Чарльза А. Линдберга-младшего, суда над Гауптманом и других открытых вторжений в личную жизнь CAL и его семьи. «Бегство» из страны — именно так CAL позже описал это событие в своих работах, а также как оно упоминалось в новостных сообщениях того времени. Например, в статье журнала TIME от 6 января 1936 года «Пресса: Герой и Ирод» говорилось: «Новость о бегстве Линдберга появилась в последнем понедельничном выпуске New York Times, на улицах в 4 утра...», «Линдберги тайно получили паспорта в Вашингтоне за неделю до вылета, ускользнули из дома Морроу в Энглвуде, штат Нью-Джерси, попрощавшись только с ближайшими родственниками» и «Редакционное мнение было подавляющим, но не единодушным на стороне беглецов Линдбергов».
Линдберги не просто «покидали» Соединенные Штаты, они буквально «бежали» (т. е. «сбегали» из) страны, поскольку CAL посчитала, что дальнейшее проживание в США стало невозможным. Таким образом, использование слова «бегство» во введении к статье Чарльза Линдберга не было ни «плохим выбором слов» , ни «глупостью» , а вместо этого является точным описанием того, что именно произошло «в 2:53 утра в воскресенье, 22 декабря, [когда] Чарльз Августус Линдберг со своей женой Энн Морроу Линдберг и их 3-летним сыном Джоном тайно отплыли из гавани Нью-Йорка в Европу на борту SS American Importer », когда семья бежала из Соединенных Штатов, чтобы жить в Европе в течение следующих шести лет. Именно так первоисточник — сам КЭЛ — видел, что он делал, поэтому было бы «полной чушью» (а также явно вводящей в заблуждение и неподтвержденной редакционной статьей) описывать в своей статье в WP то, что он и его семья делали, используя любое другое слово, кроме «бегство» . Centpacrr ( обсуждение ) 05:25, 24 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я ответил на странице обсуждения статьи, где и должно быть это обсуждение. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:11, 24 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я разместил комментарий выше здесь до того, как увидел, что вы добавили раздел об этом на странице Talk:Charles Lindbergh , где я разместил свои ответы. Centpacrr ( talk ) 06:58, 24 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Возможно, вы захотите воспользоваться Мастером статей , который поможет вам создавать статьи.
На Corgan China был помещен тег с просьбой о его скорейшем удалении из Википедии. Это было сделано в соответствии с разделом G11 критериев скорейшего удаления , поскольку страница, по-видимому, является недвусмысленной рекламой, которая только продвигает компанию, продукт, группу, услугу или человека и должна быть принципиально переписана, чтобы стать статьей энциклопедии. Пожалуйста, прочтите рекомендации по спаму и Wikipedia:FAQ/Business для получения дополнительной информации.
Если вы считаете, что это уведомление было размещено здесь по ошибке, оспорьте удаление, нажав кнопку с надписью "Нажмите здесь, чтобы оспорить это быстрое удаление". Это перенаправит вас на страницу обсуждения, где вы найдете заранее отформатированное место для объяснения того, почему вы считаете, что страница не должна быть удалена. Вы также можете напрямую посетить страницу обсуждения страницы , чтобы указать свои причины, но имейте в виду, что после того, как страница будет помечена как требующая быстрого удаления, если она соответствует критериям, она может быть удалена без задержки. Пожалуйста, не удаляйте тег быстрого удаления самостоятельно, но не стесняйтесь добавлять на страницу информацию, которая сделает ее более соответствующей политике и рекомендациям Википедии. Если страница будет удалена, вы можете связаться с одним из этих администраторов и попросить администратора сделать страницу пользователем или отправить вам копию по электронной почте. Dipankan001 ( обсуждение ) 08:40, 24 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уведомление действительно было размещено здесь по ошибке; не потому, что я хочу оспорить удаление, а потому, что я не создавал эту статью, никогда не редактировал ее и абсолютно ничего не знаю об этой статье. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 11:38, 24 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Привет, Joefromrandb. Пользователь, создавший это, был Corgan123, у которого была ссылка на вашу страницу обсуждения. Я думал, что это вводящее в заблуждение имя пользователя. В любом случае, извините, но мне придется это рассмотреть. Dipankan001 ( обсуждение ) 11:33, 25 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хорошо. Спасибо за замечание. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 17:51, 25 октября 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE Drive
Отправлено от имени Гильдии редакторов с помощью AWB в 01:18, 29 октября 2011 г. (UTC)
WP:РОАЛЬД
Не уверен, насколько я могу помочь, но я сделаю все, что смогу. Спасибо за приглашение! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:19, 25 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE
Отправлено от имени Гильдии редакторов с помощью AWB в 10:50, 21 декабря 2011 г. (UTC)
Редактирование Кэтлик и Конлин
Вы вносите правки в спорные статьи, и я просто должен сказать, что ваши правки бесспорны и полезны. Хотелось бы, чтобы больше редакторов могли улучшать статьи, не внося беспорядок. Счастливых праздников.-- Bbb23 ( обсуждение ) 20:35, 25 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ну, спасибо большое!! Я даже не думал об этом, но это довольно приятный комплимент. Счастливых праздников и вам!! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:07, 25 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Разогнать
Ваш самовозврат был мудрым; представьте, если бы нас потащили за войну правок на этой странице. Мы бы никогда не загладили этого, унизительный позор. Идите с миром ;) Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 19:26, 29 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо. Однако мой самовозврат был недолгим, так как я просто перестраховался, пока перепроверял, что все правильно. Не бойтесь, я не редактирую war. Если вы повторно вернете меня, я последую надлежащим каналам разрешения споров, а не продолжу возвращать. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:33, 29 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Arbcom это так, вы зашоренные правила, управляемые чем угодно. "Я буду следовать надлежащим каналам разрешения споров". После дружеского слова. Станьте реалистом, префект. Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 19:45, 29 декабря 2011 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уведомление о ссылке для устранения неоднозначности
Привет. В недавних редактировании статьи вы добавили несколько ссылок, указывающих на страницы с неоднозначностями . Такие ссылки почти всегда непреднамеренны, поскольку страница с неоднозначностями — это просто список заголовков статей «Вы имели в виду...». Прочтите FAQ • Присоединяйтесь к нам в DPL WikiProject .
Angel Rat (проверьте для подтверждения | исправить с помощью решателя Dab)
Это сообщение можно удалить. Также, чтобы прекратить получать эти сообщения, следуйте этим инструкциям по отказу . Спасибо, DPL bot ( talk ) 10:54, 1 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Годовой отчет GOCE 2011
Отправлено от имени Гильдии редакторов с помощью AWB в 06:24, 2 января 2012 (UTC)
WP:МОСКВА
Я был удивлен, узнав, что MOS не одобряет ссылки в кавычках. Я вовсе не возражаю против удаления ссылок, но я попросил WT:MOS разъяснить обоснование этого правила; просто хотел дать вам знать, если вы захотите поучаствовать. Theoldsparkle ( talk ) 17:32, 6 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за замечание. Я ответил там. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:58, 7 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обсуждение:Список персонажей сериала «Главный госпиталь»#Макси Джонс
Я заметил, что вы считаете, что обсуждения нет: обсуждение есть, но есть только один ответ, и мне нужно ваше мнение о предложении о слиянии. Нет необходимости удалять его, если не прошло три месяца. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 07:08, 26 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с моими комментариями на соответствующих страницах обсуждения, а также на странице обсуждения вашего наставничества. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:20, 27 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо. Кажется, дела пошли на лад; похоже, лучше просто отказаться от этого. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 14:33, 27 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Что лучше:Сэм и ДайанилиМакси Джонс?
Я создал "Сэма и Диану" с приемом, сюжетной линией и кастингом. "Макси Джонс" пока не получил приема, особенно от критиков. Давайте оставим теги и другие обсуждения в стороне. Что вы скажете? -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 07:44, 27 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не уверен, что понимаю вопрос. Я очень мало знаю о General Hospital и никогда не слышал о Maxie Jones, пока не наткнулся на статью. Я очень рад видеть работу, которую вы делаете в Sam and Diane . Если вы просто спрашиваете, какая статья, по моему мнению, лучше, то "Sam and Diane" определенно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 08:08, 27 января 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Статья будет обсуждаться на Wikipedia:Статьи для удаления/Сэм и Диана до тех пор, пока не будет достигнут консенсус, и любой желающий может принять участие в обсуждении. Номинация объяснит политику и руководящие принципы, которые вызывают беспокойство. Обсуждение сосредоточено на доказательствах хорошего качества, а также на наших политиках и руководящих принципах.
Пользователи могут редактировать статью во время обсуждения, в том числе для улучшения статьи с целью решения проблем, поднятых в обсуждении. Однако не удаляйте шаблон статьи для удаления из верхней части статьи. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 05:02, 9 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я прокомментировал там, Джордж. Я искренне надеюсь, что это сохранится, так как я бы хотел увидеть, как вы сосредоточите свои добросовестные усилия на улучшении этой статьи, а не на дополнительных тегах и предлагаемых удалениях. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:20, 9 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уведомление о ссылке для устранения неоднозначности
Привет. Когда вы недавно редактировали Jacques Charles , вы добавили ссылку, указывающую на страницу устранения неоднозначности Ballooning (проверьте для подтверждения | исправить с помощью Dab Solver). Такие ссылки почти всегда непреднамеренные, поскольку страница устранения неоднозначности — это просто список заголовков статей «Вы имели в виду...». Прочтите FAQ • Присоединяйтесь к нам в DPL WikiProject .
Это сообщение можно удалить. Также, чтобы прекратить получать эти сообщения, следуйте этим инструкциям по отказу . Спасибо, DPL bot ( talk ) 11:04, 9 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Роджер Уотерс
Хорошая работа над статьей, приятно получить помощь. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 03:53, 11 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я предлагаю вам использовать "rm" или "remove" в сводках правок вместо "rmv". Я прочитал "rmv" как "remove vandalism", что, как мне кажется, совсем не то, что вы имели в виду в своем недавнем редактировании Little Black Sambo , и я думаю, что другие люди, вероятно, неправильно его истолкуют. Вы можете просмотреть WP:ESL, чтобы увидеть, что делают другие люди. — Mark Dominus ( talk ) 15:21, 17 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не уверен, что понимаю вас. Я написал: "rmv; если он возвращен, нужен источник". Очевидно, я бы не предлагал возвращать вандализм с источником. Я не считал, что удаленный мной материал был "вандализмом". Это был спорный материал о корпорации, который, хотя и не такой серьезный, как WP:BLP , все равно неприемлем. Он был помечен в течение 11 месяцев, прежде чем я его удалил. Поскольку вы предоставили несколько ссылок для истории, теперь все, очевидно, в порядке. Я использовал "rmv" для "удалить" в сотнях сводок правок без каких-либо инцидентов. В любом случае, извините, если вас ввело в заблуждение то, что я написал, и спасибо за исправление статьи. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:44, 17 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Здесь происходит обсуждение, и ваш вклад будет оценен по достоинству. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 02:19, 26 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Честно говоря, я не очень хорошо знаком с этой статьей. Я постараюсь взглянуть на нее и высказать свое мнение, но надеюсь, вы простите меня, если я не чувствую себя достаточно квалифицированным, чтобы высказывать свое мнение. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:17, 26 февраля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
?
не могли бы вы объяснить, что вы имели в виду под «и так далее» в вашем кратком редактировании Wikipedia:Статьи для удаления/Сандра Флюк . Я не понимаю, что вы имеете в виду. LateNiteFluker ( обсуждение ) 04:01, 9 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
также что означает "такая глупость" из Talk:World War I ? LateNiteFluker ( talk ) 04:04, 9 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
"И так далее" было в отношении вашего комментария, который был просто последним из многих одноцелевых аккаунтов , которые мне пришлось пометить. "Такая глупость" было в отношении того, что я воспринял как троллинговое поведение другого пользователя. Надеюсь, это поможет! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:11, 9 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE по мартовскому движению
ПесочницыФрейзер КрейниДайан Чемберс
Пользователь:George Ho/Frasier Crane (редактирование | обсуждение | история | ссылки | просмотр | журналы)
Пользователь: Джордж Хо/Дайан Чемберс (редактирование | обсуждение | история | ссылки | просмотр | журналы)
Я не могу понять, какой из них достаточно тривиален, чтобы его удалить, и я не хочу устраивать там войны редактирования. Поэтому я создал эти песочницы; вы можете обсудить их там. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 07:40, 23 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не совсем уверен, что вы имеете в виду, Джордж. Мне кажется, что эти черновики — потенциальные переписывания существующих статей, и вы хотите, чтобы я прокомментировал их на страницах обсуждения. Это верно? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:53, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Для начала вы можете начать новый раздел в любом из них. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 01:02, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не уверен, насколько я смогу помочь в ближайшем будущем (сейчас у меня много дел в реальной жизни), но я посмотрю, что я могу сделать. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:13, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Просто для уверенности, вы даете мне разрешение редактировать страницы в вашем пользовательском пространстве, верно? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:44, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы можете редактировать мои статьи в пользовательском пространстве, если хотите; но не мою главную страницу пользователя или главную страницу песочницы. Однако я бы рекомендовал вам сначала зайти на страницу обсуждения черновика, чтобы обсудить ваши проблемы. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 02:51, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Джордж, я в замешательстве. Ты просил меня начать с добавления новых разделов. Теперь ты просишь меня начать со страниц обсуждения. Почему бы тебе не связаться со мной, когда закончишь черновики, и мы начнем оттуда? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:12, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ладно. Договорились. Когда я сказал "новый раздел", я имел в виду первый раздел на странице обсуждения. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 03:41, 24 марта 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Теперь я думаю, что я закончил статью о песочнице Дайан Чемберс. Интересно, не упустил ли я что-нибудь? Если да, то, возможно, страница обсуждения песочницы могла бы помочь. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 20:08, 5 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Прошло две недели, и мне любопытно, есть ли у вас достаточно свободного времени, чтобы сделать обзор моей песочницы. -- Джордж Хо ( обс. ) 04:04, 21 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Привет, Джордж. Кажется, я пропустил твое предыдущее сообщение. Надеюсь, ты не подумал, что я тебя игнорирую уже две недели. У меня будет немного свободного времени после выходных, так что я постараюсь все просмотреть и вернуться к тебе на следующей неделе. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:08, 21 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Прошло уже больше двух недель, и мне интересно, знаете ли вы кого-нибудь еще, кто мог бы уделить время обзору моей песочницы. -- Джордж Хо ( обс .) 23:52, 10 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Извините, Джордж. Даю вам слово, что посмотрю сегодня вечером или завтра. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:16, 11 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я только что начал "Frasier Crane". Вы не против, если я буду копировать правки по мере их поступления, а не делать многочисленные предложения по мелким правкам на странице обсуждения? Я думаю, что это будет самый простой способ. Вы, конечно, сможете вернуться к предпочитаемой вами версии, если вы не согласны с моим редактированием. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:23, 11 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пользователь:George Ho/Frasier Crane (редактирование | обсуждение | история | ссылки | просмотр | журналы)
Мне нужна ваша помощь в расстановке важных ключевых моментов, которые будут полезны обычным читателям и соответствовать общему обзору этого персонажа. Я уже сделал статью Дайан Чемберс . Текущая версия Фрейзера Крейна перегружена оригинальными мыслями и слишком большим количеством деталей. Интересно, хватит ли у вас времени на это. Спасибо! -- Джордж Хо ( обс .) 21:53, 23 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думал, что это было довольно хорошо, нужно было только хорошее редактирование. У меня сейчас много дел, но я постараюсь хотя бы бегло просмотреть его для вас. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:00, 23 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я запросил объединение истории в WP:REPAIR , на всякий случай. -- Джордж Хо ( обс .) 22:54, 23 июня 2012 (UTC)[ отвечать ]
Запрос histmerge был отклонен как параллельная версия. В любом случае, я попытался скопировать и вставить мой текущий черновик на главную страницу, но Ylee считает, что он должен объяснить личность и богатство Фрейзера. Я не знаю почему, но мой черновик объясняет, что он должен быть чем-то большим, чем просто любовный интерес Сэма и Дианы. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 22:51, 8 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Итоги мартовского тура GOCE
Никсон
Кто-то другой вернул меня до того, как я собирался сделать возврат самостоятельно. Я согласен с вашим удалением, в статье достаточно информации, что ссылка не нужна. -- WGFinley ( обсуждение ) 15:00, 5 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за замечание! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:14, 5 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Нынешние/бывшие участники The Beatles
Здесь проводится опрос, и ваш вклад будет оценен по достоинству. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 23:50, 19 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Здесь происходит обсуждение, и ваш вклад будет оценен по достоинству. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 03:46, 21 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Здесь проводится опрос, и ваш вклад будет оценен по достоинству. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 00:39, 22 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думаю, что нашел хорошее решение проблемы с шаблоном, взгляните на предложение сейчас, оно может удовлетворить всеобщие потребности. — GabeMc ( обсуждение ) 06:03, 22 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обратная связь
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения на странице обсуждения Малика Шабазза . Сообщение добавлено 03:20, 22 апреля 2012 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.[ отвечать ]
Ваш запрос на откат
Привет, Joefromrandb. После просмотра вашего запроса на откат я включил откат на вашем аккаунте. Помните о следующих вещах, когда собираетесь использовать откат:
Получение отката не более важно, чем установка Twinkle .
В случае злоупотребления права на откат могут быть отозваны.
Руководствуйтесь здравым смыслом.
Если вам больше не нужен откат, свяжитесь со мной, и я его удалю. Также, для получения дополнительной информации о том, как использовать откат, см. Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (даже если вы не администратор). Я уверен, что вы отлично справитесь с откатом, но не стесняйтесь оставлять мне сообщение на моей странице обсуждения, если у вас возникнут проблемы или у вас возникнут вопросы о надлежащем/ненадлежащем использовании отката. Спасибо за помощь в борьбе с вандализмом. Удачного редактирования! v/r - T P 15:47, 22 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Большое спасибо! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:55, 23 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GOCE может копировать и редактировать диск
Джейми Мойер
Что бы вы приняли в качестве достоверного источника для прозвища "Эрнест"? ← Бейсбольные жуки Как дела, Док? carrots → 22:32, 23 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я полагаю, что это почти любой WP:RS . Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 09:49, 24 апреля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GOCE майский информационный бюллетень середины пути
Хлыст
Joefromrandb, я заметил проблемы, которые у вас возникли на whip , у меня была в основном та же проблема с тем же редактором в нескольких статьях и категориях, я сказал этому редактору, что, похоже, есть некоторая проблема с правами собственности на определенные статьи и т. д., часто правки вносятся или отменяются без обсуждения с этим редактором, но когда я делаю точно такой же тип редактирования, меня обвиняют в том, что я не обсуждаю свои правки сначала, я думаю, вы попытались решить проблему whip справедливым образом. Samuraiantiqueworld ( обсуждение ) 01:28, 24 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Спасибо за замечание. Вы правы относительно проблемы с владением с этим пользователем. Не поймите меня неправильно; Монтанабв хороший редактор, и наши статьи о лошадях стали лучше, если она здесь. Но она также, похоже, считает, что имеет право первого отказа на все правки, связанные с лошадьми. Завершение резюме правок фразой «теперь оставьте это в покое» попахивает проблемами WP:OWN . Кроме того, оговорка «управление не равно праву владения» на ее странице пользователя — хороший намек на то, что у других были похожие проблемы с ее редактированием. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:18, 24 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мне это нравится. Я работаю над собой, чтобы поднять ТЫСЯЧИ статей из пустых мест и ничего, вставляя исходный материал годами и годами (некоторые статьи нуждаются в более новых и лучших источниках, но я впервые работал над многими в 2006 и 2007 годах, когда стандарты цитирования были другими), и все, что я получаю, это личные нападки от людей, у которых нет элементарной вежливости, чтобы перенести эти обсуждения на страницы обсуждения соответствующих статей. Немного разговора и сотрудничества обычно могут решить такие проблемы, как ссора Джо из-за британского и американского написания одного слова. Что касается Самурая, я обсужу ваше поведение в другом месте. Montanabw (обсуждение) 16:42, 29 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Деньги (значения)
Обе записи, которые я восстановил на этой странице, являются допустимыми записями согласно рекомендациям по устранению неоднозначности. Одна из ваших правок фактически нарушает рекомендации.
Money (австралийский журнал) является допустимой записью согласно WP:DABRL : Ссылка на несуществующую статью («красная ссылка») должна быть включена на страницу устранения неоднозначности только в том случае, если статья (а не только страницы устранения неоднозначности) также включает эту красную ссылку. Какие ссылки здесь, показывает много ссылок на страницу (хотя, честно говоря, неясно, сколько из них связаны с Template:Major English-language business magazines).
Аналогично, также согласно WP:DABRL , запись для townland в графстве Арма, Северная Ирландия, должна содержать синюю ссылку на статью, которая поддерживает заявленное использование. Вы изменили ссылку со Списка townland в графстве Арма (где упоминается использование) на ссылку на графство Арма , где вообще не упоминается этот townland. В одном из ваших резюме по редактированию НЕТ ссылок на страницах устранения неоднозначности, но это неверно. WP:PIPING объясняет, что для разделов описания могут использоваться перенаправления или ссылки на канал; следуйте обычным правилам ссылок Wikipedia:Redirect и Wikipedia:Piped. Другими словами, запрет на ссылки на канал применяется к ссылкам на неоднозначный термин, ссылки в описании явно обозначены как исключения. earlier ≠ wiser 15:37, 27 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Joefromrandb, поскольку вы знаете о "проблеме" со статьями о лошадях, можете взглянуть на историю изменений Saddle ? У меня только что 7 правок были отменены как "вандализм", что, по-моему, даже близко не соответствует "вандализму". Я спросил совета у администратора (Пользовательский разговор: Good Olfactory), я не прошу вас высказывать свое мнение, просто чтобы быть в курсе для будущих ссылок, спасибо. Samuraiantiqueworld ( обсуждение ) 22:19, 27 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Массовый возврат добросовестных правок как «вандализма» совершенно неприемлем. Надеюсь, вы доведете это дело до конца. Возможно, RfC в порядке. Как я уже сказал выше, она хороший редактор, но ее последние действия показывают, что ее проблемы с собственностью просто вышли из-под контроля. Я начинаю думать, что временный запрет на статьи о лошадях может быть хорошей идеей. В любом случае, не позволяйте себя помыкать! Она может называть это «контролем качества», «управлением», «зеленым сыром», «Рэнди в Бойсе» — как угодно. Суть в том, что эти статьи в такой же степени ваши, как и ее, мои и всех остальных. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:54, 27 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо, взгляните сюда, вот что происходит каждый раз, когда мне приходится редактировать или отменять совершенно разумные правки, связанные с лошадьми, и это происходит не в первый раз. Посмотрите.
Джо, знайте, что вы можете стать невольным участником ситуации поиска форума. Montanabw (обсуждение) 16:43, 29 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Доказательства: это и особенно это поведение, которое не помогает улучшить Википедию, и я особенно обеспокоен этой атакой на статью, в которой я имею минимальное участие. Montanabw (обсуждение) 16:47, 29 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я рад, что вы написали здесь. День был суматошным, но я определенно хотел бы обсудить это с вами немного позже, когда у меня будет время. Надеюсь, вы готовы сохранять открытость ума, даже если вы не согласны со мной, и я обещаю, что сделаю то же самое. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:53, 29 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Действительно. AGF. Дело сделано. Тем не менее, в результате этого в статью о седле было добавлено несколько хороших вещей, книга Beatie оказалась хорошей находкой, хотя мне пришлось немного поредактировать добавленный материал. Нужно больше, я ненавижу заниматься шаблонами цитирования. Может быть, позже. Montanabw (обсуждение) 23:02, 29 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Похоже, следующие несколько дней будут для меня занятыми. Я не могу ответить с тем количеством подробностей, которое мне хотелось бы сейчас. Но сейчас только одна быстрая мысль: если ничего другого, если бы вы могли просто не называть неприятные вам правки «вандализмом» и прекратить использовать откаты для правок, не связанных с вандализмом, я думаю, это было бы очень полезно. Идеальный пример — статья о реестре пород . Редактор добавил совершенно обоснованную и правдивую правку о сигаре, арази и азери. Откат не оставляет сводки правок, так как это касается только вандализма. Поэтому с вашим редактированием я увидел «откат вандализма». С вашим следующим возвратом вы написали: «похоже, это коммерческая реклама для конкретного заводчика, мы могли бы привести тысячи примеров». Теперь это имеет смысл. И я надеюсь, вы видите разницу. Ваш первый возврат выглядел как владение, а второй — как управление. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:02, 30 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я понимаю вашу точку зрения на то, чтобы оставить резюме правок, и ваш пример хорош. Я ценю ваш AGF. У меня в списке наблюдения 3000 статей, и я, как правило, нажимаю кнопку на вещах, которые напоминают рекламу или случайное удаление цитируемого контента или цитат, каждое из которых произошло здесь. Тем не менее, я действительно не понимаю обвинений в «праве собственности», потому что я получил эту тираду еще до того, как получил кнопку отката. Я действительно верю в «управление» — многие статьи, которые я создал, были значительно улучшены другими, и я рад этому. Большинство людей, которые обвиняют меня в «праве собственности», — это либо люди вроде Самурая, которые в ярости от того, что я осмелился с ними не согласиться, либо это благонамеренные люди, которые втянуты в эти мои ссоры с теми же и просто наносят широкую кисть, не разбираясь в сути проблемы. Полагаю, я раздражаю их тем, что не терплю дураков, но никто не носил лайковых перчаток, когда я начал редактировать WP. Вздох... Montanabw (обс.) 23:31, 30 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за заметку. Как раз когда я думал, что все начинают ладить. C'est la vie. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:33, 31 мая 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GOCE может подвести итоги
Предупреждение 3RR, вы уже превысили лимит в 3 возврата
Ваша недавняя история редактирования показывает, что вы в настоящее время вовлечены в войну правок . Участие в войне правок может привести к тому, что вам будет запрещено редактировать — особенно если вы нарушите правило трех откатов , которое гласит, что редактор не должен выполнять более трех откатов на одной странице в течение 24 часов. Отмена работы другого редактора — полностью или частично, независимо от того, касается ли это одного и того же или другого материала каждый раз — считается откатом. Также имейте в виду, что хотя нарушение правила трех откатов часто приводит к блокировке, вас все равно могут заблокировать за войну правок — даже если вы не нарушаете правило трех откатов — если ваше поведение будет указывать на то, что вы намерены продолжать неоднократно откатывать.
В любом случае, похоже, нет особой причины размещать эту статью в Википедии, статья в Викисловаре практически такая же, а правило Википедии: Википедия не является словарем активно препятствует статьям о прилагательных. Teapeat ( обсуждение ) 23:34, 14 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Я уже советовал вам использовать страницу обсуждения, но вы решили прийти сюда с шутовскими предупреждениями вместо этого. Я сделал несколько предложений на странице обсуждения, но вы отказываетесь их рассмотреть. Одно из моих предложений было более или менее точно таким, как вы предложили . Вместо того, чтобы воевать за редактирование и угрожать мне, пожалуйста, ответьте на странице обсуждения. Мы на самом деле не так уж и далеки друг от друга. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:46, 15 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Да, это было объяснение, а не предложение, и на самом деле, вам следует самостоятельно вернуться, иначе я пожалуюсь на вас, и вы, вероятно, будете заблокированы. Единственная причина, по которой на вас еще не пожаловались и не заблокировали, заключается в том, что вы, по-видимому, не были отмечены ранее (администраторы требуют, чтобы вы были отмечены), но теперь все ставки отменены. Teapeat ( обсуждение ) 03:53, 15 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я сделал 3 возврата, а не 4, и внес множество улучшений в статью, в то время как вы просто продолжали возвращаться, отказываясь обсуждать. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:01, 15 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не согласен, что вы вообще ничего не улучшили, вы только ухудшили ситуацию, добавив словарную статью. Словарные статьи очень плохо работают как статьи энциклопедии; они не смешиваются со статьями энциклопедии, потому что они о совершенно разных вещах. Там нет темы, только три слова и кто их когда сказал. Но у нас уже есть статья в викисловаре, и она по сути та же самая. Teapeat ( обсуждение ) 19:55, 16 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
И вы определенно сделали 4 возврата в течение 24 часов, а именно:
Первое редактирование, которое я сделал, не было откатом. Это граничит с нарушением порядка — приходить сюда и рассуждать о борьбе за правки, когда ты сам сделал 3 отката страницы. Тебе нужно сбросить палку . Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:35, 16 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пожалуйста, оставляйте любые дальнейшие комментарии на странице обсуждения статьи, где и должно быть это обсуждение. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:45, 16 июня 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Напротив, ваше утверждение намеренно противоречит фактам , вы совершенно очевидно превысили лимит, и я упомянул об этом на странице ANI, где вас обсуждают. Teapeat ( обсуждение ) 15:20, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Повторение этого до бесконечности не сделает это более правдивым. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 18:12, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я воспринимаю это как дружеский и искренний совет, и я искренне благодарю вас за вашу заботу. Я не согласен, что "я не могу этого сделать", и я придерживаюсь своего утверждения, что это был "бредовый блок"; другие, похоже, согласны со мной. Это нужно прекратить! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:42, 3 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Что касается блокировки, я уверен, что мои комментарии занесли меня в черный список множества администраторов, которые, несомненно, будут следить за мной сейчас. Большинство моих правок незначительны и довольно бесспорны, так что это не слишком большая проблема. Редко когда я решаюсь высказаться здесь о многом. Мы все знаем, что, несмотря на то, что написано, блокировки подразумеваются не только как наказание, но и как сдерживающий эффект на других пользователей. Ваша точка зрения не ускользнула от меня, и я искренне ценю вашу обеспокоенность. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:52, 3 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Здесь проводится опрос, и ваш вклад будет оценен по достоинству. ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 23:11, 8 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
В ответ на ваш комментарий, я не думаю, что это глупо. Есть некоторые серьезные проблемы между двумя редакторами, которые нужно решить как можно скорее. Это называется разрешением споров, и этот конкретный случай ужасен (как можно увидеть). ~*~ Анкит Бхатт ~*~ 05:25, 10 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
И кстати, я редактирую статьи и даже сейчас у меня есть FAC, так что ваш комментарий в этом смысле кажется довольно бессмысленным. ~*~ Анкит Бхатт ~*~ 05:26, 10 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ябедничество почти всегда бесполезно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:18, 10 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вопрос
Кто больше всего выиграет от действий ips? Перейдите к одной из статей Андреаса и посмотрите, как с вами обойдутся, когда вы попытаетесь отредактировать статью. ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 05:48, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Я действительно сомневаюсь, что пользователь, который здесь уже шесть лет, начнет так ругаться. Но я могу ошибаться. Я хочу сказать, что все это теперь настолько извращено и вышло из процесса, что превратилось в цирк. Но когда я попросил о помощи в теме ANI, мне сказали идти на хер, так что что я знаю? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:53, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Как они узнали после всего лишь 70 правок, на каком континенте идет Радио, если они не Радио или кто-то, кто разбирается в Радио? Это Андреас, я говорю тебе, посмотри на это. Они думают, что Macca — их статья, посмотри на провалившийся FAC от них, ты увидишь тот же идиосинкразический витиеватый язык. ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 05:59, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Не знаю. Пока админы отказываются вмешиваться, это, похоже, не имеет особого значения. Мой совет: назовите случайного пользователя мудаком. Тогда у нас будет фаланга админов, готовых разобраться с этим беспорядком. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:08, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вот это была ужасная дискуссия ANI. Но видите? Я был прав во многом. Например, редакторы вели себя очень по-детски (при поддержке Chedzilla). И еще много чего. Конечно, такие истины сопровождались грузовиками недобросовестных обвинений, нападок и бессмысленных отказов. Иногда Википедия может быть странной. ~*~ Анкит Бхатт ~*~ 15:50, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы были не правы ни в чем. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:39, 12 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я согласен с тем, что Джо, и все это требует лидерства, чтобы разрешить. Теперь *ты* вмешиваешься, и твое поведение также становится отвратительным, ты пытаешься надавить на кнопки других редакторов, отвлекая их на грязную политику. Как я, будучи марионеткой, могу повлиять на споры о контенте? Ты не можешь защитить аргументы о контенте? Затем ты пытаешься завести других редакторов, и это усложняет изначальную проблему, и она никогда не решается. Постарайся придерживаться представленной проблемы и прекратить использовать деструктивное поведение. Это была жалоба на GabeMc, которую я подал. Персонализация ее и создание линчевателей не помогают делу, твоей репутации или GabeMc, когда он это делает. О, я знаю, что GabeMc извинился как минимум за 5-6 поведенческих ошибок, а затем он делает это снова. Он не единственный, кто ведет себя таким образом, в настоящее время, и ты подписался на членство. 99.251.125.65 ( обсуждение ) 16:17, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Иди троллить в другом месте. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 17:28, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вуди Интерпретатус
Хотя вы не участвуете (верно?), мне интересно, присоединитесь ли вы к обсуждению предложения по слиянию для улучшения консенсуса. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 05:10, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я прокомментировал там, как вы знаете. Я думаю, что это предложение о слиянии через 2 месяца после провалившегося идентичного предложения неразумно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 07:35, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Тогда как долго мне ждать другого предложения? Если известность важна, то почему нет офлайн-источников? Что касается сюжета, то это то, что именно и в целом произошло. Может быть, я смогу найти книгу о добрачном сексе и Cheers и мотеле, но я не думаю, что Вуди и Келли широко или значительно обсуждаются. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 08:12, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
По сути, вам не следует начинать второе предложение по слиянию, если только вы не предлагаете новые доказательства, которые не обсуждались в последнем предложении, или у вас нет доказательств того, что консенсус мог измениться. Вы, конечно, не можете вывесить баннер, сообщающий редакторам, что им не разрешено использовать известность (или что-либо еще) в качестве причины для своего !голоса. Вы должны уважать консенсус. Я понимаю, что это может быть нелегко для вас. Поверьте мне, здесь есть некоторые вещи, которые сводят меня с ума. Но я не могу просто так их изменить, и я не могу продолжать повторять одни и те же аргументы, независимо от того, насколько правильными я их считаю. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 08:30, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
К сожалению, некоторые из тех же избирателей являются теми же авторами этой статьи. Поэтому есть и другие соображения, например, уведомление невовлеченных, но медленно по одному за раз. Например, я ждал вашего мнения, и, поскольку вы удалили уведомление, мое предложение не будет принято, если мы продолжим упоминать известность и награды. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 08:36, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Джордж, в любой статье основными участниками обсуждения будут главные редакторы статьи. Я знаю, что вы здесь очень стараетесь; подумайте об этом: вы номинировали статью на слияние. Консенсус был "без слияния", а не "без консенсуса". Теперь, 2 месяца спустя, вы начинаете новое предложение по слиянию, только на этот раз вы говорите людям: "вам не разрешено упоминать известность и награды". Вы понимаете, почему вы не можете этого сделать? Да, предложение, скорее всего, провалится, но вы не можете начать навязывать требования, которые благоприятствуют вашей позиции в обсуждении. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 08:44, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Есть ли правило, запрещающее это? -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 09:43, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я отозвал запрос и затем обсудил это в WP:VPP . -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 09:39, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мне посоветовали создать Cheers (сезон 9) перед другим предложением. Если эта статья о сезоне будет создана, то я смогу использовать ее как новое доказательство для нового предложения. Как это? -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 20:06, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Посмотрим, что получится. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:25, 14 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
«Первичный» миф о творении
Просто для полного раскрытия информации: я евангельский христианин. Я не принимаю теорию JEPD, но я ее понимаю. Я также не согласен с теологами, которые выступают за массовое редактирование Ветхого Завета. Я понимаю всю их научную работу, и это то, что отражает Википедия. Я также считаю, что Левиафан, описанный в Ветхом Завете, не является альтернативным повествованием о сотворении мира, а скорее намеком на распространенное повествование на древнем Ближнем Востоке. Однако это не то, что является научным консенсусом. Все это просто мой способ прояснить свой ответ на статью о повествовании о сотворении мира в Бытии. Рассказ в Бытии настолько распространен в современном христианстве и иудаизме, что другой, обсуждаемый и понимаемый в первую очередь учеными и теологами, не имеет значения. -- Вальтер Герлиц ( обсуждение ) 17:53, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
О какой статье идет речь? -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 20:04, 13 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GOCE июль 2012 г., информационный бюллетень середины пути
Июль 2012 г.
Здравствуйте и добро пожаловать в Википедию. Хотя каждый может внести свой вклад, по крайней мере одно из ваших последних изменений , например, то, которое вы сделали в Университете Юго-Западного Цзяотуна , не было конструктивным и было отменено или удалено. Пожалуйста, используйте песочницу для любых тестовых правок, которые вы хотели бы сделать, и прочитайте страницу приветствия , чтобы узнать больше о конструктивном вкладе в эту энциклопедию. Alcmaeonid ( обсуждение ) 12:01, 19 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Я ответил на вашей странице обсуждения. Пожалуйста, постарайтесь быть более внимательными. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 21:05, 19 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
ваши разрушительные возвраты
Ладно, я понял, ты меня ненавидишь (по непонятным мне причинам, я не помню, чтобы мы с тобой раньше общались - или... общались ? - но неважно) и систематическое откатывание всех моих правок - это твой способ выразить свою ярость . Однако слепая месть - это не то, как работает Википедия, и может иметь противоположный эффект, чем тот, которого ты пытался добиться.
Действительно, вы, похоже, пренебрегли важным параметром в своем крестовом походе: Thessalmonster , Kopru , Jermlaine , Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) , Astral dreadnought , Athach , Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (на всякий случай, все они ссылаются на архивные обсуждения AfD) и, возможно, многие другие уже прошли через AfD и были удалены/перенаправлены по консенсусу около 2008 года, а в 2009 году кто-то, по-видимому, решил пойти своим путем и обойти результат AfD, чтобы тайно восстановить статью без консенсуса и без какой-либо попытки обсуждения. Такое вопиющее неуважение к консенсусу является «в лучшем случае» подрывным, в противном случае — вандализмом. Я просто выполняю решения AfD, перенаправляя эти статьи, мне не нужно никаких обсуждений, чтобы сделать это, поскольку это уже произошло, и я продолжу искать ранее удаленные и теперь несогласно восстановленные статьи. Однако, если вы хотите восстановить статью, которая была удалена по консенсусу AfD, вам придется перейти на страницы обсуждения и достичь консенсуса, прежде чем что-либо делать со статьями.
Мне все равно на ваши мотивы, будь то настоящая ненависть ко мне или просто честная, но ошибочная забота о D&D, но, восстановив эти статьи, вы стали соучастником нарушения/вандализма, и если вы продолжите отменять мои перенаправления, не пытаясь выяснить, оправданы они или нет, то я без проблем заблокирую вас на WP:AN/I , особенно после вашего ооочень вежливого поведения на AfD, жертвами которого, судя по всему, являемся не только я и SudoGhost [5].
Я не думаю, что радость от катарсического проявления вашей ненависти ко мне в течение одного дня стоит потери ваших привилегий редактирования на WP, возможно, навсегда, так что будьте осторожны с вашими следующими действиями здесь. Если вы когда-нибудь снова коснетесь статей, которые я упомянул, вы будете заблокированы.
Кстати, пожалуйста, больше никогда не заходите на мою страницу обсуждения, чтобы выдвинуть свои нелепые и беспочвенные обвинения в войне правок. Вы тот, кто ведет войну правок и нарушает консенсус, установленный несколькими пользователями без обсуждения. Folken de Fanel ( обсуждение ) 11:37, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
1.) Я понятия не имею, почему ты думаешь, что я тебя ненавижу. Ты мне совершенно не интересен.
2.) Я продолжу отменять любые некорректные правки, которые вы внесете в любую статью.
3.) Угрозы мне типа "если ты еще раз прикоснешься к статьям, о которых я упомянул, тебя заблокируют" достаточны, чтобы тебя заблокировали. Береги себя. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 11:47, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
1) Тогда, я думаю, вы можете убрать свои личные нападки на АдГ и извиниться за них.
2) Сначала вам придется доказать, что они нарушают порядок. «Нарушают порядок» не означает «не согласны с Joefromrandb».
3) Нет, это не так. Но восстановление статьи против консенсуса, установленного в AfD, это так. Хорошего дня. Folken de Fanel ( обсуждение ) 11:52, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
1.) Я не допускал личных нападок.
2.) Вы правы, "разрушительный не означает несогласие с Joefromrandb". Но "Folken это не нравится, поэтому этого не должно быть здесь" - это разрушительный.
3.) Да, это так. Хорошего дня! Joefromrandb (обс.) 12:14, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я ответил на комментарий, который вы оставили на странице ANI. Хочу отметить, что вы указали, что прекратили возвращать и пересоздавать эти статьи, что является проявлением доброй воли, которая поможет вам изложить свою позицию в другом месте. — Карл ( CBM · talk ) 12:38, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Но вы забыли меня заблокировать! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:44, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Привет, Джо, спасибо за твою заметку на моей странице обсуждения. Что касается статей из старых AFD, они должны оставаться перенаправлениями, если мы не найдем для них лучших источников. Я знаю навскидку, что thessalmonster был в Tome of Horrors, но я не думаю, что остальные есть в этой книге; в любом случае, одного источника было бы недостаточно, чтобы отменить AFD.
Хотя вы явно расстроены, у вас, похоже, сердце на месте, поэтому я не хотел бы, чтобы вас заблокировали. Что касается общения с Фолкеном де Фанелем, я на самом деле стараюсь его избегать, но он, похоже, продолжает находить мою страницу обсуждения — он, должно быть, мой фанат! :)
Что касается текущего AFD, если вы хотите дать «реальный» ответ, я скажу вам, что у приверженца и брауни есть дополнительные источники помимо ToH, так что вы можете упомянуть об этом. 129.33.19.254 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это пустая трата времени. Их можно было бы упомянуть в The New York Times; такой тролль, как Фолкен, все равно бы выступил за удаление. Лучше просто дать этому остыть в течение нескольких месяцев и вернуться к нему, когда эти тролли перейдут к следующему нарушению. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:19, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Неважно, измените ли вы мнение Folken или любого, кто предпочитает удалять или перенаправлять; я согласен, что это пустая трата времени. Цель состоит в том, чтобы заставить других людей увидеть вашу точку зрения с аргументом, который более убедителен, чем у другого парня. 129.33.19.254 ( talk ) 23:45, 20 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не думаю, что вы должны неправильно использовать термин «тролль» по отношению к Folken de Fanel; «троллинг», например, лучше применить к чему-то вроде «похода к Джимбо Уэйлсу» и добавления детской жалобы на администратора, который имел безрассудство помешать вам продолжать ваше плохое поведение. -- CalendarWatcher ( обсуждение ) 05:03, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
И вы вольны верить во что хотите. Кажется, есть хороший шанс, что BWilkins будет остановлен от продолжения его плохого поведения, так что дальнейшие жалобы с моей стороны будут излишни. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:17, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пожалуйста, прекратите нападать на других редакторов. Если вы продолжите, вам могут запретить редактировать Википедию. Видимо, дружеский толчок CalendarWatcher по поводу этого оскорбления не произвел на вас впечатления. Вы уже достаточно нарушили порядок и нанесли достаточно личных оскорблений; шаблонное предупреждение — это более формальное напоминание о том, что вам следует прекратить нападать на других редакторов. Drmies ( обсуждение ) 15:14, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Как я уже говорил твоему продажному другу BWilkins, если моя блокировка поможет тебе почувствовать себя лучше, то вперед и побалуй себя. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 15:26, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Деннис, я с уважением не согласен. Этот комментарий о "троллях" - просто повод меня приставать; настоящая причина всего этого в том, что я осмелился высказаться о проступках BWilkins. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 15:46, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ты, без сомнения, индивидуалист. Но на каждого такого администратора, как ты, приходится еще 50 рядовых «админов, которые не могут ошибаться». И да, один из них вполне может меня заблокировать, потому что они так делают. Пусть так и будет. Учитывая цену, которую такие люди, как Джон Браун и Малкольм Икс, заплатили за то, чтобы говорить о том, что правильно, мысль о том, что какой-то ребенок заблокирует кому-то редактирование онлайн-энциклопедии, даже не стоит упоминания. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 16:30, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Да, «ты — индивидуалист» было задумано как комплимент высшего сорта. Я не знаю BWilkins лично; он вполне может быть хорошим парнем. Его действия как администратора en-Wiki достойны осуждения. Я тоже не думаю, что администраторы должны терять бит из-за одной честной ошибки — даже нескольких честных ошибок. Как крайне несовершенный человек, я слишком хорошо знаю, что человеку свойственно ошибаться. Проблема в том, что наш административный корпус пользуется какой-то странной формой иммунитета, сродни папской непогрешимости. Посмотрите на административные действия, против которых я выступал: блокировка Malleus Thumperward; блокировка PoD Rschen; блокировка Status Toddst1; отзыв Kafziel страницы обсуждения Kiefer. Моя позиция никогда не была: «он совершил ошибку, давайте его повесим». Проблема, с которой я сталкивался в каждой из этих ситуаций, заключалась в том, что, когда им указывали на их ошибку, каждый администратор предпочитал упираться и настаивать на своей правоте. То же самое и с BWilkins. Конечно, он сказал, что ему было стыдно после публичного порицания Джимми, но он не извинился и даже не признал, что был неправ. Так что, хотя ваше решение было бы лучшим в идеальном мире, оно никогда не сработает в проекте, где подавляющее большинство администраторов чувствуют себя лучше всех нас. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 17:11, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
FYI, если бы вы следили за последующей историей этих блокировок, вы бы знали, что три из них (я не знаком с блокировкой Status) были очень спорными: «папская непогрешимость» просто не применима. Блокировка Thumperward была отменена через 73 минуты, Rschen пришлось чертовски дорого заплатить за свою блокировку, а отмена TPA Kafziel была отменена через полчаса. Вы можете этого не знать, поскольку, очевидно, не знаете меня (я не «ребенок» и не «друг» Bwilkins, хотя я также не его враг), но я не согласен со всеми тремя этими блокировками, и я был не один. Вы рисуете слишком широкой кистью, и хотя я на самом деле не обижаюсь на замечания человека, которого я даже не знаю, я думаю, важно отметить, что ни в одном из этих случаев не было «подавляющего большинства администраторов» (98%?), поддерживающих эти блокировки. Drmies ( обсуждение ) 18:42, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Замечание принято. Однако в каждом случае нарушивший админ уходил совершенно невредимым, свободным сделать то же самое снова. Что касается блока WP:INVOLVED BWilkins'а Volunteer Marek, BW хвастался на своей странице обсуждения, как он делал вовлеченные блоки раньше и сделает это снова. Вот непогрешимость. Возможно, я рисовал слишком широкой кистью; mea culpa. Вероятно, в вашей партии больше хороших яблок, чем я признал. Это не меняет того факта, что проблемы, которые я отметил выше, существуют. Отмена плохого блока, конечно, хорошо, но если ничего не сделано, чтобы помешать нарушителю сделать это снова, то мало что было достигнуто. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:05, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это абсолютно хорошо. Если бы другие администраторы придерживались того же подхода, 98% драмы здесь было бы устранено. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 17:42, 21 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Административная ответственность
Я думал о вашем комментарии на странице Джимбо, который, как мне кажется, подразумевает, что вы считаете, что любой, кого когда-либо блокировал администратор, не является надежным свидетелем общего поведения администратора. Это, кажется, предполагает, что все, что должен сделать администратор, чтобы заставить замолчать своих критиков, это заблокировать их, тем самым сделав их вклад недействительным, или так, по-видимому, предполагает ваша логика ala reductio ad absurdum . Я что-то здесь упускаю? Ура! ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 22:22, 23 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Привет, Гейб. Можешь указать мне на этот комментарий? Я не совсем понимаю, что ты имеешь в виду. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:37, 23 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Привет, Джо, извини, это предназначалось кому-то другому, я случайно разместил это здесь. Спасибо! ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 22:39, 23 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не беспокойтесь! Если у вас есть минутка, чтобы опубликовать diff, пожалуйста, сделайте это, так как я все равно хотел бы проверить. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 23:46, 23 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вот разница, о которой я говорил. ~ GabeMc ( обсуждение | вклад ) 01:00, 24 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Извините, Деннис. Я имел в виду юмор. Я имел в виду блокировку определенного пользователя с птичьим именем после защиты определенной статьи на лунную тематику. Bbb23, все еще будучи начинающим администратором, вероятно, не понимал, что вполне приемлемо заблокировать страницу, а затем заблокировать кого-то через час. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:27, 28 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я полностью понимаю. Юмор гораздо сложнее передать через сеть. Я помню, некоторое время назад, на RFPP администратор ответил на запрос "защищено на две недели". Я сказал ему, что это слишком жестко, и предложил уменьшить защиту до двух недель. Это не прошло так, как я надеялся. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:36, 28 июля 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за замечание. Я сейчас очень занят в реальной жизни, но я намерен сделать все возможное, чтобы разобраться с этим. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 15:59, 4 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Джо, просто хотел коснуться темы. Насколько мне известно, единственное взаимодействие, которое у нас когда-либо было, было связано со статьями D&D на ANI. Это было довольно безобидное взаимодействие, так что я не уверен, как я вообще вызвал ваш гнев. Джимбо рекомендовал мне добровольно запросить временное удаление администраторского бита - для его восстановления не потребуется RFA. Так что, редактируя только с помощью своей неадминистративной учетной записи, как я каким-то образом нарушаю это - или, действительно, позирую в какой-то "шараде"? Несколько человек получили то, что спросили: я не администрирую. Не могли бы вы объяснить мне проблему, которая а) изначально между нами и б) с тем, как мои действия не отвечают запросу на добровольное действие от Джимбо - снова вспоминая, что это было добровольно. dangerous panda 00:49, 5 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Даже до нашей встречи с ANI я никогда не особо заботился о том, как вы относитесь к людям. Уже было отмечено множество примеров ваших оскорбительных замечаний; нет смысла приводить еще. Отмечу, что 20 июля, касательно вашего WP:INVOLVED -нарушающего блокировку волонтера Марека, вы заявили: «Есть причина, по которой на моей странице пользователя написано, что я администратор, готовый делать сложные блокировки, хотя я делаю их так мало ». Затем, 2 августа, вы сказали: «На моей странице пользователя написано, что я администратор, готовый делать сложные блокировки, и я делаю их много ». (Выделено мной) Как говорил мой дедушка, когда вы лжете, вам нужна хорошая память. Что касается темы ANI, я даже не знаю, с чего начать. Во-первых, вы должны были сообщить жалобщику, что это не проблема ANI. Во-вторых, ваша полная защита статей была абсурдной игрой мускулов. Я заявил, что понял, что нахожусь на 3 возвратах и не буду возвращаться дальше. Если бы я заявил о своих намерениях продолжать возвращаться, то да, защита была бы в порядке. Согласившись прекратить возвращаться, я бы подумал, что такой фанатик AGF, как вы, поверил бы мне на слово. Отсюда и мое замечание «администратор-фаллус». На что вы ответили, что, используя свой «администратор-фаллус», вы решили проблему. Чушь. Если и была проблема, то она была решена в тот момент, когда я сказал, что больше не буду возвращаться. Поэтому мне было все равно, что вы расхаживали вокруг, утверждая, что решили проблему, которой не было. Но я действительно разозлился, когда вы сказали, что «блок гарантирован, если Джо продолжит идти по этому пути». Извините? Какой путь? Я сделал возвраты добросовестно, признал, что нахожусь на 3 возвратах, и согласился прекратить возвраты, не дожидаясь вопроса. Что в этом может быть заблокировано? Позвольте мне угадать; вам не обязательно нарушать 3RR, чтобы вас заблокировали за войну правок. Это могло бы иметь смысл, если бы вы предупредили нас обоих. Если бы вы сказали: «Хотя никто из вас не нарушал 3RR, каждый из вас сделал по 3 возврата, и вы оба рискуете быть заблокированными, если продолжите», у меня бы не было проблем. Итак, подытоживая мою личную проблему с вами, вы предположили недобросовестность и защитили статьи, которые я уже согласился не возвращать, и вы угрожали мне блокировкой, не выдвигая такой угрозы моему коллеге, который вел себя идентично.
Что касается вашего второго вопроса, то ничего. Я просто отметил, что временное редактирование из учетной записи без прав администратора с сохранением прав администратора бессмысленно, и, следовательно, является шарадой. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:39, 5 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ах, так по сути ты злишься на меня, потому что ты несколько раз неправильно понял - и добавил немного своего собственного смысла в вещи. Понял. Я ценю твою откровенность. Что касается твоей второй части: я думаю, что это твое ошибочное убеждение, что мне нужно было бы повторно подать RFA, которое тебя раздражает. Сожалею о твоем непонимании и о продолжающемся горе, которое оно вызывает. dangerous panda 13:21, 5 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Легко делать обобщения. Пожалуйста, скажите мне, что я неправильно понял.
Да, я раздражен, но нет, у меня никогда не было ошибочного убеждения, что вам нужно будет повторно RfA. Это было бы правильным решением, поэтому у меня никогда не было проблеска надежды, что это действительно произойдет. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:42, 5 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я спрошу еще раз, что я неправильно понял и где я добавил свой собственный смысл? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:05, 6 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
КБлотт и др.
Привет, Джо. Не мог бы ты рассказать мне, что ты знаешь о User:KBlott в сравнении с этим парнем и его ящиком, полным носков? Ты упомянул его в связи со всей этой неразберихой после моего ошибочного SPI в прошлом месяце, но, боюсь, я так и не проследил связь с KBlott.
Конечно, мне сказали, что на самом деле мало что можно сделать, учитывая, что этот парень, по-видимому, может менять IP-адреса с лучшими из них, но я хотел бы получить надежное установление его ранее зарегистрированной личности, если это возможно. Я не знаю, был ли предыдущий SPI, который установил связь, но я бы сам открыл его, если будет достаточно доказательств. Evanh2008 ( talk | contribs ) 06:13, 17 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
К сожалению, я не знаю слишком многого. Вы можете попробовать спросить User:BullRangifer , так как xe был тем, кто первым установил связь. Важно то, что теперь он заблокирован. Он может продолжать менять IP-адреса, сколько захочет; его просто будут блокировать. Долгосрочные тролли — это заноза в заднице, но это цена ведения бизнеса на открытой вики. Раньше проблема была в том, что администраторы относились к нему как к добросовестному пользователю. Теперь, когда они его раскусили, он не более чем обычный вредитель. Извините, у меня нет больше информации, но, пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, если я могу чем-то помочь. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:45, 17 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
На самом деле, его уже разблокировали. Было решено, что оригинальный indef был излишним, но шаблон так и не был заменен. Спасибо за совет. Я проконсультируюсь с BullRangifer. Evanh2008 ( обсуждение | вклад ) 08:49, 17 августа 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Новости GOCE и приглашение на сентябрьский заезд
Мероприятия GOCE в сентябре
Ширли Марквардт
На самом деле, она, вероятно, так же примечательна или более примечательна, чем Фрэнк Келти, также мэр Уналашки, чья статья читается как нечто среднее между резюме и тщеславным произведением. Она президент Муниципальной лиги Аляски. В реальном мире за это и за 1,49 доллара вы получите большую чашку кофе в магазине. Шутки в сторону, она, вероятно, не примечательна в том смысле, что ее хорошо знают за пределами Аляски, по крайней мере, за пределами политических кругов. Я очень мало смотрел Deadliest Catch . Может быть, из-за этого шоу кто-то считает ее примечательной? RadioKAOS ( обсуждение ) 22:20, 13 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Если она постоянный гость Deadliest Catch, у нее может быть некоторая степень известности. Я определенно не хочу видеть статью, созданную для нее, если она будет похожа на статью Фрэнка Келти. Красные ссылки должны поощрять создание статей, а я не хочу поощрять что -либо подобное. Если она достаточно примечательна для статьи, я бы предпочел, чтобы кто-то начал ее с нуля, но если вы считаете, что красная ссылка должна вернуться назад, это не кажется таким уж большим делом. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 22:30, 13 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
На самом деле, я недавно добавил список членов Конференции мэров Аляски в инфобоксы соответствующих статей о городе, удалив несколько ссылок с имен, уже введенных в процессе. Я думаю, что единственный, кого я оставил ссылками, был Питер Мичиче, мэр Солдотны , который победил действующего сенатора штата за повторное выдвижение на первичных выборах две недели назад. Он, скорее всего, выиграет место, что как сенатор штата сделало бы его заметным и, вероятно, привело бы к тому, что кто-то вскоре напишет статью. RadioKAOS ( talk ) 22:57, 13 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Согласно WP:TPO , изменение комментариев на страницах обсуждения других пользователей должно осуществляться только в определенных ситуациях. Спасибо! VQuakr ( обсуждение ) 07:17, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Эта правка побудила меня написать пост. Другой редактор указал на ANI, что это, вероятно, произошло из-за конфликта правок, а не преднамеренного удаления поста другого редактора. VQuakr ( обсуждение ) 16:04, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Правильно, и ANI — это последнее средство . Сначала всегда обсуждаются такие незначительные вещи с другим редактором . Я не вижу других обсуждений этого глюка. Только ANI публикует опасный пост panda 16:59, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это особенно странно, потому что я не получил конфликта редактирования, когда я это сделал, но, глядя на это, я определенно удалил текст, так что я предполагаю, что это, должно быть, то, что произошло. Это определенно не было намеренным. Я не понимаю, почему он не мог просто спросить меня об этом. Я здесь уже 2 года, и не то чтобы у меня была привычка удалять чужие посты. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 17:16, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Еще лучший вопрос: какова связь между User:Jasonasosa и User:VQuakr ... почему кто-то продолжает чужое обсуждение/объяснение? dangerous panda 17:41, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мы спим вместе. Боже. В любом случае, я извиняюсь за чрезмерную реакцию. Я действительно думал, что это было сделано намеренно с комментарием Proofread . Я отменил WP:AGF , и теперь вопрос закрыт. Спасибо, — Jasonasosa 18:00, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Нет, сэр, не закрыто ни на йоту. Если бы вы честно AGF'd, то вы бы пришли сюда до ANI - ANI это последнее средство . Если вы хотите объяснить, почему вы подали на него в суд, прежде чем вы даже спросили его об этом, это может быть полезно dangerous panda 18:19, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обсуждение закрыто Niceguyedc ( talk · contribs ) - "Resolved. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:24, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC)". Если вы не хотите принимать мои извинения, как я указал выше, то можете перейти в ANI. Спасибо, — Jasonasosa 20:11, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
На самом деле, нет. Это означает, что начатая вами тема ANi закрыта — и все. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:18, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
...и обсуждение, которое я пытался вежливо вести с вами на вашей странице обсуждения, было просто удалено с ложным утверждением "архивировано", хотя, похоже, оно нигде не архивировалось. Вы наконец-то здесь ведете обсуждение, которое должны были вести... вы не можете начать обсуждение, указав, что вы извинились в другом месте. Joefromrandb заслуживает большего, и я думаю, что проект должен знать, что вы знаете, как вы должны решать проблемы между редакторами. Так что начните с нуля dangerous panda 20:22, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Очевидно, вы не умеете читать, потому что я извинился за 5 высказываний выше на этой странице, а не "где-либо еще". Если вы не можете принять мои извинения, отнесите их в ANI. Если вы хотите большего и просто хотите съесть WP:HORSEMEAT , отнесите их в ANI. Больше нечего сказать, кроме ваших жалоб. Публикация, которую я архивировал, находится на User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive . Этот архив открыт для публики и доступен с моей главной страницы. Я не обязан отвечать на моей странице обсуждения на ваши попытки "вежливо" допросить меня. Если у вас возникнут какие-либо дополнительные вопросы, пожалуйста, обращайтесь в ANI, потому что это моя последняя публикация на этой странице обсуждения, так как: "Страница "User talk:Joefromrandb" была удалена из вашего списка наблюдения". Поэтому о любых дальнейших комментариях на этой странице обсуждения я не буду уведомлен. Спасибо, — Jasonasosa 21:02, 14 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Видимо, мне придется задать самые простые вопросы напрямую редактору на их странице обсуждения — гораздо проще сказать «это была ошибка, и я извлек из нее урок», чем не отвечать dangerous panda 08:47, 15 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я получил каменную стену из "Я этого не слышал", пытаясь объяснить проблему RS/N; это похоже на то же самое. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 09:09, 15 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это стало еще более странным. Все, что я когда-либо пытался сказать, было "в следующий раз сначала решай простые проблемы между редакторами, ладно", но взгляни на страницу обсуждения Jasonasosa, мою страницу обсуждения, а теперь посмотри ANI! *вздох* dangerous panda 09:54, 16 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы можете привести лошадь к воде... Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 16:10, 16 сентября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Информационный бюллетень GOCE для промежуточных поездок
Подумайте дважды.
Я предлагаю вам пересмотреть свое заключение, поскольку вы услышали аргументы, которые я не имел возможности опровергнуть. Смотрите мою страницу обсуждения для получения дополнительной информации. Я StillStanding (24/7) ( обсуждение ) 03:47, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не хотел сказать, что вы заслужили то, что получили. Лично я бы поступил иначе, чем TP. По сути, я хотел сказать, что при дальнейшем рассмотрении ситуации, хотя я все еще не согласен с тем, что он сделал, это определенно не было административным проступком, и с моей стороны было крайне безответственно обвинять его в этом. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:04, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я вынужден с этим не согласиться. Он отбросил всякую видимость нейтралитета, защищая консерватизм WikiProject. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk ) 04:16, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не следую этой логике. Не обсуждая свои собственные политические взгляды, я бы без проблем защищал WikiProject: Conservatism, WikiProject: Liberalism или даже WikiProject: Socialism. WikiProjects существуют для улучшения статей, а не для продвижения повестки дня. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:27, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ах. Если вы поговорите, посмотрите на Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism , вы увидите, что этот проект на грани краха, потому что он существует для продвижения консервативной повестки дня, а не для улучшения статей. Посмотрите сами. Я StillStanding (24/7) ( talk ) 04:40, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я этого не вижу. Возможно, вам стоит подумать о совете, который дал вам мой друг Деннис. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:55, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Извините, но вы хотите сказать, что не видите подобного поведения со стороны WikiProject или вы хотите сказать, что не можете найти обсуждение на их странице обсуждения? Я StillStanding (24/7) ( обсуждение ) 04:59, 3 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Обсуждение слияния уже началось. Присоединяйтесь, чтобы улучшить консенсус. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 03:49, 7 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пинг! Ваш ответ получен. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 18:22, 7 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо, Джордж. Думаю, нам придется согласиться не соглашаться здесь. Спасибо за ваше замечание. С некоторым отборочным стилем агитации, который здесь имеет место, всегда приятно видеть, как кто-то пытается включить в обсуждение широкий спектр редакторов с разными взглядами. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 20:23, 7 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ваш комментарий
Привет. Ваш комментарий здесь [6] бесполезен, и я вернул его. Всем в этой теме нужно успокоиться и вести рациональное обсуждение, а постоянное принижение характера ваших оппонентов создает впечатление, что вы пытаетесь спровоцировать их на вспышку гнева. Пожалуйста, не делайте этого больше. The Garbage Skow ( обсуждение ) 12:53, 17 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я понимаю это так: «ваш комментарий был точным». И «пытаетесь спровоцировать моего оппонента на вспышку гнева»? Вы серьезно? «Мой оппонент» только что спровоцировал одного из лучших редакторов Википедии на бан сайта. Вам нужно взять себя в руки. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:06, 17 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
И я снова откатился. Как сторонник, вы имеете наглость удалять оппозиционный комментарий со страницы. Если нейтральный редактор считает, что его следует удалить, пусть так и будет. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:18, 17 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Теперь я вижу, кто ты. Ты ранее неопределенно-заблокированный вандал с топором против Мерридью. Должен был знать. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 13:54, 17 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это очень любезно с вашей стороны; большое спасибо! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:50, 25 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обратная связь
Привет, Joefromrandb. У вас есть новые сообщения на странице обсуждения Kudpung . Сообщение добавлено 08:48, 28 октября 2012 (UTC). Вы можете удалить это уведомление в любое время, удалив шаблон {{Talkback}} или {{Tb}}.[ отвечать ]
Вам что-то непонятно?
Что касается Билла Ная, я объяснил, что политика избыточных ссылок не применяется, и попросил вас предоставить какие-то аргументы в вашу пользу. Но вы продолжаете возвращаться, говоря только «избыточные ссылки» или «пожалуйста, прекратите». Видите, как может показаться, что вы просто упрямы? Пожалуйста, предложите причину. InedibleHulk ( обсуждение ) 23:56, 30 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы ничего не объяснили. Однако вам объяснили — в частности, User:Tony1 , который знает WP:MOS так же хорошо, как и любой редактор на нашем сайте, — почему малоценные ссылки, которые вы продолжаете добавлять, не приносят пользы статье. Ваша последняя страсть, «Вашингтон, округ Колумбия», — это чрезвычайно известное географическое положение. Единственной причиной для ссылки на него было бы то, что важные аспекты жизни Ная были бы напрямую связаны с округом. Тот простой факт, что он там родился, не делает эту ссылку релевантной. Так же, как его рождение в Соединенных Штатах не делает эту ссылку релевантной, его американское происхождение не делает ее релевантной, и его отец, сражавшийся во Второй мировой войне, не делает ее релевантной. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 00:10, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Он не просто родился там, он вырос там двадцать лет и был жителем в четвертом поколении. Если это не имеет особого значения, то что имеет? Серьезно. Сиэтл? Боинг? Эллен Дедженерес? Вашингтон хорошо известен, поскольку люди обычно знают, что это столица США. Что еще, кроме этого? Вы, возможно, правы насчет Второй мировой войны, поскольку это косвенная связь, но overlink ничего не говорит о крупных войнах.
«Объяснение» Тони состояло в том, что исключение «особой релевантности» не применяется к крупным городам. Если он знает MoS, он знает, что это неправда. Оно применяется конкретно к «крупным географическим локациям».
Теперь, пожалуйста, прекратите мешать работе Википедии, если у вас нет на то более веской причины. InedibleHulk ( обсуждение ) 00:57, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пожалуйста, перенесите свой троллинг в другое место. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:00, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Если вы собираетесь быть настолько бесполезным в обсуждении, пропустите также часть о возврате. InedibleHulk ( обсуждение ) 01:32, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Немного трудно читать, не так ли? Я начинаю понимать, почему у вас столько проблем. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 01:41, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я отличный читатель, и не троллю. Что, по-вашему, я пропустил? И будьте вежливы. Я не пытаюсь бороться, просто поймите, почему вы удаляете ссылку (которую я, кстати, не добавляю, а просто восстанавливаю). InedibleHulk ( обсуждение ) 02:08, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Возврат 88.104.5.244
Пожалуйста, не возвращайте 88.104.5.244, даже чтобы снова закрыть обсуждение. Хотя я рад видеть, что вы хотите закрыть его, я не хочу, чтобы между вами и 88.104.5.244 ситуация обострилась, так как сейчас все довольно плохо. Спасибо! S ven M anguard Что? 02:14, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вместо WP:TTR я просто сообщаю вам, что вы находитесь на 3-м откате, и я уже предупредил IP о том, что он слишком далеко зашел. Пожалуйста, пусть кто-нибудь другой займется этим сейчас. Спасибо, Legoktm ( talk ) 02:25, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ваша недавняя история редактирования на Bill Nye показывает, что вы в настоящее время вовлечены в войну правок . Участие в войне правок может привести к тому, что вам будет запрещено редактировать — особенно если вы нарушите правило трех откатов , которое гласит, что редактор не должен выполнять более трех откатов на одной странице в течение 24 часов. Отмена работы другого редактора — полностью или частично, независимо от того, касается ли это одного и того же или другого материала каждый раз — считается откатом. Также имейте в виду, что хотя нарушение правила трех откатов часто приводит к блокировке, вас все равно могут заблокировать за войну правок — даже если вы не нарушаете правило трех откатов — если ваше поведение будет указывать на то, что вы намерены продолжать неоднократно откатывать.
Если, конечно, вы прекратите возвращаться. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:30, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ваша недавняя история редактирования показывает, что вы в настоящее время вовлечены в войну правок . Участие в войне правок может привести к тому, что вам будет запрещено редактировать — особенно если вы нарушите правило трех откатов , которое гласит, что редактор не должен выполнять более трех откатов на одной странице в течение 24 часов. Отмена работы другого редактора — полностью или частично, независимо от того, касается ли это одного и того же или другого материала каждый раз — считается откатом. Также имейте в виду, что хотя нарушение правила трех откатов часто приводит к блокировке, вас все равно могут заблокировать за войну правок — даже если вы не нарушаете правило трех откатов — если ваше поведение будет указывать на то, что вы намерены продолжать неоднократно откатывать.
ROFL!!! Вот ЭТО сделало мой день. Сейчас у вас 15 откатов - ПЯТНАДЦАТЬ! - включая 8 раз, когда вы уже испортили страницу, удалив комментарии. Вы бесценны. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:43, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Википедия:Деревенский насос (разное)
Пожалуйста, прекратите возвращаться, позвольте кому-нибудь другому вмешаться. Вы слишком вовлечены в это прямо сейчас. GB fan 03:44, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Кто-то другой наконец-то вмешался. Речь шла не только об откате; IP-адрес портил страницу, удаляя комментарии. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:46, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я понял, о чем речь, и тоже вмешался. Иногда, когда ты так вовлечен, как ты, лучшее, что можно сделать, это отступить и попросить о помощи, вместо того, чтобы продолжать. Ты не помогаешь разрядить ситуацию. GB fan 03:51, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я понимаю, что вы говорите; надеюсь, вы понимаете и мое разочарование. IP-адрес возвращался пятнадцать раз, прежде чем кто-то наконец вмешался. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:01, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я понимаю, что вы были расстроены, но куда вы сообщили об этом, чтобы администратор мог вмешаться и попытаться остановить это? Я не вижу ничего в ваших сообщениях, что указывало бы на то, что вы это сделали. Может быть, я что-то пропустил. GB fan 04:08, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GB, я принимаю это и надеюсь на справедливое решение; пожалуйста, дайте мне знать мой лучший курс. Спасибо. 88.104.5.244 ( talk ) 03:47, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это зона, свободная от троллей. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:50, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Чувствуешь себя лучше, большой парень? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:13, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Всем, кто смотрит, в дополнение к нарушению политики блокировки (я удалял явный вандализм), TParis также нарушил WP:INVOLVED , поскольку он был вовлечен в обсуждение. Ничего удивительного, конечно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:21, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это довольно натянуто, чтобы называть это вандализмом. На самом деле, добросовестные правки не являются вандализмом. Вы были в споре и использовали откат, чтобы выиграть его. И извините, если "Спасибо за размещение этой информации" представляет собой обсуждение, в котором я участвовал . Оба варианта натянуты. Мне стало лучше? Я склонен спросить вас о том же. О чем вы думали? Если бы вам пришлось объяснить в сводке правок, что это "явный вандализм", то это, очевидно, не так. --v/r - T P 04:28, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я пропустил это. "Спасибо за размещение этой информации"? Ты чертовски хорошо знаешь, что это не все, что ты сказал. (Что-то о том, что я позорю обсуждение, может быть?) И хотя твоя правка прямо там, чтобы ее видел весь мир, ты без проблем лжешь об этом здесь. Тебе не стыдно? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 09:07, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Меня тошнит от мысли, что я когда-либо защищал тебя. StillStanding был прав. Ты — гребаный позор самого низкого порядка. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:33, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не тот, кто воюет с IP. И я не тот, кто шучу об убийстве других. Я действительно не понимаю, как я могу быть плохим парнем. Мне кажется, что это больше похоже на кого-то, кто набрасывается на плохое поведение и получает за это выговор. В любом случае, я не держу на тебя зла. Не стесняйся расстраиваться. Увидимся, когда истечет срок твоей блокировки. --v/r - T P 04:36, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ты можешь рассчитывать на этого ублюдка. Может, и не раньше, чем через ооочень долгое время, но ты меня увидишь . (И чтобы ты сейчас не пошел в ANi и не сказал им, что я угрожал убить тебя, "Ты можешь рассчитывать на этого ублюдка" означает, что я не успокоюсь, пока тебя не лишат сисопеда. Это не угроза насилия.) Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:38, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я поддерживаю эту блокировку, и это был бы мой следующий шаг после того, как я отменил право отката. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:12, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Конечно, вы это одобряете. Вы сами могли бы быть заблокированы, если бы вы этого не сделали. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:26, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ок, мне интересно. Почему ты так говоришь? Я этого не вижу. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:30, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Почему я говорю? Ой, не будьте такими глупыми. Вы, дети, не должны не соглашаться друг с другом, и не иметь поддержки со стороны коллег-администраторов, когда они делают блокировку, нарушающую политику, запрещено . Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:45, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Откат иВП:ВПМ
Я отменил ваш откат за вопиющее злоупотребление в войне правок на WP:VPM. Вы здесь уже довольно давно; вы должны были бы знать лучше, чем это. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:09, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Иди на хер. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:12, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хм... Я об этом не думал... может быть, я так и сделаю. Спасибо за предложение. =) Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:13, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Да, потому что теперь мне придется дважды щелкнуть , чтобы отменить вандализм, а не один раз . Что я буду делать? Только админ-префект Википедии может подумать, что откат — это что-то серьезное для кого-то. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:17, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мне все равно, если бы для отмены вандализма нужно было нажать всего один раз. Главное, чтобы теперь нельзя было отменить правки, которые не являются вандализмом, щелкнув один раз. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:20, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ну, поскольку я никогда этого не делал, я определенно не буду скучать по возможности сделать это. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:22, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Правка, которую вы отменили здесь (и здесь), была настолько далека от вандализма, что я даже не понимаю, как ее можно было бы выдать за таковую, чтобы оправдать использование отката. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:28, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Тогда ты невероятно тупой и полностью годен для того, чтобы владеть админ-фаллосом. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:31, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
=D О, спасибо! Какая честь! Я буду владеть админ-фаллосом с величайшей гордостью. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:45, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
У меня нет сомнений. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:46, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хорошо, я должен спросить... требуется ли гульфик ? Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 04:55, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Нет. Твое дерьмовое отношение — это уже достаточно. И спасибо за ссылку на «гульфик», как будто я понятия не имею, что это такое. Вы, админы, такие чертовски высокомерные. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:58, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я должен отметить, что этому маленькому ублюдку девятнадцать лет. Когда Маллеус говорит о "детях, которые управляют этим сайтом", это не просто образно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:02, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хаха, ненадолго... Мне исполнится 20 через три дня. Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 05:07, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думаю, что ваша клика работает примерно как Menudo. Возможно, вам придется сдать бит, если вы станете старше. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:10, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
И я рад, что тебе нравится дразнить пользователей, которых ты только что заблокировал (или пытался заблокировать — я знаю, что один из твоих маленьких друзей тебя опередил). Это СДВГ? Забыл принять свой Декседрин? Думаю, в твоем поколении это, вероятно, Аддералл. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:13, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ: Когда Ks0stm подвергся порицанию на своей странице обсуждения за его поведение здесь, его ответ был: «Я не поддаюсь оскорблениям». Что-то вроде того, чего можно ожидать от ребенка.
@Jasper Deng: Не лезь в чужие дела. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:29, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Если кто-то хочет настоящих лулзов, один из наших любимых арбов наградил Ks0stm звездой за эту насмешку. Вы просто не можете это выдумать! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:35, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
adminhelp
Кто-нибудь хочет объяснить, почему это нормально, что заблокированный IP (вы знаете, тот, который на самом деле должен быть заблокирован) использует свою страницу обсуждения для редактирования через прокси? Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 06:52, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Шаблон удален. Было глупо с моей стороны беспокоиться о том, что делает IP. Сосредоточьте свои поиски справедливости там, где это необходимо. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 07:08, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо, Тони. Как видите, на фоне оскорблений администратора, с которыми я сталкиваюсь от TParis и Ks0tsm, плохое поведение Jauerback меркнет в сравнении. Меня заблокировали за удаление вандализма, так что угроза Jauerback меня совсем не удивляет. TParis постановил, что я буду наказан на два дня. Для этих детей гораздо важнее, чтобы я понял, кто здесь главный; улучшение статей — это всего лишь второстепенная мысль. Желаю вам удачи со статьей. Сейчас меня больше волнует, как привлечь этих двух клоунов к ответственности. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 08:59, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пожалуйста, просветите меня, где я продемонстрировал плохое поведение? А также, где я высказывал какие-либо угрозы? Jauerback чувак? / чувак. 10:57, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не беспокойтесь, не беспокойтесь об ответе. Я только что прочитал обсуждения выше по поводу вашего блока. Отличная работа. Jauerback чувак? / чувак. 11:01, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Иди тролль в другом месте, детка. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:43, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вежливость
Комментарии, подобные этому, совершенно неприемлемы; я бы заблокировал вас за личные нападки , но TParis опередил вас. В будущем, пожалуйста, воздержитесь от подобных деструктивных действий. Salvio Давайте поговорим об этом! 15:32, 31 октября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Вы явно сошли с ума. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:26, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Обсуждение пользователя:Balph Eubank
Кто-нибудь должен действительно взглянуть на это. Он опубликовал совершенно разумный, логичный запрос на разблокировку (на самом деле их было 2) и получил отказ. Доказательство того, что его блокировка, как и эта, является карательной. Лично я никогда не стал бы падать ниц перед администратором, чтобы попросить разблокировку, особенно за нарушение, которого я не совершал, но его запросы на разблокировку имеют смысл, и уважаемый администратор (у нас тут должно быть 1 или 2) должен отменить ее. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:07, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Добавлю, что часть о том, что я "подстрекаю его", - это, очевидно, чушь; однако суть того, что он сказал - что я заблокирован, и поэтому между нами не может быть никаких дискуссий - вполне разумна. Два администратора постановили, что это не имеет значения, он должен отбыть срок своего наказания, доказав, что его блокировка, как и все остальные здесь, является строго карательной. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:14, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо за замечание. Я также думаю начать: "Категория:Википедисты, заблокированные за удаление вандализма". Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 11:42, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Поскольку журналы блоков невозможно удалить или даже аннотировать...
Я заявляю для протокола, что я был заблокирован вовлеченным администратором за мнимое нарушение. Из WP:3RRNO : удаление очевидного вандализма, такого как очистка страницы (выделено мной). IP, который я возвращал, неоднократно очистил 5467 байт моего текста. Это было открытое и закрытое исключение 3RR. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 12:08, 1 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Бегу к ANi, потому что не поклонился тебе и не попросил прощения? Я думал, что такие вещи решаются в IRC-admin. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 11:44, 2 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Соскальзывать
Извините. Изменено. Иногда ужасная координация глаз и рук. --- Sluzzelin talk 02:01, 6 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не беспокойтесь. Конечно, Ks0stm теперь может удалить ваш откат... Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 02:05, 6 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Глобализация тега назахват зерна
Хороший момент. Как я и сказал парню, который это разместил, я не был удивлен. Но это не из-за отсутствия поиска... вряд ли есть какой-либо неамериканский материал по этому поводу. Дэниел Кейс ( обсуждение ) 16:56, 9 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо. Я также оставил короткую заметку на странице обсуждения Jarble. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:38, 10 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Re this: Разве вы не должны были сказать "помочь читателям лучше понять "? ( обзор ). Дэниел Кейс ( обсуждение ) 18:00, 12 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
LOL. Кстати, если вы хотите снова удалить ссылку, для меня это не проблема. Просто, как ярый противник избыточного связывания, я посчитал, что это иллюстрирует один из редких случаев, когда связывание повседневного термина действительно полезно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:09, 12 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не волнуйтесь, я понимаю вашу точку зрения. Дэниел Кейс ( обсуждение ) 03:09, 13 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ваши комментарии по AN
Некоторые административные обсуждения автоматически архивируются через 24 часа после последнего комментария без официального закрытия, и все просто двигаются вперед. Это происходит, когда никто из администраторов не хочет быть вовлеченным или не уверен в лучшем курсе действий. Я думаю, что это должно было произойти здесь. Но теперь, благодаря вашему открытию и особенно этой правке другого участника, этого не произойдет, и редактор, о котором идет речь, возможно, будет забанен. Это не означает, что вы сделали что-то неправильно; я понимаю ваши чувства. Мои самые наилучшие пожелания ( talk ) 18:22, 12 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Не обманывайте себя, думая, что есть хоть какой-то шанс, что это произойдет. В любом случае, определенно нет консенсуса по поводу бана этого пользователя; на самом деле, если кто-то должен быть забанен, это должен быть пользователь, который поддержал бан, а затем закрыл обсуждение. Если бы это сделал администратор, сейчас бы шел разговор desysop. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 19:02, 12 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пользователь, который закрыл обсуждение, на самом деле был тем, кто перенес это обсуждение в AN с самого начала... Я лично не думаю, что его закрытие было таким уж неуместным, потому что обсуждение почти закончилось. Я видел несколько тем без оснований, которые были автоматически архивированы и забыты. Но это было в основном по AE и ANI; я не смотрел AN много. Это правда, что один администратор, который комментировал в этой теме, ранее блокировал Niemti более одного раза, но он не собирается банить его прямо сейчас. Также правда, что вовлечено много людей (один сказал: «у нас был спор о роботах»). Моя личная проблема с блокировкой Niemti заключается в том, что я много общался и сотрудничал с ним несколько лет назад (и немного позже) в очень напряженной тематической области политики/истории и нашел его намного лучше (нейтральным, способным улучшать контент и конструктивно спорить), чем некоторые другие участники в той же тематической области. Мои наилучшие пожелания ( обсуждение ) 19:44, 12 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
форель в инре
Просыпаюсь и получаю шлепок от большой, красивой форели. Но я люблю форель. :)
Хотя я должен уточнить, я пометил его как A1, так как тогда не совсем понимал концепцию «контекста», я думал, что все однострочники подходят для A1, потому что они слишком короткие; я понял, что моя концепция была неправильной, и теперь я лучше понимаю A1. Что касается глупого шаблона «первой статьи», это действительно не моя вина; это была вина Twinkles. :D
Конечно, вините во всем Твинкл. На самом деле, именно поэтому я выбрал форель, а не сушеную вяленую рыбу Биша! :-) Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:24, 13 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уууу! Я бы не хотел ЭТОГО! Хаха, как насчет того, чтобы шлепнуть меня тихоокеанским голубым тунцом (лучше, чем форель, как мне кажется. У них должен быть шаблон для этого) ?? Я бы это себе представил. :) Bonkers The Clown ( Nonsensical Babble) 06:20, 13 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
GOCE ноябрь 2012 копировать редактирование привод обновление
рефдеск
Я отменил вашу правку, критикующую ссылку OP. Вы не отвечали на вопрос, который, как кажется, был задан добросовестно, а просто издевались. Если вы считаете, что это было сделано недобросовестно, есть раздел обсуждений, как и страница обсуждений OP. μηδείς ( talk ) 04:21, 18 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
На самом деле, заметив вмешательство администратора выше, я уведомил OP о вашем замечании и моих действиях. μηδείς ( talk ) 04:30, 18 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Спасибо. Это сработает так же хорошо, как если бы вы оставили его там. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:31, 18 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Республиканцы, демократы и «Движение чаепития»
Мне жаль говорить, что мне все равно, в чем заключается ваша претензия к Baseball Bugs. Я действительно не думаю, что то, что он делал в этом случае, было настолько разрушительным, что вам пришлось вмешиваться и неуклюже ставить ему под зад в одиночку. Как британец, я действительно не имею лошади в гонке демократов и республиканцев. Вместо того, чтобы ввязываться в войну правок, я просто попрошу вас пересмотреть то, как вы с этим справились.
Я думал, что объяснил это ясно, но попробую еще раз. Я согласен с вами, что то, что он сделал в этом случае, не было вопиющим нарушением. Он серийный критикан, который делает такие вещи постоянно. (Подсказка: я намекнул на его шаблон на странице обсуждения, называющий республиканцев "вики-лузерами".) Это не единичный случай (в этом случае, как я уже сказал, я бы не стал его критиковать). Это постоянная проблема. Я бы имел претензии к любому пользователю, который вел себя таким образом, независимо от того, какую партию он выбрал для нападения или защиты. И как американец, я бы имел такую же большую проблему, если бы критиканство было лейбористско-консервативной "расой". Я далеко не первый редактор, который возненавидел критиканство этого пользователя в судейских бюро, и я чувствую, что справился с этим совершенно правильно. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 18:18, 19 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ваше выдвижение моей кандидатуры
Ух ты и снова ух ты! Какой приятный сюрприз, Джо (можно я буду называть тебя Джо?). Я понятия не имел, что Википедия делает такие вещи.
Спасибо, что номинировали меня на эту награду. Лучшая новость за всю неделю. -- Jack of Oz [Обсуждение] 05:14, 22 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ответил на вашей странице обсуждения. Пожалуйста! Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:37, 22 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Наконец-то оно пришло!
Привет, Джо. Я просто хотел еще раз поблагодарить тебя за то, что ты номинировал меня на розыгрыш сувениров. Это было в ноябре 2012 года. Моя футболка наконец-то пришла вчера, всего 15 месяцев спустя. Но ожидание того стоило. Ура. -- Джек из страны Оз [любезности] 10:20, 12 февраля 2014 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ого! С таким долгим ожиданием они должны были дать тебе смокинг! Пожалуйста, Джек. Ты этого заслужил. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 11:48, 12 февраля 2014 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Re this: Нет. Ого. Можно ли сделать опечатку по Фрейду? - Summer mer PhD ( обс .) 03:04, 23 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ха-ха. Я бы оставил его в покое, но посчитал, что он достаточно безвреден, чтобы его исправить. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:51, 23 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ленивый обратный ответ
Я ответил в AfD, где вы подвергли сомнению мой голос... Вперед, Phightins ! 05:20, 24 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не подвергал это сомнению. Я указал, что это просто беспочвенная куча. Ваш новый длинный пост — это просто длинный способ сказать: «Кучке других людей это нравится, поэтому я говорю «оставайтесь». Не волнуйтесь, это не редкость. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:55, 24 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мой ответ поддерживает процедурное сохранение, так как это обсуждение избивает мертвую лошадь. Вперед, Phightins ! 16:49, 24 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
( редактировать конфликт ) Вы имеете право на свое мнение, а я имею право на свое. Википедия основана на консенсусе, и на данный момент консенсус, похоже, на моей стороне, но он может измениться... Я просто не верю, что прошло достаточно времени с тех пор, как мы в последний раз обсуждали это, чтобы консенсус изменился. Спасибо. Это Thoereau, а не Thoraeu. Вперёд, Phightins ! 03:42, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
У вас нет мнения . Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:50, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Мое мнение таково, что не стоит продолжать дебаты по этому поводу, поскольку мы уже достигли консенсуса. Вперёд, Phightins ! 03:55, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Как я уже сказал, у вас нет мнения . Если бы мы достигли консенсуса, у нас бы не было этого спора. Я знаю, это трудно, но постарайтесь следовать. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 04:10, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Как же тогда назвать остальные пять или около того дебатов, перечисленных в верхней части этого AfD, если они не были направлены на достижение консенсуса? Вперёд, Phightins ! 04:18, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Безопасность Гоатсе
Поскольку несколько дней назад было вынесено решение суда по поводу самого заметного раздела статьи Goatse Security , который до сих пор вызывает большой резонанс в прессе, как это может не быть текущим событием? По общему признанию, все уже достаточно утихло, так что это спорный вопрос, однако, простое удаление тега без указания причин немного грубо. Да, привет, nprice (был) здесь. ( обсуждение ) 21:26, 24 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Теперь я понимаю, что вместо этого я мог бы использовать шаблон Current related, что имело бы больше смысла. Да, привет, nprice (был) здесь. ( обсуждение ) 22:16, 24 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думал, что указал причину. В любом случае, я не пытался быть грубым, так что извините, если вы обиделись. Но это действительно не оправдывает ни один из шаблонов. Так же, как «недавняя смерть» должна использоваться при определенных параметрах, а не только для тех, у кого статья умерла, шаблоны «текущее событие» и «текущее связанное» следует использовать благоразумно. Во-первых, это просто группа интернет-троллей — они не важны. (Да, я понимаю, что они, безусловно, важны для некоторых людей, но не для мейнстрима, что было бы порогом для тегирования.) Во-вторых, это не был случай «быстро меняющейся информации». Я думаю, вы бы обнаружили, что кто-то другой довольно быстро удалил бы тег, даже если бы я этого не сделал. Но извините, если я не объяснил это четко. Я согласен, что отменять чье-то редактирование без объяснения — это крайне грубо, и я бы никогда не сделал этого намеренно. С уважением. Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 03:33, 25 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я заметил, что ваш никнейм комментирует обсуждение Arbcom, касающееся вежливости. В настоящее время предпринимаются усилия, которые, вероятно, пойдут на пользу, если ваши взгляды будут учтены. Надеюсь, вы добавите приветствия в: Wikipedia:Запросы на комментарии/Принудительное соблюдение вежливости/Опросник Спасибо за рассмотрение этого запроса. My 76 Strat ( обсуждение ) 11:37, 29 ноября 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Итоги ноябрьского заезда GOCE
Информационный бюллетень GOCE за середину декабря
Надежный источник обсуждения
Я заметил, что вы приняли участие в одной из статей, которые я редактировал, в которой упоминается сомнительный источник. У меня тут идет дебаты о надежном источнике. Не могли бы вы взглянуть? Cantaloupe2 ( обсуждение ) 01:58, 13 декабря 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Сделано Joefromrandb (обсуждение) 05:56, 13 декабря 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уведомление о странице обсуждения Ричарда Никсона
Я добавил раздел на странице обсуждения для статьи Ричарда Никсона под названием "Раздел удален 13 декабря 2012 года". Пожалуйста, поделитесь своими мыслями на странице обсуждения. Спасибо. Mitchumch ( обсуждение ) 16:58, 16 декабря 2012 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Годовой отчет GOCE 2012
Just an FYI
I've responded to your messages at my talk page and at Ocaasi's RfA.
Take care. Kurtis(talk) 11:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue Me (Cheers)
Merger of this episode article is proposed. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herbert Anderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navy Blues (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013
GOCE February 2013 newsletter
WikiProject Cleanup
GOCE news: February 2013
GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter
GOCE April 2013 newsletter
GOCE April 2013 newsletter
May 2013
Your recent editing history at Kermit Gosnell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Federales (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're trolling, but in the odd case you're sincere read WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE May drive wrap-up
Proposed policy created
Or, well, I blued your link, anyway.[7] Though I suppose both the redirect and my "page" are likely to get speedied pretty quick. (I think you forgot to sign on Drmies' page.) Bishonen | talk 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It's been quite a while since something has made my day here; thank you!! :) Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. In that case, I must try to write an actual essay. Any ideas? Feel free to edit the page directly. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
GOCE June/July 2013 events
Edit warring on Józef Kowalski
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring on Józef Kowalski while discussion was ongoing on the talk page. Edit warring in an unacceptable way of dealing with disagreements. As strongly as you may feel about an issue, it must be discussed through the proper channels. Threats for continued reversion are unacceptable and have led to a block in a case where I might have otherwise given only a warning to avoid continued disruption on the page. I will warn User:DerbyCountyinNZ about this behavior as well and hopefully we can pursue this issue through discussion rather than edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Feel better, little boy? Canada Paul, eh? You wouldn't have any connection to Canada Jack would you? Noooooo, impossible!! If you actually bothered to read the whole of what I wrote, my "threats for continued reversion" were because the edits I was reverting violated WP:BLP, something with which you apparently need to familiarize yourself. You should also have a look at WP:3RRNO before you go around blocking people. How does it go? "Those that have the smallest amount of power use it to the greatest extent"? Get over yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people children seems to be your standard go-to insult when you're caught being naughty.--v/r - TP 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, who could forget the infallible TParis? "Caught being naughty"? Seriously? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, do you have a trademark on childish insults?--v/r - TP 15:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that TParis is on record as saying He considers blocked users to be like His 4-year old daughter. You simply can't make this shit up!!Joefromrandb (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP exemption for WP:3RR is for "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material" not the semantics of one word. As for your other accusations, you are welcome to check my logs and see how often I block people and for what reasons. There's nothing more here than me spotting a violation of WP:3RR on a page on my watchlist, determining that continued disruption was not only possible, but likely, and instituting the block. Canadian Paul 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Biased". Exactly. Yet while admitting your block was in violation of policy you continue to insist you were right. Spoken like a true en-Wiki admin! BTW, nice job blocking me while giving your pal a "warning". As you can see, I'm not very active here anymore, and thugs like you are the reason why. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note
This block was placed by a biased, WP:INVOLVED admin, in clear violation of policy. The edits in question are clearly covered by WP:3RRNO. Furthermore, the admin in question blocked me while giving his buddy (the one actually edit-warring while violating WP:BLP a (wink, wink) "warning". This of course will never be rectified; en-Wiki admins are 100% infallible. However, as they are free to write whatever they wish, however untrue, in someone's block log, what actually happened has now been noted here, for the record. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE July 2013 news report
I'm "not not a Wikipedian"
Can you please clarify your statement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 22 where you said "Camelbinky is not not a Wikipedian"... I'm just wondering if I should be thanking you or asking you what I have done wrong...Camelbinky (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was not intended to slight you in any way. Several months ago JClemens stated that one of the project's finest contributors "is not a Wikipedian". His statement that you are a Wikipedian in good faith is certainly true. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Socks
Hi Joefromrandb. About your comment here, I'm not sure what made you think of sockpuppetry, but any allegations like that need to be backed up by links and diffs and made at WP:SPI. Also, if you think that I have given out any user rights to sockpuppets, please email me with the account names and I will investigate. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I was writing on your talk page while you were posting this. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on your talk page what I feel is overwhelming evidence that the user in question is not new here. As far as filing an SPI is concerned, I have no interest in pursuing it. Whoever he is, he's not bothering me. I just feel there's a difference between turning a blind eye to an obvious sock who is otherwise doing no harm, and giving advanced user rights to said sock. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sign your posts. Enjoy your laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bias accusation at VA/E: George Bush vs. Henry Clay
I very much resent your assertion that that swap, and by implication me and everyone else who voted for it is biased. There are a lot of reasons other than Dubya's incompetence that he shouldn't be on this list. Two of them are that Bush is too recent (he left office only 4 1/2 years ago) and that Clay is a very important figure in American history. He had his hands on nearly every important legislative achievement of the early-to-mid 19th century. It's not biased for two reasons. One is that we just removed Bill Clinton, primarily on recency concerns rather than an assessment of his ideology or effectiveness. The second is that this doesn't alter the makeup of the list ideologically, as neither Dubya nor Clay were Democrats (Clay fought the Dems under Jackson, Calhoun and Polk; Duyba fought the Dems under Gore and Kerry). Clay's Whig Party morphed into Dubya's Republican party pbp 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A lot of reasons other than Dubya's incompetence..."? But of course, you're not biased. Thanks for the laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You're essentially ignoring the fact that Henry Clay was a very important political figure, that Bush and Clay are essentially of the same political bent, that Bush was president just a few years ago, and that we just removed Clinton. Your attitude is quite disturbing in that you've accused five editors of political bias, and when somebody calls you out on it, you laugh it off. Also disturbing is your edit summary of "We get it...you hate Bush" when there are clearly other factors at play than just people's personal feelings about Bush. This is serious, it isn't funny. Retract the political bias comment or I'm going to have to have to take you to a community noticeboard pbp 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take me to a community noticeboard? As long as you promise you won't tell my mom. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly tired of your sarcastic lip pbp 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can assure you I haven't even gotten warmed up. If you want to come here and make assholeish immature comments, don't be surprised at what you get. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Have a ball! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you realize how against policy and guidelines it is for you to repeatedly attack editors in the manner you do. It should get you blocked; it's gotten other people block indefinitely pbp 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please go edit an article or something. A quick look at your talk page provides much insight. What is it they say about those who live in glass houses? They should shower in the basement maybe? No, that's not it. Something else... Joefromrandb (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse other editors of soapboxing. FWIW, I've edited a number articles since starting the ANI thread against you, but it's hard to edit articles as fast as you attack other editors 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)pbp
OK, you've been very amusing, now please take your trolling elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not, because it isn't trolling. I won't leave this talk page until you admit that you are wrong to continually personally attack editors and make baseless accusations of bias and soapboxing. And if you take me to ANI, I'll just hit you with the BOOMERANG of your continual. Now wish me a happy birthday pbp 04:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're making yourself look more and more foolish each time you post here. Run along now. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Hmm. It looks like my case is not unique in your problems with AGF. Yeah, you're right, I used to be an editor here. People like you made me feel it was not worth continuing. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ivory Coast
Hi re. "Maybe not. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. It took many years to get the page moved from its correct title to its current title. It may take years to get it moved back. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)"
You're right, but take a look at Talk:Ana Ivanovic before you embark on what will be grueling. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritics can certainly be tricky. I think this is much simpler, with the actual name being disputed. If the argument was whether to make it "Côte D'Ivoire" or "Cote D'Ivoire", I wouldn't be nearly as vocal. As far as it being "grueling", Anne Frank's life was grueling. This is only an encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritics are not that tricky, or that page wouldn't be the one in 4,000,000. The point is it is a cause celebre now and watchlisted, Côte D'Ivoire will also be watchlisted. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at Patriot Act
Your recent editing history at Patriot Act shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. pbp 18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. pbp 18:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done? I hope you give pause to the responses you have gotten at the frivolous reports you have filed. Ubiquitous WP:HOUNDing is not likely to end well for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shut up and stop edit warring and personally attacking me and other editors pbp 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer would be "no"? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "stop edit warring and personally attacking other editors, and you won't have to hear from me again". Note that another editor questioned your competence in that ANI, he wasn't thinking too much, you just weren't thinking enough when you continually edit warred. And remember, being right isn't an excuse for edit-warring and your general violations of WP:DICKpbp 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the answer is indeed "no". Carry on then. It is quite amusing. Don't say I didn't warn you when it doesn't end in the way for which you're hoping. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you keep attacking editors and edit-warring, as you have repeatedly shown no remorse for, you are probably going to eventually get indeff blocked. Your failure to realize that is coming pretty close to a competence issue pbp 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the AN3 report with no action. And I would respectfully suggest that it would be a really good idea if (a) PBP, you disengaged from Joe's talkpage now, and (b) Joe, if you dialled down the invective a bit; I'm certainly not one to say I've never thrown a choice bit of wording at someone who's irritating me, but it gets a bit wearing when it's a regular thing. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly hard to argue with that advice. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up
Edit-warring August 2013
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you respectfully to please leave me alone. I don't know what you are up to, but it smells rotten in Denmark. You've confronted my work at multiple pages within a few days. Please find some area where you do not seek conflict with me and I will do the same. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are melting down, IMO and you are creeping me out. Please, we hardly ever cross paths, why can't it be that way again? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm melting down? You called me a troll. You reported me at a noticeboard when you engaged in identical, nay worse, behavior. (If I printed here how I feel about rats I'd probably be blocked.) Now, you're trying to get a guideline changed retroactively to cover your error. Not to mention that you resumed edit-warring by thrice attempting to remove my post from a talk page. (Don't worry, I won't report you.) And I'm melting down? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're perspective is confused, IMO. I apologized for the troll comment, but I stand by that its how I feel right now. I wasn't wrong nor did you catch me in any lie. Lets agree to disagree here, but can we also please agree to voluntarily avoid each other in the future? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want the Waters article fixed. I have no personal interest in you whatsoever. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? Can you provide even one example from an external style guide that agrees with you and disagrees with me? Do you realize that according to the Wikipedia MoS there is no error that needs fixing? Why are you so obsessed about one "t" that you would expend this much energy fighting its typography? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask you the same question. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In situations such as infoboxes, a single-line list may be useful—in this case:
List type
entry one, entry two, entry three
Note the capitalization of only the first word in this list (but words that are normally capitalized would still be capitalized). This applies regardless of the separator used between the list type and the entries themselves—whether it is a comma (as in the first example above), or even an infobox divider (as in the second example above).
GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is to spam my talk page with the same thing you've now posted at at least four other pages; how sad. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, do you have any style guides that assert your position as best practice? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's more likely, is APA wrong, or is Joe wrong? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating something ad infinitum isn't going to make you any less wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Little ones"
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.
Don't you dare refer to me and other editors as "little ones". Had you bothered to look at my user page, you'd see I'm 24 years old and 6'1". Consider this a formal notice to refrain from personal attacks on my talk page; any further action will be regarded as disruptive. pbp 17:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me kid. That's disrespectful. As you again fail to understand civility guidelines, here's another user warning for your trouble
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Joefromrandb, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. pbp 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read meta:What is a troll. When you read it, you'll find that
I'm not a troll
"Troll" is a loaded word that shouldn't be tossed about lightly the way you're using it pbp 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing, but it seems to me that if you really want Joe to stop saying that, Purplebackpack, you shouldn't post on this page any more, and then I bet he won't say it any more. Those "warnings" of yours are beginning to look like pestering. Perhaps you focus so much on the words troll (which is the verb, to troll, you know; it's not the same thing as calling you a troll) and kid in Joe's comment, that you miss the words go.. somewhere else. When somebody asks you repeatedly to stop posting on their page, no matter in what terms, you're supposed to respect their request. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Good grief, what is that? I can't remember why I created it. Well, obviously to blue a link, but I've no memory of the context. Probably I should delete it. It seems a bit selfish to squat on such a cool shortcut. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hey Bishonen, look here and then tell me that Joe respects requests to not bother people at their talk pages. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so eager to get admins to look at a libel you posted 7 or 8 times. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, if that was libel, then there would never be an SPI. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you're quite wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, you do realize that accusing another editor of libel is possibility a legal threat? pbp 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Gabe. Not a closely parallel case, IMO. It's not like Joe was posting on your page (still less was he posting stupid templated warnings). Your allegation that 77.102.112.229 was Joe editing logged out seems unlikely on the face of it, since Philadelphia isn't in or near Bristol.[8][9] Are you aware of the "Geolocate" links provided on every IP talkpage (even an uncreated talkpage such as Talk:77.102.112.229)? If I'd been you, I'd have thanked Joe for his removal, which made my page better and nicer. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, are you suggesting that an editor who is physically in Philadelphia cannot gain access to an IP from England? Also, are you outing Joe as living in Philly? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stupidity here has become painful. Yes Gabe, Bish read my user page, where I tell the whole fucking world that I'm a Philadelphian, and "outed me". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you click on any of my links, Gabe? Like this one? I frankly feel I'm wasting my time talking to you. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You two have fun with that. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words
Thanks. That's perhaps the single best compliment that I've ever received from anyone on Wikipedia. FWIW, I regret that this whole situation has spiraled out-of-control and I don't enjoy the mudslinging, but I want you to know that I understand the nature of your concern and will do my best to avoid giving anyone that unpleasant impression in the future. FWIW, until 3 August I considered you one of my very best and long-standing Wikibuddies and I sincerely hope that we can return to the cordial working relationship that we once enjoyed. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I'll add a bit more later; just wanted to let you know I saw your note and thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FA
You mentioned "FA" and I assume that means "Features Article". If I am correct what does that mean? I didn't find anything in my searches. Thanks 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, found it! Doh! Have to use the "WP" prefix. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Olive Branch
Please take a look here and consider this option for a amicable resolution to this dispute. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a number of reasons, I've already declared that I would not be participating in the RfC. Please don't take that to mean that I don't appreciate your olive branch, and I'll reiterate that I fully intend to give serious pause to the good-faith concerns raised by a number of editors, including you. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To go point-by-point, I don't feel edit-warring is an issue and I think 6 of the 7 examples provided meet neither the letter nor the spirit of edit-warring. Note that all five AN3 reports against me were quickly dismissed. Someone may get away with something once or twice but no user on this site is going to have five-out-of-five complaints dismissed unless they're without merit. As for profanity, while there's no doubt I could stand to temper my language, I'm not going to pledge to refrain from it. While it's a laudable goal, it's unrealistic and I'd be setting myself up to fail. Habit is not something to be thrown out the window, but rather gently coaxed down the stairs. As far as personal attacks go, I treat people the way they treat me. I respond to politeness with politeness and hostility with hostility. I wish I had the patience of a Pesky or a Dennis Brown, but I don't and it's not likely that I ever will. While I'm certainly not proud of everything I've ever said here, if I've said something rude, it's usually been response to rudeness. I believe in personal accountability, and I apologize when I feel it's warranted. (User:Bbb23 comes to mind; I remember apologizing to him when I responded with rudeness simply because I was in a bad mood [I'll try to find it in his archive]). And I'm sure that's not the only time. A final note on rudeness: I think WP:CPUSHERS (that doesn't mean you) are the single biggest problem for this project. As I said, several users made constructive, good-faith comments at the RfC, but some were just there for my head. Case in point is Cassianto, who continually refers to me there as "Joefromrandbs". If it happened once I could see it explained away as a typo; in this case the user is clearly purposely misspelling my user name and trying to make a clever inference (JoefromrandBS). I would have far more respect for someone who plainly told me: "You're full of shit Joe" than someone who tries to infer such a statement in a "civil" manner by slyly inserting a bowdlerization of "bullshit" while complaining about my offensive language. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respect your convictions and choices and again, I apologize for being rude to you and I pledge to treat you respectfully in the future. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation
Per your mention of Jesus as a recent important FA at Jimbo's talk page, I have a suggestion at Talk:Jesus about a blog post you might like to help out on. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much help I'd be. My work there was limited to some minor copy-editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more of it being an advertisement for the FA process instead of a it being a backstory on the article's route to FA. I guess I should contact the FA delegates to see if they might be interested. Any ideas? Biosthmors (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User:Purplebackpack89, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:NE Ent, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
I hope you realize that "throw toys out of the pram" is highly inappropriate, and proves that you are following me around to talk pages I edit pbp 22:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana Highways Articles
Hi there. I see some of the Louisiana Highways articles need improvement because there are tons of red links, so I could possibly encourage you to help me with them. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana being one of the handful of states I haven't (yet) visited, I'm not sure how much help I would be, but if you give me specifics, I'd be happy to see what I could do. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response at WP:Poetry
Regarding your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry#Niggers_in_the_White_House_concerns: Though I understand the defensive position you have been put in because of the AFD and other comments, its also important to remember the guiding principle of WP:Assume Good Faith. Your initial reaction to Irondome's comment, doesn't provide him enough reason to know why his position is "ridiculous" (which I agree it is) nor assume that he had the best intentions in mind. When responding to others on Wiki, I always try to remember not to react in the heat of the moment, because more often then not my language effects my audience in unintended ways. Instead I respond later after walking away from the computer for a while (or working on something else) Perhaps that would be a good principle to apply in the future? Anyway, I hope the AFD goes well, I really do think it is notable in some fashion (whether as part of other articles or on it's own). Best of luck and Happy Editing, Sadads (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously a very nice person, so I don't want to give you a hard time, but do you honestly think it's helpful to blue-link "AGF" to someone who's been here for three years? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niggers_in_the_White_House
I appreciate your participation in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niggers_in_the_White_House. However, your recent edit didn't contribute to the discussion in an objective manner, and could be conceived as personal. As this isn't in the spirit of WP:AFD, I kindly request that you consider revising the comment, or at least avoiding similar comments in the future. Thanks for your cooperation in cleaning up this discussion. —Zenexer [talk] 11:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As promised
You know the drill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I do. That you're willing to abuse admin tools to win a dispute is certainly no surprise. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Floquenbeam: as I have no desire to go near your talk page, do you consider this to be sufficient notification that I will be discussing your abuse of admin tools at ANi once this policy-violating block as expired? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention your use of rollback for non-vandalism edits. I assume User:TParis will now be blocking you, and User:Ks0stm will now be removing your rollback. Yeah, right. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK... if it is painful to edit my talk page, I'll consider this my notice.
Focusing on my use of rollback is kind of a red herring, so to keep tomorrow's complaint on track: "I should not have used rollback. I'm sorry. I should have used the edit summary 're-reverting disruptive editing'". I've been around long enough to know that the time saved in using rollback is more than eaten up in dealing with complaints about the use of rollback, so that was stupid of me, and I should have known you'd feel insulted by it. Mea culpa.
Hint for tomorrow: You're not going to get much mileage out of calling me one of Fram's "cronies". To my knowledge, he and I have never had a conversation, and if I've mentioned him at all (which I also don't recall ever doing), there's a 50% chance it was to disagree with something he's done. Ditto for him commenting on me. Although I gather, now that I re-read your comments, that all admins are cronies of each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't think for one minute that I've been deluded into thinking that I'll get much mileage out of anything. As an administrator you are completely bulletproof, free to abuse tools at will, content in the knowledge that admins are unimpeachable. But as someone told me, if I don't at least attempt to address admin-abuse through the proper channels, I don't have much right to complain about it. I know it will be a dog-and-pony show, with your fellow infallibles and the usual claque of wannabes leaping to your defense. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per User:Floquenbeam/Recall, I'll take it that this conversation has been sufficient as far as "discuss the problem with me first" goes. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it's sufficient, and you find someone who agrees to certify the RFC/U, then I'm certainly not going to try to hide behind a technicality. It's not my call whether you start an RFC/U on me. I suspect you'll find that many people will think a recall is an over-reaction, even if they think I'm wrong (which, obviously, I don't think I am). But maybe not. Also, the block is to prevent disruption to the AFD; if you'll agree not to revert the hatting, and not engage like that with Fram in other AFD's, I'll unblock now and you can get started earlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked me, in flagrant violation of WP:INVOLVED to win a content dispute, and now you want me to agree to conditions to undo a block you had no right to impose in the first place? Your arrogance is simply staggering. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing me into this conversation that had nothing to do with me, Joe. A content dispute? On an AFD? Please Joe, find better arguments, quickly. This is typical. You say something you shouldn't, an admin uses rollback to enforce the WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY policy, you ignore them, then claimed they were involved when you get blocked. Quit reverting admins when you're being disruptive and you won't get blocked as much. All that's going to happen when you open that RFC on Floq is that you'll find yourself at ANI, your own RFC/U is going to be cited, and your going to get up with an indef. You don't like getting blocked, we get it, no one does, so it'd stand to reason that you'd correct your behavior when doing it.--v/r - TP 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. It's always a different story when it's one of your buddies, huh? But I suppose it takes a corrupt admin to know a corrupt admin. Threatening me with an indef for exposing admin-misconduct? Hmm... Where have I heard that before? If you honestly think I give a shit about being blocked, you're only fooling yourself. What I don't like is admin-abuse, whether it comes in the form of blocks, threats, or anything else. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, you're rapidly digging yourself a hole where you're going to end up with no way out. You're going to hit a point where you actually try to claim admin abuse, but nothing you have shown anyone so far proves that - in fact, quite the opposite when it comes to this specific block. So, when you try to use this block as an example of admin abuse and that fails, you're simply going to claim that someone's "buddies" all came and made up a false WP:CONSENSUS. You're either going to continue off in that direction of a corrupt admin corps, ... or some far worse pattern. Unfortunately, the one thing your RFC/U showed is that this is not an atypical pattern - and once you've built a recognizable pattern of behaviour, indef's are not that far behind. The RFC/U was to be an opportunity to find ways to change to community norms - you're rapidly losing air from that balloon. ES&L 09:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's buddies did come and make up a false consensus, and as I've already said, editing from an alternate account doesn't change the fact that you're still one of them, and will therefore pretend admins can do no wrong. And yes, I know that pointing out admin-abuse invariably just leads to getting blocked longer; we all remember what TParis had done to StillStanding-247. I'd rather be blocked than kowtow before corrupt admins. I'd think the fact that I wasn't interested in Floquenbeam's conditional offer of unblock shows that. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once claimed nor pretended that admins can "do not wrong" - in fact, I've argued in favour of desysopping when the evidence supported such. I've even been the originator of wording on ArbCom motions related to desysops. You're in a situation right now where not only are you arguing that this block is invalid due to involved (which is false on both counts), but that there's some secret cabal that supports itself. ES&L 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact arguing exactly what you claim I am. However, I'm correct on all three counts. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, you're apparently beyond help - in fact, you appear to be so far gone that you cannot see logic or reason - and that's unfortunate. I'm not here to rub your nose in anything - I personally beleive that you DO have things to add to the project. But this bullshit chip on the shoulder you have is the first thing that has to go. The battle mentality is sef-destructive, and worthless. Remove the damned filter from your eyes and recognize that people (including me) are NOT out to get you - I've posted in this page about 8-12 times in 24 hours, ALL OF WHICH were genuine attempts to help - but your "he's an admin, so he's lying" filter is in your way of you seeing that. Fine then, try things your way. Good luck ES&L 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well I really don't think anyone with 12% contributions to article-space should be concerned with what anyone else has to "add to the project". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please revert Floquenbeam's edit-warring at WP:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton? Technically, this doesn't require admin help, but as Floquenbeam has proven willing to abuse admin tools to win his edit war... Joefromrandb (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an edit-war there. I do see a discussion inapproriate for AfD that was rightly hatted - and a couple of reversions back-and-forth ... ES&L 13:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not surprised by what you do and don't see. Did Floquenbeam misuse rollback or are you going to pretend that didn't happen too? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "admin mindset". Your !vote on that AfD was worthless - !votes that are not based on policy are the types of dicussion to avoid in all discussions. Yes, one can argue that Fram is badgering (but only only the second one), and yeah, "you're one to talk" is not the right attitude from anyone. However, Fram's first "badger" is spot-on - your !vote was useless. Period. Hatting a red-herring/off-topic discussion was pretty normal, and neither of you should have gotten to that point. When a neutral admin does the RIGHT thing, calling them (or the other editor) a "crony" is really inappropriate. So, you both misued rollback ... two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Un-hatting that pointless discussion was pointless ES&L 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, I didn't misuse rollback, as I don't have it to misuse. Floquenbeam, however, did. He edit-warred with me, returned the page to his preferred version, and then blocked me so that the page would stay just the way he wanted it. I don't mind so much. I consider being blocked in violation of policy by a corrupt administrator to be a badge of honor. But please don't try to pretend that what happened didn't happen. It's unbecoming of you. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Floquenbeam has, of course, logged off, as his habit after making a policy-violating block. Actually, his habit is to retire and lock his talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad - sorry. You both appear to have abused "Undo", and after being advised to stop, you used Undo again - at which point it met the definition of vandalism, and rollback was used by Floq? Granted, the warning to stop should have been right here on your talkpage, not in an edit-summary, but I have not reviewed this page enough to see whether or not you were warned ES&L 14:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It met the definition of vandalism"? Come on, you don't really believe the bullshit you're spewing right now, do you? I've rarely agreed with you, but I never doubted your sagacity. "It met the definition of vandalism"? Anything to defend a fellow-infallible, right? I know I don't have to blue-link VANDAL for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism/disruption ... both could be applied - more likely disruption, but that's a matter semantics right now, isn't it? Sorry, not trying to do "bullshit" - but I am trying to talk you down from your buildingES&L 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using the {{Admin help}} template is wholly inappropriate for actions which do not require an administrator. This is especially true in this instance where you are apparently trying to complain about an administrator that you perceive is a rogue administrator and you seem to be claiming ZOMG! ADMIN ABUSE! The appropriate forum for such a discussion, if you truly wish to get some consensus and understanding as to whether these are appropriate uses of the admin tools by Floquenbeam is WP:AN/I and I implore you to take it there if you must and discontinue this discussion here. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on drugs? The "continuing discussion here" is in response to other rogue admins who claim Floquenbeam can do no wrong, and everything is my fault. As I didn't take TParis' bait, I'm unsure as to why you'd think I would take yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'm not an admin (and good lord, now that a new Template editor user right is nearing acceptance, have no interest to be). Secondly, if I was a less CALM editor, I may have construed your "Are you on drugs?" comment as a PA, that is not going to happen here. I will however note that you should perhaps check your apparent BATTLEGROUND mentality in which you are pursuing this and likely the "best" course of action is to DROP the STICK and simply go be to being WP:HERE. If you do decide to take this to WP:AN/I as I suggested above, I expect that you make sure to notify Floquenbeam, EatsShootsAndLeaves, TParis, and myself to the topic (as is required any time you take something to AN/I). Finally, if you do not decide to take this to AN/I and you refuse to drop the issue here as I suggested (really, this is your best choice), then I will be forced to take this to the appropriate AN noticeboard (probably AN/I itself, and I would like confirmation from one of the admins I've pinged here). Please don't make me do that. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you absolutely will not be forced to do anything (unless someone is standing behind you brandishing a firearm, insisting you report me at a community noticeboard), so please don't play that bullshit with me. I don't give a shit what you do or don't do. I don't acquiesce to threats and I don't do anything at the point of a bayonet. (And while accusing you of being an administrator would indeed be a personal attack, I never accused you of being one.) Joefromrandb (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody says Floq "can do no wrong" - the only thing being said is that the blocks did not violate WP:INVOLVED, and was truly meeting the definition of WP:DISRUPT and is therefore valid. Your sole argument now is that they may have misused Rollback once - but even that argument is questionable if disruption really was the reason for using it ES&L 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Floquenbeam/Recall
Break
Just a quick answer with links, as I have not read all the info, and it's after midnight... As it says on WP:ADMINABUSE - "Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly." - so look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for an e-mail address for the committee. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I would NEVER give Floquenbeam (or any other corrupt admin) the satisfaction of appealing a bullshit block. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The satisfaction? I won't claim to know how other admins feel about it, but I'd feel pretty shitty if I made a bullshit block that got appealed, not satisfied. Anyhow, since you pinged me, I agree with most of TParis' advice above. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, lest either you or I say something we later regret. With respect, Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 05:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel shitty every day of your life, little boy. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I have offended you. Regardless, since I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, here's a cookie. --Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 05:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ks0stm has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Don't patronize me. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being sincere here. I really don't like this hostility between us, and I would like it if we could both at least be polite and civil to each other. I don't hold grudges, and I should hope that you don't either. What exactly is your continuing beef with me? I will do what I can to try and address your concerns, especially if it means less animosity in our interactions. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 06:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's apparently where we differ, as I do hold grudges; I'm not a member of the "thank you, may I have another" club. What can you do? I suppose a sincere apology for your actions during your tag-team with TParis would suffice. For good measure, you could show some character by removing Floquenbeam's rollback. After all, Floquenbeam quite clearly misused rollback; he even admitted it on this page. Since you saw fit to remove my rollback for an imaginary infraction, some even-handedness would show a spot of character on your part. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is part of the admin toolset - it cannot be removed separately ES&L 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of how admins get to abuse tools at will, free from any potential consequences. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for even-handedness, I promise you that in a situation like the one which caused me to remove your rollback I would remove anyone else's rollback just as I did your's. EatsShootsAndLeaves has correctly pointed out, however, that even if I came to the conclusion that Floquenbeam had misused rollback I could not remove it, since it is bundled in with the admin toolset. If you think Floquenbeam misused rollback so egregiously that he should be desysoped, please feel free to initiate an admin recall according to his standards or file a request with the Arbitration Committee. If you do so I will be more than happy to review the situation and provide certifications, endorsements, or statements if the evidence indicates he has misused rollback or other administrator tools. As for my actions when I removed your rollback, I am sorry for everything that I said during that encounter. I stand by my original decision to remove it, but the ensuing dialogue was unfortunate, unnecessary, and inappropriate. Although it's not what I was trying to do at the time, I have since come to realize that I was treating you unfairly by responding to your comments the way I did and essentially baiting you into making more of them. For that you have my most sincere apologies, and I promise I will do my best to not let that happen again, to you or to someone else. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 17:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a non-apology apology. How quaint. Spare me. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was an honest apology, actually, and I meant every word I said. What were you expecting? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 17:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting you to do exactly as you did; stand by your abuse of tools. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel I abused the tools, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I would like it, however, if in all future interactions we could at least be polite and civil to one another, much like we are now. Also, while we're discussing user rights, I notice that you don't have the reviewer user right, which I believe could be of use to you. I'm willing to grant you that user right, if you wish to have it. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. What I don't have, you and your ilk will not be able to receive the pleasure of removing. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as you wish. I just thought I would offer, since you by far meet the standards for having the right. Thank you for this discussion, and I look forward to interacting positively with you in the future, should our paths cross. With respect, Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record...
As this latest malicious, policy-violating block draws to a close, let me state here, for the record, that User:Floquenbeam not only edit-warred, but threatened to use, and then used, admin tools to win said edit war, violating WP:INVOLVED and various other aspects of WP:ADMINABUSE. As the block log will forever and a day contain the LIE "disruptive editing", what actually took place has now been recorded here, for the record. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's hilarious how often you threaten to recall admins and take them to ANI, but then for fear of actual objective evaluation of the situation, you resort to a declaration of 'right' on your talk page instead and then run around claiming admin abuse. If you really believed you've been abused, you'd take all three of us admins who've blocked you (4 including the one that removed your rollback) to task. Since you don't, and won't, I'll just accept that you don't really believe the dribble yourself and it is simply a pride thing. You're saving face by posting this message and not going to ANI.--v/r - TP 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a funny guy, TParis. Trying to goad me into doing what you want so you and your friends-without-morals can impose the indef block with which you threatened me above? I'm not quite that stupid. Anyway, the above is simply an actual version of what place, contrary to the lie your friend wrote in my block-log. Nothing more, nothing less. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a secret I don't think you belong here. If the RFC/U didn't make that clear, your combative attitude is detrimental to the project. But no, that wasn't my purpose here. I'd just like to see your actually carry out your threats for once, that's all. The very fact that you won't demonstrates that you're afraid of outside objective inspection. So you settle for your one-sided biased and completely BS version of events so you can point to it later and say "See here, I have a diff of the truth" as if your comment substitute an uninvolved admin closing a discussion on ANI. If you think it's bait, whatever, I see it as a call for you to quit bluffing. You've shown your hand too many times.--v/r - TP 13:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. And bullshit. The one who's shown his hand is you, as above you promised I'd be indeffed if I attempted to hold Floquenbeam responsible for his misconduct. Now you're trying to goad me into doing just that, complete with lies and taunts. Not falling for it, sorry. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argues
Re this edit [10] The word "argues" appears nowhere in WP:words to avoid, except ironically in a footnote in which it is used as a totally normal and acceptable word in the context of a discussion of 'unsighted' as opposed to 'blind': "the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the plain phrase blind people". Paul B (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I haven't checked that page in a while; apparently it was edited out. It was certainly there at one point, under WP:CLAIM. Perhaps it was removed at some point as example creep, but it seems obvious that "argues" falls under the scope of those examples. It insinuates contention, and shouldn't be used without exceptional need. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I don't think it was ever there, Joe; might you misremember? At least, I did a quick spot check of WP:CLAIM (versions a year ago, two years ago, three years ago) and didn't see it. "Argue" seems perfectly neutral to me. It's certainly routinely used in my research field (English literature) in, say, annual reviews of research, where the reviewer strives to give a neutral overview of what people have stated or, uh, argued. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sure I saw it somewhere, but I could certainly be mistaken as to where I saw it. It was my understanding that "argue" connotes arguing a point, and shouldn't be used unless it's to compare contrasting points of view. So I don't think "argued" is a neutral synonym for stated. Maybe I'll take it up at MOSTALK if I get a moment, but in the meanwhile, I'm happy to defer to you. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Argue" simply refers to the argument, or line-of-reasoning presented by an author. An act of interpretation might be so-described. "Stated" implies bald assertion. Clearly it can imply that a debate exists: "He argued that Shakespeare wrote the play in 1602"; "he stated that Shakespeare wrote the play in 1602". The first implies that the author is putting forward a position that might be contestable, and second implies that it's just fact. In this case, it's arguable whether he's arguing or stating, but he is cerainly, I would have thought, interpreting the bare historical facts. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at American entry into World War I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Your recent editing history at Execution by elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Go troll somewhere else, kid.
Go troll somewhere else, kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(As this user likes to get his panties in a bunch when he's told not to troll this talk page, I'll point out that he has 4 and 7 reverts, respectively, at the two articles about which he's complaining.) Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you have 5 and 8. You also have an RfC where a bunch of editors told you not to edit war and three blocks for edit warring. That was supposed to teach you not to edit war. Instead, you continue to edit war, in violation of WP:CLUE and WP:IDHT. The next ANI against you or by you filed against me will request a 1RR pbp 02:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go troll somewhere else, kid. Because you've had sooooooooooo much success with seeking sanctions against me in the past. By all means, go to ANi and report me for 13 reverts while you only had 11. I could use a laugh. Or go play in traffic. Just find something to do that doesn't involve trolling my talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that on the WWI article, you reverted three different versions of the page as I edited them. Four, counting Jensen's. You edit-warred to remove sourced information and bluelinks, claiming policies that don't exist the way you interpret them. All because you believed only you know what's best. Continual IDHT pbp 02:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am going to do is bide my time. You will be reported by someone else if you continue to keep up your continual misbehavior and ignorance of policy (for example, removing links when you should keep them or fix them; of your recent REDNOT removals, it's clear you've made no effort to ascertain whether a link could be blued or not). I am not a kid, and you've been told this a zillion times, and again proven my point you don't hear criticsm. At the next thread against you, I will mention your edit warring, and it's likely you'll be blocked, probably for a long time, and not because of edit-warring, but because of your continual insulting of other editors and IDHT mentality. pbp 02:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do that. In the meanwhile, be a good lad; fuck off and stop trolling my talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for reasons which must be fairly obvious, since you have received numerous messages about the problems with your editing. However, two aspects of your disruptive editing are worth emphasising. (1) Complying with the edit-warring policy is not optional. (2) Complying with the policies on civility and personal attacks is not optional. Your perpetual infantile name-calling and other expressions of contempt for all editors with whom you have a disagreement are completely out of line with the way Wikipedia works. For the present, you are blocked for just a week, but you may well be blocked for substantially longer if you continue in the same way. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seek help, son. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am 135.0.167.2 (talk) and I do not know Joe (at all) and never talked to JBW (or even recall ever hearing of JBW) until I read JBW's above comment. For people reading this, you should be informed of what happened next. My attempt to put JBW's commenting to question was deleted as "trolling" here. I later had this lengthy argument with JBW, which achieved objectively nothing and was eventually ignored (now archived). If you read the arguments, I suspect you will agree that JBW failed to defend his behavior, and stopped replying exactly right when I made the most serious accusation: that he was cyberbullying (I didn't use the actual word there, but it was clear enough). Nevertheless, I feel that JBW is expecting me to simply go away and have no next step to take, as if countering the most serious accusations is unnecessary.
The truth is, I really do have no time for any further actions against JBW, but at least my post here will clarify to anyone reading the above that cyberbullying will not go unchallenged, no matter who it is by and no matter what it is a response to. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4th time a charm?
I am (marginally) impressed that someone finally managed to block me without violating WP:INVOLVED; I'm slightly more impressed that I've actually been blocked for a genuine infraction for once. That doesn't make this a good block, but it's certainly better than being blocked in violation of policy for imaginary infractions. I broke 3RR on 2 articles; I did so knowingly and willfully, fully aware that I risked being blocked, which I considered to be acceptable collateral damage for fixing what needed to be fixed. However, you either block for something or you don't. Blocking for an edit war that took place nearly 2 days earlier is pointless and punitive (though unsurprising). Blocking 1 week for a first offense (though I suppose the three previous blocks for imaginary infractions were held against me) is pointless and punitive. Blocking 1 editor when 2 engage in identical behavior is beyond pointless and punitive; it's inept at best, and corrupt at worst.
@JamesBWatson: While I will never give you the satisfaction of an unblock request, I don't think it's asking too much to request that you explain yourself. If, as you say, "the edit-warring policy is not optional", why did you only block me? This wasn't a case of 2 people edit-warring, while only 1 breeched WP:3RR; both of us were well beyond 3 reverts on each article. Why did it take Floquenbeam to get involved? How can you justify blocking an editor for violating what, in your own words, is a non-negotiable policy, while declining to block a second editor who engaged in identical behavior? Or is it that while the policy itself is non-negotiable, enforcing it is at the sole discretion of those who can do no wrong? Again, I have no major problem with this block, but this is a serious question to which I would appreciate an answer.
P.S.I would have loved to have seen the chat-log at IRC-admin that led to you being tasked with the dirty work in this case. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen James in #wikipedia-en-admins.--v/r - TP 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail then, or whatever. There was obviously off-wiki communication that led him here. The end-result doesn't bother me, although I'm not fond of the duplicitous route that was taken to get here. I won't undermine the very valid problems of admin-abuse with which I've had to deal by complaining about a semi-legit block. I just want to hear Watson's rationale for his selective enforcement of policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson:You've obviously been editing, so I'm unsure as to why you haven't responded. I asked you a simple, straightforward question and I phrased it rather politely. I'd appreciate an answer. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Starting an ANi thread against a user who can't even post in his own defense? It really doesn't get much lower. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault that you can't post in your own defense. It's your fault. Besides, you've said a lot of malicious and spiteful things about a lot of people, myself included. These things really aren't defensible. It's time you stopped lashing out at everyone else and started looking in the mirror. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was your fault. I said that it doesn't get much lower than starting an ANi thread against a user who's unable to post in his own defense. A "retired" user (I use scare quotes because, like many "retired" users, you're actually quite active, and simply "retire" as a means of attention-seeking; how many times have you "retired" now?) offering to "take up the torch", as you say, to rid the encyclopedia of me is also quite ridiculous. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is pointing fingers at everyone else all you can do? As noted at ANI, even if you manage to skate this time, patience won't be eternal. And no, there's nothing wrong with opening an ANI thread regarding a blocked user. Being blocked didn't prevent you from abusing JamesBWatson above. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "No, there isn't anything wrong with opening an ANI thread regarding a blocked user": Yes, there is.
Re: "Abusing JamesBWatson": I have a very hard time believing that you truly think my polite request that he explain himself is "abuse". Joefromrandb (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Abusing JamesBWatson" was a reference to the "Seek help, son" comment above. Please explain why opening the ANI thread was wrong. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well why it was wrong. Offering to proxy for a blocked user with the statement: "I would be glad to take up the torch and see that this drama-monger gets what he's had coming to him for a good long time" is unacceptable. It violates WP:CIVIL among many other things (unsurprising, as the most vociferous civility-crusaders are often the most egregious civility-violators). Joefromrandb (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a lot of nerve linking to WP:CIVIL. A lot. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! There's your answer. The self-appointed civility-police always think WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to them. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary: those who refuse to treat others with respect cannot demand that any respect be extended to them. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of shit! I don't "demand" anything from anyone. You asked what was wrong with what you did and I explained it clearly. Your responses, predictably, have been nothing but strawmen and ad hominems, attempting to defend your incivility by accusing me of incivility. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWI, I agree that starting the ANI thread while he is blocked is BS. You could have waited automatic. If telling JBW to seek help is the cause for the present block, the blocking administrator has gone way over a line. Admins get called many things, you better get some thick skin....William 18:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was already blocked before he made his juvenile remark. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but the statement to Watson is the cause for the ANI? If so, its beyond stupid. Admins have been called far worse things. You should have thick skins. Plus when is Toddst1 finally going to be called to task for a litany of thing including referring to a editor as child? Indef him too or neither. BTW I suggest you withdraw your ANI proposal. It isn't going too well anyway....William 18:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI report was filed because this is a long-standing issue. The comment to James might have been the last straw for me, but Joe has a history of treating others like dirt. This dispute has nothing to do with Toddst1. Besides, even if your complaint about him has merit (I don't know if it does), there are real-world people who get away with real-world crimes. Does this mean that every real-world criminal should be let go because a few people get away? Lastly, I'm not withdrawing my ANI proposal. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No but it is further proof an administrator is allowed to walk away while non-admins get blocked or banned....William 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic Strikeout has basically admitted in the ANi thread that he opened it because I was "spiteful and vicious" to him in the past, which is not even remotely true. Like his many "retirements", his disrupting a debate with a ridiculous proposal to block a completely uninvolved user (Giano), and his RfA that he planned to fail to make a point, his "taking up the torch" to rid the project (from which, mind you, he still claims to be "retired") of me is nothing more than should be expected. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been spiteful and vicious to many people in the past, myself included. The fact that you choose to try diverting the discussion to what you perceive as my flaws indicates you are not willing to adjust your behavior. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There she blows! You said Joe has been vicious to yourself. Then you shouldn't really be the admin leading the ANI thread, or if you are then full disclosure is needed. I read your initial post to ANI, no mention of Joe being vicious to you. Where's the boomerang?...William 19:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did I become an admin? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, he has no valid response to the criticism, so he "defends" himself by pointing out a minor error. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I was mistaken, you're not an administrator(Good for me that Nomad isn't around.) but that doesn't excuse your behavior. So far three editors at least, counting myself, said you shouldn't have started the ANI or opposed it because Joe can't defend himself there....William 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked AutomaticStrikeout on ANI to stop poking Joe here. You need to stop posting here, too, William. You and AS even seemed to be getting off the subject of Joe for a a while, above … could you use your own pages for any continued dialogue, please? Bishonen | talk 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I am NOT poking. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Nooooooo, of course you aren't. Reminds me of Eddie Murphy's routine, where his wife caught him in bed with another woman and he responds: "Wasn't me". Automatic Strikeout, I think you would argue with Christ Himself. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, I came here to put up a defense for Joe and try to persuade AS to drop the stick. If Joe wishes me to stop posting, I will....William 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate it, William. While I have no problem with you posting here, I'll note that Bish is a learned and perspicacious admin and her advice is usually sound. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before today, I have never encountered Bishonen. My above comment wasn't being disrespectful, just saying its for you to call off this thread. Say so and your wish is granted....William 20:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) "never encountered Bishonen"? - Go meet Bishonen, and your life on the project gets bearable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cookie for you!
Thanks. I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I just figured that Bish probably felt that if she was going to throw Automatic Strikeout off of this page, it was only fair to ask you to disengage as well. I didn't mean to make you feel unwelcome. I appreciate your support, and you're always welcome to post here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some words of wisdom
"Frankly, most of the people who come here screaming that somebody hurt their widdle fweewings are bullies who rightfully got called on their crap or at least were in the tango just as much as the accused." (Montanabw, on the average ANi complaint, 10/24/13)
@Montanabw: speaks a truth, but not the whole truth. See the first law, especially the part about not going to the well too often. My read is the ANI thread will close without any further sanction being applied but continued negative interactions with enough editors could very well end up with you getting indef blocked and/or banned. NE Ent 00:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you said you closed the RfC because you "were tired of seeing it in the centralized discussion box at AN". If you should find yourself in a similar situation in the future, a good solution would be to ignore the admin boards and edit articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching:) I (only) edited articles (starting 2009) until a friend got in trouble (2012). I couldn't ignore the boards when I was called there and a friend got in trouble (2013, ANI and Arbcom). See? Clarification is still open, about who created an article which I expanded from a stub. Don't think it's me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "ignore the boards entirely". It's only normal to wind up there from time to time. My suggestion was meant for those editors who hang out at the admin-boards rather than editing articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You (later) - and everybody else - could say something on the board to clarify the above question and if I am in so much conflict with myself that articles I didn't "create" have to be protected from an infobox by me, - questions best worded by none other NE Ent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw= 60% article-space edits, 80 ANi edits
NE Ent= 9% article-space edits, 1864 ANi edits Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting tool, where did you get it? Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing fancy, just the basic "edit count" option at the bottom of Special:Contributions. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, your numbers actually prove that the Ent is more likely correct. Anyone who spends more time on the "soft skills" side of Wikipedia probably has more understanding of how Wikipedia the community works (No insult intended to Montana - as far as I know we're on good terms). Joe, you literally are a hair's breadth from being indeffed - why not start re-evaluating your interaction style, and put your overall skills to good use. It's not "capitulating", it's more "stopping banging your head against a large brick wall" ES&L 08:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "my numbers" don't prove that at all, but I'd expect that conclusion from someone with 11% article-space contributions. I do not, by any means, consider NE Ent's constant attempts at unnecessary clerking of the admin-boards to be "spending time on the 'soft skills' side of Wikipedia". We'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. But hey, I appreciate your "oppose". I think the fact that even those who can't stand me are opposing shows what a ridiculous, disruptive proposal it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you get the idea that I "can't stand you" - I don't think there's anyone particular on that list ES&L 09:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My own view is that, similar to the faculty/administration "wars" that characterize the academic world (from elementary thought postgraduate education), a similar dynamic between content creators and folks who haunt the drama boards administrative pages is developing here. Absent content creation, we would not have an encyclopedia, yet the hardcore, long term content creators are the very people being routinely attacked around here lately. The trolls go crying that they've been caught being trolls, and SOME of the admin sorts say, "there, there, dearie, we're so sorry that those mean competent editors called you on your bullshit. Poor babies!" The admins who know how to act like grownups and have some iron in their spines are routinely accused of misusing their tools, challenged to be desysopped, and some (User:Lar comes to mind) just quit in disgust. As for me, looks like my current content/dramaboard split is about 60/40, which means Im spending too damn much time on drahmahz. (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Astute observations. I didn't know Lar; I had a look through his archives (week-long blocks allow time for such perusals), and it looks like he got the kind of fuck-job that is all too common here. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Closed due to inactivity" is a good thing, from your perspective; it means no conclusions are drawn that can be used against you. I proposed a close on the AN board, and it says, no surprise, that your edits are deemed offensive etc. Quality of your edits aside (I don't want to judge that, having little previous experience with you), you can't, you know, think that you can say fuck, fuck you, fuck you motherfucker, I'll see you desysopped motherfucker, grow the fuck up, fuck off, grow the fuck up (again), a little hard of reading, are we? and not suffer the consequences. Simple. In fact, you were probably lucky that those two brought up the RfC, and not two editors with more standing when it comes to you. Now, Montana makes a valid point, though your response puzzles me (you're showing sympathy for admins who get shit thrown in their face when that's exactly what you're doing to TParis), and it is true that admins should probably get used to it--but sheesh that's a long list of really crappy remarks. OK, my sermon is over. Have fun when this block runs out. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Exactly what I'm doing to TParis"? I beg to differ. It was I who was on the receiving end of that fuck-job. One hundred years from now, that block will not be any less indefensible. All of the profanity-laced insults above were responses to being wrongfully blocked. (Except for "grow the fuck up", in which I was parodying BWilkwins, the originator of that one; also, "a little hard of reading are we", I borrowed from John [that one was more flattery than parody, John being one of the few admins here that I admire]. So I'm sure you'll now be going to their talk pages to chastise them. Yeah, right.) You're quite the anomaly, Doc. I don't see you engaging in the same disgusting behavior I see from most of your fellow admins, yet I often see you attempting to defend them when they do. While I commend you for choosing to not be a part of the clique, it would be nice if you weren't part of the claque either. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can draw up a list of fucks from TParis like they drew up for you, then we'll talk. It's about numbers too, Joe. I mean, you got Eric Corbett beat by a country mile. No, I'm not going to chastise anyone else, and I'm not here to chastise you either. Actually, I don't know what I'm doing here, or what I was doing here earlier, so on that note, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's bullshit, Doc, and I have a feeling you know it. You brought up Eric (although I'm unsure as to what you mean by "I've got him beat by a country mile"); one of my favorite quotes of his was: "We're in an intercine war here, with all the weapons on one side". TParis had no need to unleash a torrent of "fucks"; he has a block-button. I, on the other hand, do not. Obviously I can't rectify his policy-violating block by blocking him, and anyone who says we have a system in place to report admin-abuse knows that isn't the case at all. I don't know why "it's about numbers". You're referring to a one-off incident. If you look at the two policy-violating blocks I received after TParis' (the most recent one was semi-legit), you'll note that I toned it down quite a bit. I had become somewhat desensitized to bullshit blocks. Yes, I went over the top that first time; it wouldn't bother me so much if people pointed it out with some degree of equanimity. (i.e. "Yes, TParis blocked you in violation of policy, and yes his actions were inexcusable; at the same time, Joe, your outbursts were inexcusable as well.") Instead, my outbursts have been used as prima facie evidence that TParis' block was a good one. I was extremely frustrated and pissed off at the time of those outbursts. If you notice, my subsequent conversations with TParis have contained a minimum of profanity, even though I actually dislike him even more at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My own view for the benefit of both Joe and Eric is that the use of popular four-letter adjectives, adverbs, verb phrases and suggestions for commission of anatomically impossible acts is probably the fastest way to get blocked on-wiki, with no other reason needed. As Drmies knows (and I have immortalized his advice on my talk page in its own quote box), I can unleash an impressive array of adjectives myself when I become angry, but I do my best to avoid those particular ones identified by George Carlin. Why give the B--stards what they want? Mockery, sarcasm, and satire are far more effective than pure invective. Or, at least, that's worked for me so far. To my surprise, sometimes even humor fends them off. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome was: Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus.
-- -- Trevj (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precious anniversary
Grognard Mirabilaire Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a "content-contributor" and an admin with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, you were the 284th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated (yes, it's still on this page, but so far up, no prize for archiving) in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's about the nicest compliment a blocked user can receive! I find myself "speechless" on Wikipedia on a near-daily basis; it's been quite a long time since I've been speechless in a pleasant way. Thank you!! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and speechless? Your wording is very colourful ;) ("While no sane person could blame you for wanting out of this asylum, we really need you." - 2012) - I looked if I could still support what I wrote a year ago, - you see that I modified only slightly. You probably know that a compliment from me doesn't mean much at present (that was different a year ago), the shortest possible summary was found here, to my delight (and followed by: "an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly means a lot to me. I also value the opinions of most of those with whom I routinely disagree (i.e. ESL, above). The only users here that I genuinely dislike are those I find to be disingenuous. Obviously I won't name them, but contrary to what seems to be popular belief, it's only a handful. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the archive you see that I find many people precious in their own ways who may not be ready to talk to each other or are on different sides of an argument ;) - Did you follow the link to my template? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did :). Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our arbs didn't yet come up with a solution, nor decide if I "created an article" if I wrote 80% of the content, and if not who else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count on Arbcom to come up with many solutions - at least not good ones. They are quite the phenomenon; individually, they're intelligent, articulate individuals - collectively, they're an embarrassing motley ship of fools. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on Kafka, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! I've always wanted to improve my German to the point where I could read Kafka in the original, though I'm ashamed to admit I haven't kept up with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Great article", tell PumpkinSky, it was his idea. I miss him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. He's gotten the short end of the stick more than once. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have time for reading again. The witch appeared on the German Main page (they have a modest equivalent to DYK) with success, - more clicks than the TFA here that day. I collected the answers to my questions to arb candidates, interesting how uninvolved people looked at a diff that had concerned an arb enough ("deeply") to include it in his vote to ban the editor. If you really have time, click on the 28bytes answer: he had a good story to tell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gerda. You always have such a quaint way of putting things :). I'll try to catch up on the reading as time allows. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's hope, I added an infobox today, and it was not reverted ;) - my own, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four years ago, you were recipient no. 284 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... six years now that we met in sadness and defiance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly advice
Joe, you need to calm down the aggressive edit summaries, and by "calm down" I mean, seriously, completely stop with it. Here are my rules of thumb, developed over time. (1) Mainspace: Always use an edit summary. Sum up what you have done concisely and completely. Do not address any other editor or make any snarky comments about material you are changing. (2) Non-mainspace: Do not use edit summaries at all UNLESS you are refactoring someone else's contribution for a very good reason, which should be explained, or changing your previous posts in a formal venue such as ArbCom, which should be explained. Avoid being a bonfire victim, knock it off. Best regards and a Plus One for your perceptive take on ArbCom above. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting advice, though I think eliminating edit-summaries outside of article-space is taking it too far. I think what I should have been doing all along is deleting trolling on sight, rather than leaving it here and responding. I do let myself get carried away when this page gets trolled; in the future I'm going to attempt to ignore it. I appreciate the advice and support. Best. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want more friendly advice? (Seriously--friendly advice.) Try to avoid the suggestion that you're following PBP around. Your recent AfD activity suggests that you are, since you typically vote contrary to their position, and those recent AfDs (and a deletion review) where you voted after they did are the only ones you've commented on. I've been trying to turn down the temperature on this pressure cooker, and you can help. Just don't comment on the ones they're involved in, tempting as it is (and I don't say that just because I didn't want your "keep" vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination); that thing was headed for No consensus anyway, at the very least). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate it, but I'm certainly not doing that. In fact, I cited the rationales of other users at the AfD he initiated. My comment to Kww was directed to Kww only. I have no interest whatsoever in that user, and any appearance to the contrary is purely coincidental. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive
An apology
I'm not saying this to be disingenuous or patronizing, but rather because, even though I didn't want to recognize it at first, I believe that I owe you a three-pronged apology. First, I am sorry for the unkind things I said about you on PBP's talk page a few days ago. My remarks were out of line and I apologize for that. Also, while it's not easy for me to say this, I'm afraid I've been guilty of holding a grudge against you for a while now, with the result that I've wanted to see you blocked. That's not an acceptable attitude for me to have, and it's an attitude that has made my Wiki-life unnecessarily unpleasant, and I'm sorry for it. Finally, I also apologize for what was perceived as my poking you on your talk page. I didn't see it that way, but apparently others, including you, did. I'm posting this apology because I believe it's the right to do and I hope we can both move on. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Dee
The notability tag was placed by a now-inactive IP editor who probably doesn't know much about the GNG. 2601:D:9400:3CD:BC7B:7A3:3225:1EB4 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, which makes the tagging all the more inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one was too good to not keep!
[11]: "This comes about not because you disagree with me -- I have a number of Wikifriends who I disagree with but continue to respect -- but because it appears to me that you are basically unworthy of my consideration. Still, I hope you have a wonderful life, and are able to fulfill your Wikipedia goals in spite of your intellectual deficiencies." (Beyond My Ken, responding to my suggestion that his statement that "Jimbo Wales will forever burn in hell" was in poor taste.)
I've been called a lot of things in my life -a lot- yet "intellectually deficient" was never one before today. As amusing as I found that, the real reason for saving this here is to point out a textbook example of the real incivility problem on Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Joefromrandb's finally response is notable as well: "Fuck off" [12] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally response"? Must be those pesky "intellectual deficiencies" of mine, but I'm not familiar with the term. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, intellectual deficiencies indeed: allow me to introduce you to the word "typo", a shortening of the phrase "typographical error", now used in English to indicate any small unintended error in writing regardless of the medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but that's not a typo. "Finall" may pass for a typo but it's quite a stretch to postulate that after typing the word "final", you accidentally hit the "l" again, and then accidentally went up and over and hit the "y". No, that is called a grammatical error and it leads me to believe that the differences between adjectives and adverbs lie beyond your ken. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Joefromrandb, every other day someone gets banned from that Talk Page. You're in good company. Liz Read!Talk! 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, Liz. I'm always in good company when you're around. What a sad misanthrope. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
K.W's candidate guide in the ACE2013 template taken out, then added back in
Hi Joefromrandb. That's fine with me. I do think the removal was the common sense thing to do + also the following policy thing to do without waiting for a "consensus" - K.W is banned, after all - where none is required. I also think it was a good idea for a very low profile editor and admin to do the removal of K.W's candidate guide in the first instance. Lets see what happens. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I would agree with you about not waiting if the edit was actually made by a banned user. In this case, the edit was made by an administrator in good standing; that makes it more complex in my opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November 2013
Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living personon Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was fairly humorous. Perhaps in your zeal, you have missed the fact that I supported keeping material about her career in pornography out of the article until better sources can be found. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Whitehouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bête noire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bashir
Joe, can't we work out the expletives once the paragraph is restored? It makes no sense to hold up the whole thing on that basis. Note that the language that GED deleted before protecting did not use the expletives either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Your opinions are as valid as mine. I was just growing tired of repeating myself to an obvious sockpuppet. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Hey, as long as I'm here, can you satisfy my curiosity by saying what R & B stands for? No problem if it's private info. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was the name of a company I worked for many years ago. We had multiple "Joes" at the lodge to which I belonged (still belong, actually). One of the guys started calling me "Joe from R&B" and it stuck. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my curiosity thanks you. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it sure sounds like you oppose the edit request ("We don't bowdlerize quotes here."). It would be unfortunate if the consequence is that the article will say nothing at all about the nature of Bashir's comments, but apparently that will be the result if the edit request is rejected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my preferred version, but I left a note there that I have no objection to it for now. Once the article is unprotected (which it already should be) we can work out the exact wording to use. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violation redacted
I have redacted part of a comment you made on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Reich_(2nd_nomination) as a BLP violation.[13] It is fairly obvious what sort of things you are referring to. In any case, the use of "disgusting" in relation to the actions of a BLP subject is not permissible. We cannot make derogatory comments about a living person on Wikipedia, however much we may believe them to be true. I have left the rest of your comment in place and I think your meaning is still reasonably clear without getting into the impermissible negative speculation. Material removed on BLP grounds can only be restored with consensus,[14] so if you disagree with my redaction please start a discussion (perhaps at the BLP noticeboard) rather than just reverting. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I took great pains to phrase it in a way that is BLP-compliant. Please find somewhere else to play policeman. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a BLP noticeboard thread on the matter.[15] Regards, Neljack (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP
I noticed you were reverted. No one likes that, but you should consider redacting or rephrasing the issue in question. It's getting a little hot in there. Try and stay cool. Thanks! Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Neljack wants to wikilawyer in favor of Karr, I'm sure he knows where the BLP noticeboard is. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note (as you may know) that I am one of the project's most ardent defenders of WP:BLP. I remove violations with prejudice, and I do it often. Again, I took great pains to phrase my post in a way that is BLP-compliant. Neljack doesn't get to unilaterally decide I'm in error. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my vantage the comments seem like they cross the line, but if you think you can defend it, I'll take your word for it. Still seems a bit unnecessary and likely to waste others time for them having to sift through this. Just my (unasked for) 2 cents. Just trying to be helpful.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. The only one wasting anyone's time here is Neljack. He is perfectly free to go bother someone else. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, will you please explain why you don't think your comment is a BLP violation? Perhaps if you explain it here, Nejik might agree its ok?Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what Neljack thinks. I realize who he is now; he's been disrupting the Natalee Holloway article with all kinds of complaints about phantom BLP-violations. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, please do me a favor and ignore everyone else for the moment and take a look at my question on the BLP board? Pretty please?Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be nice to have so much time on your hands to engage in something so utterly unproductive. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for edit warring
I have blocked you for one month for continuing the edit war on the AFD page. The length of the block reflects the fact that you have a history of several blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing, including a week long block in October. I have added further clarification on the 3RR noticeboard report. TigerShark (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe - I've read the AFD and BLPN conversations and I have a question. Does the "disgusting reasons humanly imaginable" refer to the subject's lifestyle or to their child porn charges? Hence, the BLP violation you were attempting to avoid was referring to the fact that he wasnt charged?--v/r - TP 15:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite obvious. Bullshit blocks are nothing new to me, but the fact that Wikipedia has now become a safe haven for those who wish to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox to defend the indefensible, while shamefully cowering behind BLP is more than I can take. Those who wish to rid the project of me may very well get their wish. I have very little, if any, desire to return in a month. TigerShark, while I hope it never happens, someday someone close to you may fall victim to one of these predators. Imagine the shame you'll feel for the actions you've taken today. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: To answer your question directly, "one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable" refers to the fact that the article says that Karr's own attorney said she was "certain Karr was living as a woman in order to get close to little girls". You have a little girl. I have two of my own. I also have a niece who fell victim to one of these scum fuck predators at the age of four. Imagine how you or I would feel. Imagine how that four-year-old girl felt. That a troll like Neljack would appear out of nowhere to defend this filth is unsurprising; this is Wikipedia, after all. That an administrator would reward his behavior while punishing mine is completely, completely, beyond the pale. If Wikipedia is to become the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants, I will be very happy to have nothing to do with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get it. Look, you showed objectivity a week ago after I showed none about a month ago when there was a vote to indef you. So you've shown you can look past your personal feelings and be the better person and if I can't also do that then I'm just making myself out to be a fool. So don't get any idea that this changes anything, I still don't care for you in the slightest. However, I think these folks at BLPN are trying to get their "I whacked a transphobe" badge rather than actually try to understand what you actually said and I've raised the issue with TigerShark.--v/r - TP 01:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like you much either, TParis. While my dislike has remained stagnant, I'm gradually finding a degree of respect for you, where before I had none.Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that last part. Your comments were obviously lip-service. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TigerShark: You're apparently missing the fact that Nelack initially made 5 reverts, rather than going to the noticeboard, and then proceeded to revert 3 more times after the thread was open. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that Neljack was also edit warring. However, all of those reverts were paired with reverts by you, so you were edit warring also, and you continued 5 hours after the 3RR report was opened. The fact that Neljack was edit warring, doesn't provide you with an exemption. Is there a reason that you believe that your reverts (including the one at 14:05 yesterday) were not edit warring, and were somehow exempted? TigerShark (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was modifying another user's comments without cause. Yes, I reverted 5 hours later, as that's when I logged on again and saw it. Neljack happened to be offline at the time, or he quite obviously would have reverted again as well. I've been trying to keep my head down and avoid conflict since my last block, but I make no apology for reverting actions that attempted to whitewash something so vile. TParis will confirm that he and I rarely agree, but he hit the nail on the head when he said, "you blocked the wrong guy". If you had blocked us both I could have lived with it. Your actions indicate Neljack was doing something noble while I'm, as usual, a giant asshole. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that Neljack was doing something noble. I believe that you were both definitely edit warring. A block of Neljack could certainly have been justified, but I decided, on balance, to not apply one (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). I don't think you are trying to claim that you weren't edit warring, but state that you "make no apology for reverting actions that attempted to whitewash something so vile". You may be happy with that position, but it is not an exemption for edit warring, so I am comfortable with the block. TigerShark (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication in this user's block log that his previous history of several blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing involved talk page content as opposed to article content. Edit wars about talk page comments are rare, and I don't think I've ever seen a block for repeatedly trying to make a talk page comment, much less a legitimate talk page comment. I'm sure such blocks are sometimes appropriate, but maybe that's a valid distinction here, in regards to the length of the block? In other words, this was the first incident regarding an edit-war about talk page comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever seen an IP address blocked indefinitely? TigerShark did 3 of those in one day. It's obvious he doesn't understand the first thing about the blocking policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but it was still edit warring. There is no exemption for AFD pages. The only possible exemption here is removal of BLP content (Neljack could arguably believe that his reverts fall under that exemption). Joefromrandb does seem to have a long history blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing, and only returned from his previous block 3 weeks ago. TigerShark (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently have no idea how little I care about being blocked. My concern here is that you have rewarded Neljack's trolling. If you want to block him and be done with it, fine. You're "comfortable" with the block? As I said, if you ever have the misfortune of having your world invaded by one of the monsters Neljack was defending, I assure you, you won't look back on this with any "comfort". I sincerely hope that never happens to you.Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it is constructive to suggest that Neljack's aim was simply to troll (rather than possibly having a genuine intention to avoid a BLP violation). You seem to agree that you were edit warring, and have stated that you make no apology for doing so. Presumably this means that you believe edit warring is OK, and would be prepared to do it again. The fact that this is your second block for disruptive editing in three weeks, adds further support to this conclusion. TigerShark (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're goddamn right I make no apology. The day I make an apology for reverting the sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester will be the day I die. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, could you please give me the single best piece of evidence of that regarding Neljack? I've come across some pretty lousy Wikipedians in my time, but part of Wikipedia is diplomacy, even if it hurts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of what, that he's a troll? I too have come across some lousy Wikipedians; you could take the cumulative effects of all those I have encountered and multiply it by 50, and you would be nowhere close to what I am feeling right now. Perhaps I'm overreacting for personal reasons, but common sense would seem to dictate that one not need to have one's family ripped apart by a pedophile to share in disgust for them. I would ride a tandem bicycle with TParis and skip rope with PbP before having anything to do with the likes of Neljack. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get the idea, but one or two diffs might speak a lot louder. If he's really that bad, then there are things like an RFC/U that could be done. Maybe that's something to work on preparing during the block, or maybe it might be better to just forget about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, at this point it's unlikely that I'll return after this block is over. No one knows what the future holds, and I'm not going to be one of those divas who "retires". If I do return, I can assure you that I would not participate in an RfC/U, nor anything else that involves Neljack. I don't know what it is your seeking here; defending John Mark Karr while wikilawyering by cowering behind phantom BLP-violations is pretty much as bad as it can get. If you want further evidence of his disruption, see his harassment of Wehwalt (one of the project's finest editors and nicest guys) during the Natalee Holloway FAR. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm one of the retiring ones, so watch what you say. :-) I've gotten very disgusted, retired, then unretired. Anyway, that Holloway thing looks like a real mess, people are so worked up that they cannot even explain themselves. I've had some interaction with Wehwalt and was impressed, so I hope he doesn't get any unfair treatment. But getting back to whether your comment could arguably have been seen as a BLP violation, well, if I said at a talk page that a particular public figure "X" is a dork who likes to suck his thumb in private, without any reliable source to back it up, then technically that would be a BLP violation, and BLP-enthusiasts as well as X-enthusiasts and thumb-sucking enthusiasts could come after me. And it would be hard to tell if they were BLP-enthusiasts versus X-enthusiasts versus thumb-sucking enthusiasts. No need to go on and on here....Take care, whether you go, or stay, or go and then stay. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've missed what actually took place. Instead of saying, "he's a pedophile", I said, "while WP:BLP prevents me from spelling it out in detail, suffice it to say that this "gender change" was done for one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable". This alluded to a referenced statement in the article, coming from Karr's own attorney. I took great pains to phrase it in a way that was WP:BLP-compliant, something even TParis (certainly no buddy of mine) has pointed out. Regarding Wehwalt, yes, he's a hell of a guy. I remember the three of us working together during the Frank Buckles GA-review. I also had some interaction with him at Richard Nixon, a featured article for which he was largely responsible. While I have nothing but good things to say about Wehwalt, the incidents highlight the double-standard here. Wehwalt is an administrator, hence when Neljack started fucking with him, he was quickly stopped. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but saying that someone is a pedo, versus saying that someone is disgusting or dishonest, is a matter of degree only. Certainly we couldn't put in the Buckles article that he was disgusting, without a solid reliable source to back it up. The source in the Karr article didn't say Karr did the gender change for thus-and-such disgusting reasons, but rather said someone claimed he did the gender change for thus-and-such disgusting reasons. That slight distinction is why Neljack got the benefit of a doubt, alas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I took pains to qualify it. Neljack got the "benefit of a doubt, alas" as TigerShark apparently understands nothing about Wikipedia. I was wondering who the hell he was, as I'd never heard of him. I've come to see he's from the nascent days of the project, when admin bits were handed out like Crackerjack-box prizes. He recently blocked three IP's indefinitely, which is never done. After being taken to task by multiple users, he's continuing to insist he's right. Oh, well. Neljack's trolling actually had a Streisand-effect of sorts. The comment he hated wound up being repeated again and again, by multiple users, on multiple pages. I won the argument with flying colors, and that's what's important here. Me being blocked is water off a duck's back. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Do you know you voted twice in the John Mark Karr AfD? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do now! Thanks--old age, I suppose, and disturbed sleep. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I've amplified on your observation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's worth the effort. After all, infallible means infallible. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TigerShark I have two questions for you.
Blocks are supposed to not punitive but to protect Wikipedia per blocking policy. Please explain how your one month block of Joe isn't punitive.
Joe was engaged in a edit war with another editor. So why wasn't the other editor blocked?
And hello Joe....William 15:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi William. You can see TigerShark's talk page for the incomprehensible answers he gave when TParis basically asked him the same thing. Actually, a glance at TigerShark's talk page shows he's completely out of touch about Wikipedia in general. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tigershark answered my questions not here, but on his talk page[16]. I told him what I thought of that. Never seen that done once in over 7 years of editing here. If A is talking to B at C, B takes the discussion to B. I didn't ask him the questions there, I asked them here....William 18:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI
I have created a a new report on the ANI noticeboard regarding the block of Joefromrandb. TigerShark (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I would like to say thank you to William JE, Anythingyouwant, Automatic Strikeout, and yes, even TParis, as well as any others who have come to my defense. I think the fact that even editors who think I'm a no-good-son-of-a-bitch are speaking out against this block speaks volumes. I'd like to note that TigerShark has been defending his block, as well as the length of it, based on the fact that I am "unrepentant". Perhaps he missed the part where I said, "I've been trying to keep my head down and avoid conflict since my last block". The reason I remain "unrepentant" in this instance is the gravity of the situation. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JodyB: Thank you for your comment. The overwhelming majority of my anger has subsided, although I do retain disgust for the incident. I admitted above that I may have overreacted for personal reasons, but I maintain that any reasonable person should largely share my feelings. I assure you that less than 5% of my anger, if any, came from being blocked. 95% of my anger or more came from the fact that an administrator could possibly find Neljack's actions acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misunderstand me. I think your behavior has been poor. I only think the block was one-sided and in an effort to try and find a way forwatd I suggested ending the block. Your history is troublesome and you ought find a way to avoid these problems in the future. JodyBtalk 00:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thanked you for your comment and responded to what you said. I'm not sure what you think I misunderstood. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken: It's a shame you're apparently not capable of the same objectivity that users like Automatic Strikeout and TParis are. I further find it rather amusing that you consider yourself fit to judge BLP-violations, after defending your statement that, "Jimbo Wales will forever burn in hell". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the world of Joefromrandb, anyone who agrees with what you want is objective, and anyone who disagrees is not, and sarcasm must be treated as if it is meant literally.
Well, I guess that's an interesting world to live in, but I don't think I'll be visiting anytime soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly "want" anything, but thank you for vowing not to visit the world in which I live. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think I'll be visiting anytime soon." is a "vow"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sure hope so. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Joe and I am glad I was able to be of assistance. Can I suggest something? Your talk page is huge. I think it can use archiving. Mine is archived for all but recent posts. I'll help you if needed. Let me know....William 02:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's on my list of things to do. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing that after being told by TParis, of all people, that my remarks do not violate WP:BLP, Neljack is continuing his nonsense at ANi. Perhaps he and TigerShark should take their two-man show on the road. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be amused is the way I also cope with things. (I screamed only once, that was 2010, still remember the feeling. In 2013, I didn't scream, just fell speechless for one night.) - Archiving is much easier when you are not blocked. If you feel it's urgent I could do it for you. - My latest amusement is the suggested user name User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal (see my talk, enlightening) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I should probably wait until this comedy of errors has reached a conclusion before archiving. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't archive: "Don't be afraid to edit, the worst that can happen is someone disagrees with you and undoes it.", termed "bold". I asked if an edit I made was "bold" or possibly "disruptive". No one is bold enough to speak ;) - I added an infobox on an article I created, Peter Planyavsky. To shorten a longer story (history and talk, not really long): It was reverted (N), back improved (G), reverted (N), back by a different user (R), collapsed at the end (N), back uncollapsed (A). Who needs to be banned? A, sure. R is gone. I wrote on Kafka, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly liked Eric Corbett's suggestion as to how to stifle the infobox wars. (In all fairness, I find that I like 85% or more of Eric's suggestions.) Joefromrandb (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like different 85% of his suggestions and told him (21:25, 17 June 2013, still on his talk, under Precious again) that his suggestion would not work ;) - I believe that "the wars" are a myth. Look at the above example: I am not at war with myself, I could have simply added an infobox, no? It's in the article now, no reason for a battle. One of the arb candidates observed correctly that A's edit (given as evidence to support a ban) actually stopped the little unnecessary war. - I praise Eric for having stayed away from the case, that was wise and helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you're not the one who created the problem. I've seen some of those debates, and it seems to me that you're willing to reason and compromise, at least to a degree. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did you see them? I asked to show me disruptive addition of an infobox in 2013 and got no response so far. My thoughts in a nutshell - with a history of being against infoboxes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:George Frideric Handel, for one. Info boxes, in their own peculiar way, have common-ground with more serious issues like abortion or gun control, in that a few nuts on both sides seem capable of hijacking any real chance of legitimate debate. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say it: at talk. I asked where you (anybody) saw me adding an infobox disruptively. I looked at that discussion again: I don't see disruption there as well, simply misunderstandings. ("The infobox repeats the lead." - yes, of course, it's the concept, and actually the places of birth and death are not in the lead.) - What I also see now is that there were several supports, and the discussion civil, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we misunderstood each other. I never said you added an infobox disruptively. I thought you were discussing the issue reasonably, while others were being disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We understand each other, I think ;) - It's others whom I ask to please present one incidence of me (or Andy) adding an infobox disruptively in 2013. I would learn ;) - In that talk, I didn't see disruptive arguing, did you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: Thank you for your astute, spot-on observations at the ANi thread. Particularly troubling is TigerShark's indefinitely blocking multiple IP addresses, something that is rarely, if ever, done. Even more troubling is his responses to the attempts you and Doc Mies made to counsel him. The guy wears his infallibility on his sleeve. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AutomaticStrikeout: I like the memoriam to Jackson Peebles in your sig. If this block does remain in place until 12/23, not being able to leave a condolence on his page until then is one thing that I would lament. When one of our own dies it gives pause to just how stupid and trivial so much of the shit that goes on here is. If this block is still in place after a day or two, and if you're willing to risk a wikilawyer accusing you of meatpuppetry, would you mind copying a message to his page for me? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) I am ready to deliver a message you phrase here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gerda. Let's see what plays out over the next 24 hours or so. There's always the outside chance of sanity prevailing. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amused again, because I just read something like that, below ad absurdum, look for "Of course, an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
If/when you have a free moment, send me an email. Hang in there, bro. - theWOLFchild 08:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TWC. I hope you aren't offended by this, but I would prefer not to have any e-mail conversations about this situation. I appreciate your concern and I'm certainly interested in what you have to say. At the same time, I have a deep disgust for the way administrators engage in off-site collusion through e-mail and at IRC-admins. As a matter of principle, I would prefer my conversations about the matter to remain transparent. Do feel free to make any comments you wish here. Regards, Joefromrandb (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not like that. I'm not trying to be secretive for your sake about this situation. I actually wanted to ask you about something, and I was looking to keep it off-wiki for my sake. I already spoke up about this blocking nonsense here. Anyways, I think I'm good now, so no worries. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Cheers - theWOLFchild 09:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it involves Starblind's nonsense at the ANi thread, I'd be more than happy to discuss that. Starblind has a habit of quoting me out of context, to put it mildly. There was a situation where a user made the comment: "'R' is for 'retarded' and 'A' is for 'asshole'". I had a conversation with that user regarding the comment. Based on that conversation, Starblind made the ridiculously false claim that I had called a user a "retarded asshole". If any non-admin made up a lie like that, I have no doubt that they would be blocked. Starblind, cloaked in administrative infallibility, was not only not blocked; he was hardly even taken to task for it. Such is the caste-system that is Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are good and bad admins here, and unfortunately, the bad admins are really bad. I actually had an admin call me "retarded"... on the intellectual disability talk page, no less! Just more examples of a horribly corrupt admin system and a badly broken ANI venue... - theWOLFchild 09:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a citizen attempting to chastise a policeman who had parked his car in a handicapped-spot while he picked up his take-out order at a local restaurant. The officer went into a long-winded explanation about how "a police car is technically never parked" so legally he had the right to leave his car anywhere he wished. Similarly, administrators can't make personal attacks. If an administrator calls someone "retarded", it's obviously for that person's own good. It's apparently perfectly acceptable for an admin to call a user "a petulant piece of shit". I was quite amused when this same admin said I deserved to be blocked for saying "sycophant" (which I suppose I should take as a compliment, as it would put me in the company of a Wikipedia legend). Joefromrandb (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the analogy. Some admins here do envision themselves as 'policemen-of-sorts'. Real police find this amusing. The unfortunate thing is, there are some really good admins here. The bad admins just make wiki-life harder for the good admins (and everyone else) - theWOLFchild 10:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Q
Joe, if in the future some sleazy slimy no-good moronic wretch of a Wikipedian deletes a comment of yours, do you intend to edit-war about it, or instead go through proper channels? NOTE: As I have mentioned to User:Bbb23, please don't infer that I hold any negative opinion of the editor with whom you edit-warred. My question is directed toward figuring out what you intend to do if you encounter an editor who you think is reverting a comment of yours for (what you consider) no good reason. So let us stipulate that a future editor is way off base.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, AYW. It's been an extremely long day and now, 14 hours later, I have to get ready to go spend the next 4 hours at a function I have no desire to attend, so I'm short on time. To give you a quick, but honest answer, I don't know. Perhaps I'll expand a bit tomorrow, or more likely when I return. (As exhausted as I know I'll be, insomnia is all but inevitable after days like these.) Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Maybe you at least got some free munchies at the function.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The munchies were free for everyone but me, as my partner and I footed the bill for the whole damn thing. We raised a good amount of money for charity though, which made footing the bill worth it, and the necessity of seeing my sisters-in-law two days in a row almost worth it. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TigerShark, et.al.: I have no interest whatsoever in any conditional offer of unblocking. You made a mistake. Either fix it or don't. I'm not agreeing to any restrictions, reasonable as they may or may not be, to get out of a block that never should have been placed. "Joe can be unblocked as long as he promises to stop beating his wife". No thanks. I have never made an unblock request, and I find it unlikely that I ever would. Obviously I find the project to be a worthwhile cause. Obviously I would rather be editing than blocked. I truly appreciate the efforts of those who went to bat for me, but a handful of editors have turned that ANi thread into a farce (hatting comments noting your lack of admin-skills as "off-topic", which would never be done if it was off-topic criticism of a non-admin; Mark Arsten literally proclaiming aloud that, "just because he can get away with calling another user 'a petulant little piece of shit' doesn't mean that 'our rules' don't apply to me; and I could go on). As much as I enjoy contributing here, I have plenty of productive ways to occupy my time until 23 December, and as I noted above, this incident has left such a bad taste in my mouth, I'm still unsure as to what I'll do at that point. Unblock me or don't. Happy Thanksgiving to all. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Joe....William 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: Thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see that someone noticed the comedy of TigerShark's proposal (i.e. IP writes "famous politician x is a cocksucker"; Joe reverts; IP gets level 1 warning; Joe gets blocked for two months). I couldn't come up with something so ridiculous if I tried. The more I realize how little TigerShark knows what he's doing, the less this block bothers me, believe it or not. It's one of the problems with adminship-for-life. In the early days, admin-tools were approved largely the way requests for rollback are today; just about anyone who asked could get them. Those that got them by simply asking continue to share equal privileges with those who had to earn their infallibility with a grueling week of hell. TigerShark is obviously completely misguided, but a bad block from someone who didn't know any better is certainly easier to swallow than one from someone who knows better but does it anyway. As for PBP, it's best to just ignore him. He is funny though; constantly linking to the RfC where he was ubiquitously chastised, or talking about my blocks for edit-warring when the last such block resulted in him being found guilty of the same offense and blocked alongside me. It's why I never kicked him off of this talk page, even though I probably should have. If you want some real comedy, check out his Simple English Wikipedia account, where he's banned. He managed to rack up about 14 blocks on his way to banishment, including being blocked for "whining" (no, I'm not kidding). Joefromrandb (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: Thank you for your proposal and comments. In your tally, I think you missed Floquenbeam as supporting unblock. If BMK wants to get into the "support-of-argument" rhetoric, start by looking at some of the unlikely names supporting unblock: TParis and Floquenbeam are two administrators with whom I share a history of mutual dislike; Automatic Strikeout and I haven't shared the friendliest history; ES&L is someone I respect, but disagree with about almost everything; Drmies is another whom I respect, despite often clashing with him. It's hardly my cheering section calling for an unblock. As for the opposes, I'm not saying they're all without merit, but Admiral Caius' rationale that, "Joefromrandb will certainly continue BLP violations if he's unblocked", is ridiculous; Mark Arsten's rationale is both odd an and self-serving; PBP obviously doesn't even rate a comment; and TigerShark has continued to undermine his own credibility, particularly with his latest proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Re: "I believe I am uninvolved and could close this": You and I (and everyone else) know that you're involved. You attempted to shift the discussion in a fellow admin's favor by hatting perfectly relevant comments about concerns about TigerShark's lack of competence. You know perfectly well that this never would have been done if the comments were about a non-admin. When you were rightfully reverted, you re-reverted, this time calling your revert "an administrative action", and insisting that editors were forbidden to revert you. While I have no idea how winning an edit-war by invoking "administrative action" could possibly be permissible, I know it's useless to protest; fine. But please don't have the audacity to claim that you're uninvolved after taking such an action. (I'm sure you'll still swear un-involvement; no need for us to waste time arguing this here.) What I would appreciate a response to is your bizarre statement, "TParis didn't vote". TParis is the one who initiated this whole thing, telling TigerShark that he "blocked the wrong guy". With all the "it's a discussion, not a vote" rhetoric being spouted there, how can you possibly justify discounting a user's opinion based on the fact that he didn't actually cast a vote? I realize that you (or any other admin) would try to find any means possible to avoid a finding-of-consensus that a fellow administrator's actions were improper, but discounting the support of my most unlikely defender because he didn't cast a proper vote is beyond the pale. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 (again): That's a much better (and more honest) way to help keep the block in place, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I hope, at this point, you'll withdraw your claim of "administrative action" regarding the comments you hatted. Whether someone decides to un-hat them or not, you obviously can't threaten to enforce administrative control of a discussion if you're going to participate. Finally, I just noticed the fact that you apparently had a death in the family. I hope you'll accept my sincere condolences. Regardless of what you and I think of each other in the context of Wikipedia, as one human being to another, know that my thought's and sympathies are with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I think your point about us as Wikipedians and us as people is spot-on, and I do appreciate your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
Thank you. I'm enjoying a Chimay at the moment, as a matter of fact. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked
I have closed the discussion on ANI and unblocked you with a caution on future behavior. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't say I was expecting that. Thank you, Todd. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, heed the above advice. Happy editing and see you around here....William 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and remember "outside chance" above, Jackson, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to be careful. If someone is pissing you off, please take a moment before editing. Good luck. Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all of you who spoke up for me. I truly appreciate it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation
False accusations!
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your false accusations have been noted. Your honesty is quite refreshing. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE 2013 Annual Report
Badmintonhist again
Thanks for your recent words of wisdom at my recent dust-up at Wikipedia noticeboard/incidents. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiss (sculpture)
Hello Joefromrandb, about your recent move of The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) to The Kiss (sculpture), please see the Talk page. Since there is another article about a sculpture with the same name (by Constantin Brâncuși) I recommend moving the title of the article to The Kiss (Rodin). Thanks in advance for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion at Joe E Ross on how to resolve our disagreement on the personal life section. I hope you'll join in the discussion. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have joined the discussion. I have also reverted to the long-standing version while discussion is underway, following WP:BRD. I have presented what I feel are compelling arguments why a blog-article titled "King of Slobs" is far from a reliable source for posting defamatory information about someone. Don't worry; you're one of the Infallibles, so I'm sure you'll win in the end, regardless of what our policies say. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PC2
I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would oppose PC2 on a page which 1) would, under current rules, be fully protected AND which, if PC2 were an option for that article, the Encyclopedia would be better off if the page were editable by non-admins subject to being reviewed by reviewers.
In other words, why would you categorically recommend that even if PC2 were an option, that no page which would be under full protection under current rules have its protection changed to PC2?
To play devils' advocate, I'll name two possible arguments:
The number of cases where PC2 would be better isn't worth the increased bureaucracy.
The criteria for selecting reviewers is too loose or has been too loose in the past, meaning there will be more opportunity for unwanted results than the current system, where administrators copy edits from article talk pages.
While both arguments are valid, I'm not persuaded that they outweigh the benefits of making more articles editable by more people. I'm asking you if you have other reasons to oppose PC2 that I haven't yet considered. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: George Washington
I did presume him dead, circumstantially. The best general reference, the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz 2nd edition, has no date of death listed, and Oxford Music Online has no updated information on him in its entry (which is taken wholesale from the print run of Grove). Since he died or is dying in obscurity, the date of death might have to be dug out of social security records or local obituaries. There's someone around here who specializes in that, but I can't remember who it is...Sorry, if the name hits me I'll let you know (it was someone I saw updating a whole bunch of jazz biographies I created a couple years back). Chubbles (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admin noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thanks very much to for your kind words about my quality improvement efforts bringing Fuck (film) to WP:FA quality: "Excellent job on the "Fuck" article, BTW".
I really appreciate that a lot, thank you!
— Cirt (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Getting any article to FA is no easy task, but I can only imagine the kinds of SPA's and trolls that pop up on an article like that. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rel Melissa Scott (pastor)
Thanks for your substantial work on MS, in particular most recently deleting the (unconnected?) church sale info. QUERY: If the consensus winds up being for merge to GS, do you think the broadcast info for MS should stay at the GS article? Paavo273 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly; I think it's too early to tell. There's a lot that's conspicuously absent from Gene Scott's article as well. Gene Scott was nothing if not interesting. Often called "the cussing preacher", he was well known for his fundraising telethons, where Scott swore, smoked, and showed off his bikini-clad models. Unlike other TV preachers, who engaged in scandalous activities behind closed doors while pretending to be pious, Scott made no secrets about his harem of young women, nor his fondness for profanity. On the other hand, he had an impressive knowledge of the scriptures and ancient languages. Unlike so many televangelists who seek to defraud their viewers with their "prosperity gospel" nonsense, when Scott asked his parishioners for money, he claimed that he was a teacher and they should pay him tithes based on the value of what they had been taught. He was something of a "WYSIWYG" preacher. There's a documentary about him that you can probably find on You Tube: "God's Angry Man" by Werner Herzog. I'd like to expand the article to include some of this, but it's hard. There has been so much removed from the Web–not just Wikipedia– about both of the Scotts. It's almost eerie. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, & thanks for the reply. I agree. I saw that one.
As for MS, I have nothing against an article about her on WP, but IMO it's not useful to have a story that says nothing. (Personally, I would rather listen to or watch MS than these self-righteous fundamentalists who post nude stills of her on their websites and then ridicule and condemn her.)
If MS included her past in her ministry, it would IMO and others', make her ministry more interesting. As in what has she learned? How has she evolved? Jesus hung out w/ & ministered to beggars, prostitutes, etc., the down and outers, people who needed a "better song to sing." Who better to talk about Jesus than s.o. who needed redemption? I guess her business calculus or her advisors persuaded her otherwise. IMO the hypocritical Puritan moral culture USA was founded on and the bourgeois Jesus the middle class have created couldn't be further from what he was really all about. But I stray fr. the subject...
QUERY: When you decided MC2009's fate, did you guys discuss its reliability for other less controversial info ('cuz there's lots of great basic facts there, too) and decide it was altogether unworthy, not just for the porn info?
IMO and others', nude modelling is not that controversial in the 21st century (Look at women like Patti McGuire and Heather Kozar and probably a lot of others--most? highly respectable guys in this day and age would love to marry a woman like that.) Even porno acting doesn't have the stigma it used to.
In one situation I would agree with the editor or admin? who blanked all references to porn on the MS talk page: If it were false and she sued MC, then deleting that would have been prudent. There's no indication she did sue; 'seems like an open/shut case. If it were false. Paavo273 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Loud as Fuck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'''Loud as Fuck''' (stylized as ('''Loud as F@*k''') is a compilation album by the [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shishaldin
Thanks for removing the AFD archive templates form the page, I was quite confused because I thought it was speedily deleted, however the community hasn't reached a consensus yet. Thanks! --///ECGT Mobile | On the Go 04:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Add me to those confused by that mess. It shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion during an open AfD discussion, especially as the admin who nominated it noted that it qualified for A7 but felt that a discussion was the better way to go. The end-result will likely be a redirect being re-created. As it's an article about a living person being redirected to an article about a non-living entity, it's probably better that the history not be restored. In any case, it shouldn't have been this complicated. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE February blitz wrapup
March GOCE copyedit drive
|}
You dove in. However
I just noticed above that you have excellent tastes in beer. (There are three or more unopened bottles of Chimay cream label here as I write.) Good, good. Now, I'm a little disappointed to find no spirited defence of Dryden's (to me, nutty) proscription, and wondered if you might be a bit down for some reason. If so, buck up! (And if not, well, buck further up!) For the sake of variety, rather than Chimay, here's an Orval. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary here stood out within my watchlist, so I took a look.
I am not a member of the usage crowd. I am not ireful. But you're wrong. "Dove" is common. Simply googling for it is of course meaningless: you get mentions of the bird, of the little furniture biz cum church of the Koran-burning nutball, and other irrelevant stuff. Google "he dove" and you're closer, but you get a lot of the old, the poetic, etc. However, google "dove into the manual" and you get plenty of recent, prosaic examples.
Irelessly yours, Hoary (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know. You find a ubiquity of sub-standard English in "recent, prosaic examples". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hehe. Joe, are you turning into an old fogey, or were you always one without my noticing? Bishonen | talk 13:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I think it was Tom Lehrer who said: "I went from adolescence to senility, bypassing maturity". Probably the latter. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it was Oscar Wilde who said of Max Beerbohm "the gods bestowed on Max the gift of perpetual old age". (And one, two, three.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the misattribution to Churchill. My edit summary: "something up with we shall not put" was intended as reductio ad absurdum. If someone actually used that phrase, I would reject it as ridiculous. I still feel that preposition-stranding should be avoided when practical, and reject completely the argument that Dryden's prescription is "hypercorrect". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get physical for a moment. "He dove around to the side of the building and looked in a window. He stood for a moment, watching with bulging eyes, half drew a pistol, thought better of the notion and replaced it, and then darted back to the saloon from which he had emerged, croaking hoarsely: 'Fight! fight!" (here). "Blake's face whitened with rage and he dove desperately forward. Smashing a hard fist into Silver Mask's face, he watched the fellow's body go limp" (here). Whew, enough of that. "The Eels also tried to be friendly, and, when he dove to the bottom, called to him to stay and visit with them" (here). ¶ If you reject completely the argument that Dryden's strictures were whimsy centuries ago when he wrote them and mere poppycock now, I hardly know where to start. But I do recommend a reality-based grammar book that reflects study (rather than merely recycling older supersitions). Specifically, this one: it's lucid, reasoned, compact and affordable. Meanwhile, enjoy this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider Dryden to be "poppycock", I wouldn't know where to start either. I find the "ignore all rules" approach to grammar to be every bit as unhelpful as the pedantic one. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, have no fear that well-informed grammar is free of rules. Quite the contrary. After all, the Student's Introduction is compact only in terms of its subject matter: rather than the eighteen hundred pages plus of what it summarizes, it has just three hundred pages. And these three hundred have to be filled with something. Rules abound. Pp. 137–139 are devoted to preposition stranding; and aside from the simple matter of style (register), the book gives three each of "syntactic factors that disfavour or exclude the [stranded/non-stranded] version". You want reasons to avoid stranding, you've got them:
Stranded preposition would be within subject noun phrase: *"This is the safe which the key to was stolen" (fixed: "This is the safe to which the key was stolen")
Preposition phrase is an adjunct (other perhaps than an adjunct of place): *"I have a lecture ending at two, which I'll be free all day after" (fixed: "I have a lecture ending at two, after which I'll be free all day")
Certain expressions used as adjuncts can't be divided: *"What way am I annoying you in?" (fixed: "In what way am I annoying you?")
As I've said, there are also three factors pointing the opposite direction; but I'll spare you as I think I've already plagiarized enough. ¶ Now, I have no opinion about Dryden himself, but I do believe that Dryden's condemnation of preposition stranding as "a common fault" and "inadmissible" (see here) was wrong-headed in its day and is poppycock now. However, I also like to think that I'm open minded; so do please explain the rationale for taking it seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a bit overloaded lately; behind the 8-ball at work, and my father-in-law has been in-and-out of the hospital with some serious (not life-threatening) issues. I hope to compose a spirited reply when time allows. Thanks for the beer! I indeed enjoy Orval. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joe E. Ross
I like that you're working on that paragraph. I have a concern that merging the marriage and work life sentence makes it sound like a direct argument that he ruined all of his marriages by being difficult (Maybe the women were difficult? Who can say? To tell the truth, I don't even think we have the solidest of sources for his multiple marriages, but that's beside the point). And I'd check out WP:SAY where you changed stated to complained. I would have made some of the changes myself, but I didn't want to futz with what you were writing while you were making other changes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have the time to delve into this right now. I know my changes are far from perfect; please feel free change anything I've done. I'll try to address this in more detail when time allows. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no hurry. Just a couple of thoughts for later. I didn't want it to look like reverting, while you were working.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, including the birth years of a non-notable person doesn't go against WP:BLP at all. In the case of Mayim Bialik, it is beneficial for readers, particularly for those who would otherwise not know that her sons were born within her marriage to Michael Stone. Some might ask "was ____ born before they got married?" or "was _____ born after they separated?" if birth years are not included. I understand not going with full birth dates, but for the sake of readers I would include birth years. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of age, it helps to include birth year, and being a minor doesn't go against BLP in this instance. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you usurp Jimbo's throne you can unilaterally decide Wikipedia policy. Until then you don't get to decide that something "doesn't go against BLP" when there is long-standing consensus that it does. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. I was saying that I found nothing in WP:BLP that suggested not to include birth years, even if person is a minor. Besides, there are many FA's that list the birth year of non-notable minors (i.e. Barack Obama). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Obama case is an anomaly, and the girls' DOB's were intentionally omitted for years. In any case, I'm only one guy; take it to the BLP-noticeboard if you want to change the policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I can't find anything in WP:BLP that says not to include birth years for non-notable minors..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation
SJB
Welcome to bizarro world, where SB, wife of former PM, appointed director of Harrods is a title format used by dozens of reliable sources with nary a complaint, and SB, the wife of GB, today spoke at a meeting... regularly the first sentence of a lede for RS articles about her, but SB (wife of GB) as a title is a steaming pile of misogynistic crap, mostly to a few lads on Wikipedia who are over eager in their defense of women's rights. If you'd like to participate in brainstorming new titles you are most welcome, I just suggest that you ignore the troll.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind words. While I've never been particularly fond of that user, I can't say that I've ever thought of him as a "troll" before today; that's actually a very interesting observation. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you probably missed the part where he trolled the whole Bradley Manning discussion. Actually hurt real people's feelings, ostensibly to demonstrate bias in Wikipedia and see how much of a shit he could be. Then he apologized for the whole thing. Troll is the best description I can think of, one because he had admittedly trolled in the not-so-distant past, and second because he uses language and hurtful insults mainly to rile up a debate, not in order to advance a discussion. I checked the logs and was stunned that he reverted the first move request, which was simply to 'Sarah Brown' (an option I liked per IAR), calling it misogynistic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had composed a detailed response, but deleted it before saving; as I understand it, he's topic-banned from that subject and I felt it would be unfair to discuss him in an avenue where he isn't permitted to respond. I am familiar with it, but I'll leave it at that. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes, I had forgotten about the ban. Fair enough. Anyway, I do welcome your participation and hope you will help us think of new/better ways to name this article - thanks again for your input. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was mostly bothered that Skip probably wasn't a real name, but a nickname. Regards and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was on my way to your page to apologize to you; I misunderstood what you were doing. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moratorium discussions
Per this edit, was your thought that we discuss the Genesis creation narrative moratorium at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and the validity of admins imposing moratoriums at WP:AN? I could live with having both discussions, but I doubt people will stay on topic, even if it were made very clear what the two discussions are supposed to be about. Otherwise, we should close the article one, and just encourage people to post at WP:AN. StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just opposed to an editor closing a discussion in which he was involved. You're probably right about people staying on topic though. FWIW, I too favor "Genesis creation narrative". It's the abuse–no doubt completely unintentional in this case– of administrative authority I oppose. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By what definition was I involved? I mentioned that it ought to be closed then I closed it. If that makes me involved then that also means that I'm from Kansas because I passed through there once. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Given your block log history of edit warring and disruptive editing is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring ([17] & [18])? Given that the best course of action when disputing closures is to take the dispute to WP:AN or discuss it in a new sub-section on the talk page and that once reverted you shouldn't make exactly the same revert (particularly on a talk page) is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to take your question seriously when you're not asking the same question of the user who performed six reverts on that page (you know, the one who actually broke WP:3RR). I assume this is just the ubiquitous admin-phallus rearing its glans to demand I show due reverence to our benevolent administrators. I also question the degree to which you've examined my block-log. I've only been blocked twice for "edit warring and disruptive editing"–the other three blocks were from admins who don't like me getting even because I dared to question their infallibility. As to "reasons I shouldn't be blocked", you could start with: "it would be punitive", and "it would violate WP:INVOLVED", to name just two. Then again, you people have never let trivial things like policy get in the way of doling out blocks to those who fail to "bow our heads with great respect and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you did it, but somehow you submitted a version of the Dewey Bunnell article that wasn't redirected back to the America band wikipedia page. WOW!! I am very appreciative and grateful. A few years ago, I tried numerous times to get the article to stick. I even rewrote it and took it to arbitration and it was voted down. ( I just looked at the talk page and it looks like the old discussions I was involved in were taken down?). Maybe they were either archived, deleted, or this is a new Bunnell page. Again, thank you. It has annoyed me for years that there was such pettiness as to justify not allowing this singer and songwriter to have his own page because it didn't meet notability standards. Christian Roess (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is that he clearly does meet notability standards. The editor who redirected the article was using a ridiculous interpretation of WP:BLP1E. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a small, but vocal group of editors who feel that the best way to spread "the sum of all human knowledge" is to keep as much information as possible out of the encyclopedia. As the article has stood as a standalone for several months now, it would require a clear consensus (or an administrator willing to supervote) to move it back to a redirect. It should be okay now. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you. And a big thanks for your attention to detail in your response to me here. And yes, indeed: such a ridiculous interpretation it was of BLP, a form of madness really; and when I was dealing with that small vocal group you mentioned (so self-important! Many of them wearing it on their sleeves like it was a badge of honor), it felt like I was walking in "vicious" circles, or I had weights tied around my ankles. And so all I could manage to do was shuffle around inside a fun-house hall of mirrors, and drool. Anyhow, I take my hat off to you for wading into these edit wars. My best to you.Christian Roess (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Józef Kowalski
Hi Joe,
I am glad to hear that you are interested in developing the Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian) article further. I am not convinced that the priest of the same name is not notable enough to have his own article. If you disagree, you are welcome to start an AfD for Józef Kowalski (priest) following the process explained here. I don't see that the supercentenarian is more notable than the priest, but if you believe that the article about the supercentenarian should be located at the undisambiguated title, you are welcome to initiate a move according to the steps outlined here. In the future, if you believe a move to be uncontroversial, it is better to request the move here than to ask an individual administrator to perform the move. I hope you find the above information useful.
PS - You may find it beneficial to archive your talk page so that users with slow computers will be able to communicate with you more easily. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you ("an individual administrator") as you were the one who moved the disambiguation page. A user unilaterally and without discussion moved the original article. I should be able to follow WP:BRD, and move it back to it's long-standing title. The user who originally moved it could then file a move-request. I cannot do so because of a technical restriction. You didn't initiate a discussion before reverting the move of the disambiguation page, but I need to initiate one to get an un-discussed move undone? Administrative infallibility at its finest! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE June 2014 newsletter
Removing banners indicating ongoing disputes
Stop removing the {{notability}} tag from Joaquín_Santiago. The notability of the subject is under dispute. You're free to not participate in this discussion. But don't prevent other readers to know about it. --damiens.rf 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I don't understand that. What did you mean? --damiens.rf 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When someone disagrees with a tag you add to a page, you don't get to keep adding it ad infinitum just because you want it there. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI
Obviously you are unaware that socking claims are to be backed up by a report. Gather your evidence & file and until then be quiet. I would advise you that your time would be more productively employed searching for much needed sources with a microfiche and then adding them to the sorely deficient Joaquin Santiago. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like the report you filed about the creator of the article? Go troll somewhere else, IP-sock. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Joefromrandb, for your support. You know, my father was not a "hoax" as the nomination started out. I really didn't pay much much attention to the article since I figured the creator of it must have known what he/she was doing, but when I re-read the article the last time I began to suspect that the creator got something wrong. Well, that's life my friend. You take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentors (band)
you keep changing the Mentors members on the Mentors Wikipedia page ended discography.
I am in the band and the other members of the band are updating it with me.
Do you feel that there's false information on there? If so please tell me what you think is wrong.
The original three members of the Mentors had a contract together and never has anybody officially left the band until the death of El Duce.
Please let me know thank you.
Marc mad dog
Well, unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you can post the changes you wish to make at Talk:Mentors (band), preferably with references that back up these proposed changes I'm fairly sure we can work something out. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE July 2014 newsletter
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Tilden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[Category:World No. 1 tennis players]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Hi Joefromrandb.
This is Raymarcbadz from WikiProject:Olympics. I just noticed that you removed the links of those who don't have existing articles yet, and you refuse to accept my tip. My question is why rowing? Isn't this unfair to the other sections and nations articles? I think you should set up a centralized discussion with the project to avoid prejudices and isolation. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not ask a Wikiproject for their permission to observe site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT exists primarily for WP:BLP reasons, and it most certainly trumps the preferences of any Wikiproject's members. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Horvitz AFD
That was only closed because the nominator was another sockpuppet/meatpuppet of David Horvitz who was trying to get the page deleted for some art installation he was doing rather than one on notability. After all the dust has settled, plenty of people are beginning to question his notability. Keep the tag on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Derek and the Dominos. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please provide evidence for your claim that WP:MOSQUOTE says not to use wikilinks within quotes. Radiopathy•talk• 13:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not troll my talk page again. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walter Winchell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
He made his radio debut over WABC in New York, a CBS affiliate, on May 12, 1930.<ref>(John Dunning, Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio, p. 708</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE July drive and August blitz
NPA
Don't you ever call me a meatpuppet again. WP:NPA. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't engage in meatpuppetry, and I guarantee I won't call you one. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop
Please stop removing legitimate redlink to George Waters (MP) from relevant articles. BLP does NOT apply as he is long dead (as is obvious from the dates he was politically active. I note that you are not removing other redlinked individuals from the same articles, so wonder if you really are applying your own interpretation of policies and guidelines, or simply out to disrupt another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See how easy that was? Rather that continuing to troll and meatpuppet, you did something productive. Well done! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this - it hasn't got the same tag twice! And please stop swearing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did have the same tag for no categories twice. The tag is at the bottom of the page....William 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, you certainly violated Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but I'm over it now. No need to report yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike / retract your accusations of trolling and meatpuppetry (above). NE Ent 14:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joefromrandb, here's some links that may help you understand the reasoning for the dab edits - including the primary topic format [19] . Sorry to template a regular, but maybe this will help. Regards Widefox; talk 00:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to Boleyn, the desires of your Wikiproject do not trump site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT supersedes any preferences you people folks may have as to which red links you do or don't want on your pages. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry late reply. We just mirror the articles, so how's that out of line with REDNOT? Widefox; talk 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider your opposing towards "Wonder Pets!" renaming
Why should shows like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, Go, Diego, Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba!, etc. have the exclamation mark when Wonder Pets! strangely does not include the mark in its page title? It doesn't make sense for the page not to have it if it actually has it in the title. Momsandy (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE October 2014 newsletter
Bury the hatchet
Hi Joe. You and I have had a sort of feud for several years now. You've politely and maturely stayed away from me and I've tried to do the same for you. Our edits have rarely ever overlapped. I think it's time we bury the hatchet. What do you think?--v/r - TP 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these kind words; you're clearly "being the bigger man" here, something I've rarely been able to do. I have to admit that I remain troubled by your block of me long ago–I feel it violated WP:INVOLVED, among other things. I feel your mantra of, "if you've come here to change my mind, be prepared to change yours as well" is quite perspicacious. Although it may not have seemed that way, I've been (and remain) prepared to change my mind about the validity of that block. I've rethought it many times over the years, and I remain of the mindset that it wasn't kosher. As you've always struck me as a highly principled individual, it both perplexed and frustrated me that you've always stood behind it. While we'll likely have to agree to disagree as far as that's concerned, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my conduct after the block, which was so over the top it was outrageous. Again, thanks. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precious again and again
Grognard Mirabilaire Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a "content-contributor" and an admin with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago, you were the 284th recipient of my PumpkinSkyPrize, - repeating also: yes, it's still on this page, but so far up, no prize for archiving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Gerda. It's even sweeter the third time around! Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank those who changed the font (I thought it was an April Fool thing), making the image unaligned, - I had planned to repeat only once, but you would deserve more, for going after the lost who don't want to be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies
No need to apologize. It's original research, not bad-faith editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason.
Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason. If you want your vote to be counted, can you please provide a reason here?[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
According to National Geographic, 95% of all climbers who have reached the summit of Everest have used supplemental oxygen, according to this article on oxygen use. Do you have a source that says something different? Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your figures are correct. You consider that to be an "overwhelming majority"? I suppose that's debatable. Serious climbers not only eschew oxygen, but most consider it's use to be "cheating"; in fact, many of them want non-emergency oxygen banned. While I suppose 95% could be considered an "overwhelming majority", it's misleading. Something should explain to the reader that the numbers are inflated by the thousands of hacks who have been ushered to Everest's summit. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you consider Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay and a large majority of professional Sherpa guides "hacks" then? Please name the Everest climbers who advocate banning supplemental oxygen for routine use. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. By "thousands of hacks" I couldn't have meant people like Dick Bass, et. al. I was obviously referring to Hillary and Norgay. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the vast majority of contemporary high-altitude Sherpas, the people who.know the mountain best. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the ones who worship it as a god? The ones who believe storms and avalanches result when people invoke Sagarmatha's ire by fornicating on the mountain? Thanks for stopping by. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't see any prior discussion about this on Waters' talk page. Please start the discussion there before reverting my edit to the article.--Scaleshombre (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing disambiguation links is a WP goal, not personal
Just to let you know, fixing links to disambiguation pages from articles is a guideline, not a personal goal. To quote the disambiguation guideline Disambiguation:
With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.
The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are:
Disambiguation hatnotes: Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, which carries a hatnote linking to Watergate (disambiguation) for other uses.
Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation.
Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to Laing (disambiguation).
Exceptionally, in a "See also" list of interesting internal links where several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page.
In a redirect page (below)
So, the links on Mount Everest should be red, not link to the dab page. If you find the red links offensive (which certainly should not be the case in general, see WP:RED), you can always remove them.
Shall I restore the links? —hike395 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are fine, but not red-linking personal names. Personal names shouldn't be red-linked anywhere in article-space; this is primarily due to potential WP:BLP-issues–see WP:REDNOT for more information about this. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I hadn't carefully read through WP:RED for a number of years: this guideline was put in place in 2011. I guess there's always new stuff to learn. I'll see if I can find some info about this fellow (who should be notable), and make a quick stub. —hike395 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have removed the link again, this time on the grounds that it is a BLP violation. If you believe that the link is a BLP violation, then feel free to take up the issue at the BLP noticeboard, or even ANI if you wish. As far as I am concerned, the link is not a BLP violation in any way. I have every intention of restoring it. I note again that you cannot continue to endlessly make reverts at that article without seeking dispute resolution or discussing the matter on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started a thread about this at WP:BLPN. It would be appropriate for you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
November 2015
Your recent editing history at Sexual orientation change efforts shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Closedmouth (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you, an administrator. Although I cower in the presence of your most awesome infallibility, stamping generic templates on my talk page is far from ideal. This is a BLP-situation, and as such, my reverts DO NOT constitute edit-warring. I won't insult your intelligence by blue-linking to 3RRNO; I assume you know it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Closedmouth is warning you for edit warring, maybe that's because he doesn't agree with your view that you are removing BLP-violating material? He is free to explain his position on that issue, if he has one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to resolve a content dispute, I simply wanted you guys to stop edit-warring before you both ended up blocked. Have a discussion on the talk page. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to resolve anything, Closedmouth - only noting that some kind of comment (any kind of comment) on the content issue would have been welcome. As you can see, I have certainly tried to discuss matters on the talk page, but Joefromrandb has consistently refused to do this, despite being told repeatedly that this is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pai gow poker
Hi, I've restored the article's infobox with sources. You were correct there was some incorrect information and OR, but that could be corrected with sources. Please let me know if there are any issues. Valoemtalkcontrib 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anaconda
I changed the category of Anaconda (poker) from Category:stud poker to Category:draw poker to match the lede, which referred to it as a form of draw poker. Disagree if you like (frankly, either category is an awkward fit), but was it really necessary to call me a clown in the edit summary of your revert? Is there a reason you thought my edit was not in good faith? — Gwalla | Talk 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't calling you a "clown". I was reverting an anon's (said clown) change of the word "fuck" to "f**k". I made a separate edit changing "draw" to "stud", and left a non-offensive summary. Not sure why you thought I was referring to you, but sorry for the confusion. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "stud" seems fairly clear to me. While discards are indeed passed, these are chosen by the player discarding (hence the nickname "fuck your neighbor"). It lacks the randomness of the recipient drawing from a shuffled deck. YMMV–let me know if you have a different take on it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joefromrandb. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
erasing sourced info on Coughlin from major media using uncivil language is against Wiki policy. If you actually have a position you need to state it here on talk page. TIME's Person of year cover story for example is one of the most important news articles of the year. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL
Hello, Joe, could you please look at the guidelines at CIVIL? From your messages to me and others here you are repeatedly swearing and insulting. There really isn't any need for it - we're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about Wikipedia's "civility" guidelines, but I do understand your point. What I mean to say is that as a grown man, it shouldn't take a Wikipedia guideline for me to know I shouldn't be an asshole to people. I'm sorry. My wife isn't around to keep me in check anymore. I was enough of an asshole when she was alive, but knowing that it hurt her when I was disrespectful to others made me make an effort not to engage in such behaviors. Since her death, I can't say that I've done that. That's unacceptable, and I'm dishonoring her memory when I act like that. It won't happen overnight, but I will make it a point to keep this in mind going forward. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bullfighting
Hi there, another editor has reverted an edit you recently made at Bullfighting. Looks like it had to do with a conclusion being drawn about the practice not being considered a sport because it lacks elements of competition. If this is something you feel strongly about, may I please encourage you to consider opening a discussion on the article's talk page? I'm trying to get them to do the same thing, since their initial reversion was not properly explained. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're making my job needlessly difficult at Bullfighting. Your opponent feels there is nothing to discuss, you apparently feel there's nothing to discuss, but revert warring ain't how we resolve disputes, so please, either discuss, or drop the stick. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jps (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3RR Block
Hi. You've been blocked from editing for one week due to a 3 revert rule violation. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 02:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. In the future, I'll continue to observe our WP:BLP policy. If you or one of your fellow infallibles decides to block me in violation of policy as you have just done, so be it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:El C: could you please tell me why the other editor is not blocked as well? (You know, the one who actually broke 3RR?) Please don't give me any "notthem" bullshit either. I'm not asking to be unblocked (I would never give you that satisfaction). Also, please read WP:3RRNO. Your bullying won't deter me a whit, but blocking for reverting WP:BLP violations is contrary to policy, and may have a chilling effect on users who are otherwise devoted members of your claque of sycophants. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating that it amounts to BLP breach does not make it so. I can only go by the report that's filed. You may file a report here (if you do, please follow the format as best you can), on your own talk page, and I will treat it like any other AN3 report. Sorry you consider this, the enforcement of your 2nd 3RR violation, to be bullying (that is false), but I fail to see how I in any way acted inappropriately towards you. None of this gives me any satisfaction. El_C 03:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you acted inappropriately. I said you blocked me in violation of policy. You have administrative infallibility. You cannot act inappropriately. When the complainant actually said there's nothing in the rules that requires him to report all parties in an edit war, I figured that would speak volumes to the reviewing admin. I would never compile a complaint here. I don't engage in such puerile nonsense. Ever. It just beggars belief that you apparently believe my counterpart in this edit war was an apparition. It's all good, friend. A block every once in a while reminds me I'm doing something right. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much fallible, which is why I offered that you present your claims here (yes, with evidence). Because, the burden of proof is on you, to argue your case, or compile a report. No one is going to do that for you. El_C 04:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should have looked into that before blocking me. Not blocking (or, by your own admission, even investigating) the other party only compounds the felony, and further undermines the legitimacy of this block. It's all good though. Seriously. Bullshit blocks are a badge of honor to me.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I examined a report. The onus is on you, to provide evidence therein, as others have. I caution you that future blocks are likely to become much more lengthy. El_C 05:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:El C: Please do not misquote me. I never said "blocks are a badge of honor", I said "bullshit blocks are a badge of honor" (emphasis not in original). If the profanity troubles you, feel free to use a euphemism, but please don't lie by omission. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I was so wrapped up with my concerns about being blocked in in violation of policy and the fact that you took no action (or notice, for that matter) concerning Jytdog, that I didn't realize until now that you blocked me after the page had been full-protected. What happened to "not punitive"? I was of course, following the WP:BLP policy, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was actually edit-warring, how could I possibly cause further disruption at a page I can't edit? There's no ambiguity here (not that there's any real ambiguity with the BLP issue other than "you're an admin & I'm not, so you're right by default"). You've got balls, I'll give you that. Now we all know that "not punitive" is just as much BS as "adminship is no big deal"; all blocks are punitive, and also meant to have a chilling effect on other commoners, but most admins generally pretend to go along with it. Your "justification" for blocking me in violation of WP:3RRNO was "I'm right and you're wrong". What is your justification for placing a clearly punitive block? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to have another admin review this block. Violation of 3RR (2nd offense), I feel, deserve a block. If anything, your block should have been more lengthy in light of your block history. I take exception to your claim of "bullying," "claque of sycophants," and other instances of borderline incivility. El_C 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:El C: I've another question to ask of you as well, but I don't have time to compose it right now. I just wanted to post this here before you responded to the above question, as I don't want it to seem as though I'm being a deliberate nuisance, pinging you with question upon question. Of course, feel free to respond in the meantime if you'd like; I just wanted to make it clear it's not my objective to be a pain in the ass. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ask away, but be cool. I do have regrets, in this instance, actually, but not the way you think. Looking at your block history more closely, I realize I made a mistake: I should have blocked for three months (minimum) and taken into account edit warring overall, not just 3RR violations. That's on me. I try to err on the side of leniency. I challenge you to ask any other admin how long they would have blocked you for for this 3RR breach. Any admin that's not me. El_C 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I continue to maintain that I did not, in fact, breech WP:3RR. My last block (one that was undone, not by my request, but by consensus at ANI) was 3 years ago. You're obviously quite free to lengthen the block if that's what you feel is best. I, on the other hand, would counter that giving more weight to old blocks (as well as including a block that a consensus of users–including many that are far, far from "Wikifriends"–agreed was wrong) than a clean block-log for 3 years, is every bit as punitive, if not more, than blocking me after the article had already been protected. I also feel you were as remiss in reviewing the actual situation as you feel you were in reviewing my block-history. Which brings me to my question: Why was it not a BLP violation? You've said: "repeating it doesn't make it so". That's very true, but I've done more than repeat it. I gave detailed responses on the talk page as to exactly how and why it violated WP:BLP. As you have chosen to deny me an exception that's clearly written into policy, I don't feel I'm at all out of line in requesting an explanation. You know why I think it was? Because it's an article about a pseudoscientist who espouses geocentrism, choosing to ignore scientific proof to the contrary. I'm not saying it was intentional malice on your part. It was more likely natural human prejudice. It's easy to interpret the policy much more loosely when the subject of an article holds views with which any reasonable person would disagree. That doesn't make it right to do so. I did make one mistake: when performing a 4th revert or beyond on a BLP, I make it a point to cite WP:3RRNO, both in edit-summary and on the talk page, and make it clear that I'm claiming an exemption. I didn't do that in this case, and while it was an error in judgement, it doesn't make me wrong. The worst part is that I agreed with the overwhelming majority of what was in the article. I agreed that he's a pseudoscientist; I said I had no objection to calling him a young-Earth creationist. The only thing I had a problem with was using Wikipedia's voice to say that geocentrism is related to creationism and intelligent design. I had no objection to mentioning that they have been compared, but using Wikipedia's voice to state this as fact is a clear violation of multiple policies, chiefly WP:BLP. Creationism runs the gamut from biblical literalists to theistic evolutionists, and intelligent design is an extremely broad topic, for which the threshold is belief that there's a possibility that the Universe had a designer. Yes, both are pseudoscience, but they are light years away from geocentrism. Using Wikipedia's voice to declare as fact that all are related clearly violates WP:BLP, not only for Sungenis, but for literally hundreds of people. Finally, would you seriously insist I file a formal report (on my talk page, no less) concerning Jytdog's edit-warring when a quick perusal of the article's history shows he reverted (added, in this case) the same material 8 times in a 24-hour period? This seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTBURO. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the blocks being three years old—fair enough. Maybe blocking you only for a week wasn't such a mistake on my part. No, I don't think it rises to a BLP breach, still. It might be bad editing, to intimate such a tendency. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it's injurious to a person. The point is, you could have posted it on BLPN rather than risk an exemption you were unsure of. Yes, I suggested you file a report on your talk page, since you're blocked. Why? Because I'm not inclined to do the work for you. I do insist: if you say you have proof of something, you prove it. Don't expect me to prove it for you. El_C 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It was a rhetorical question. I was just noting that you obviously didn't look at the situation with the slightest bit of objectivity or detail if you couldn't be bothered to click the "history" button at the article. Again, rhetorical, as I was simply pointing out the unfairness of the situation. I don't want him blocked. The article is full-protected now. Blocking him would be every bit as punitive and unfair as my block is. I just find it troubling that you cannot or will not see that. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, indeed. Seems like classic projection to me. From my standpoint, it is you who could not be bothered to prove it, yet you mention it repeatedly. El_C 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Projection? You almost had me there. I actually started compiling diffs, so congratulations. Few people prove able to reach my endodermis and you're now in some elite company. Your time under my skin was short-lived, however, as I quickly realized the futility of such an endeavor. The article history speaks for itself, and barring some bizarre massive rev-del will remain there for all to see for Wikiternity. I've nothing to prove. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point I keep repeating is that, here, on Wikipedia, the one who alleges is the one who carries the burden of proof. Were you to finish compiling those diffs, I'd have examined them. Why not seek an {{unblock}} if you deem the block unfair? El_C 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's exceedingly rare for blocks to be undone simply because they're unfair. In unblocking me, an administrator would be acknowledging your mistake, and therefore risk the possibility of having his or her own infallibility questioned in the future. If I were to request unblocking on the grounds that it was punitive, violates WP:3RRNO, and no action was taken against a fellow user who made 8 reverts, the reviewing admin would have a hearty laugh at my expense, while quickly denying the request. The only way to file a successful unblock request is to prostrate oneself before our benevolent admin corps, apologize profusely, & beg for forgiveness, while swearing to never, ever do it again. I will do no such thing. While I certainly believe in Wikipedia's purpose enough to donate many hours of my time, as well as (rather) small amounts of my money, I don't find it to be worth surrendering my dignity. I got unnecessarily dramatic with my complaints; I'm embarrassed and I apologize for that. I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me, as I continue to believe I was justified by both the letter and the spirit of policy. Obviously I'd rather be editing than blocked; if you'd like to unblock me, I'd love that, but I'm not about to beg for it. Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I probably wouldn't unblock me. I find it very hard to put myself in your shoes, as I find this block so egregiously out of process. Forcing myself to AGF, if you truly believe the block to be valid, I guess I would require a promise from me not to engage in such behaviour going forward. I'm unwilling to make that promise. Not because I want to edit-war or be disruptive, but because I believe WP:BLP to be of the utmost importance, and fear the potential damage that would result from allowing leeway for biographies of those who are obviously bat shit crazy. It's a slippery slope, and it's all too real. Above, you wrote how future blocks are likely to be lengthier. I responded: "good". That's dreadfully embarrassing; my 4-year-old daughter wouldn't say something so childish. If I wind up blocked for 3 months, 6 months, a year - there will be nothing "good" about it. While I certainly hope it never comes to that, if that's the price I pay for doing what I honestly feel is right by WP:BLP, then that will just be something with which I have to live. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. No need to feel embarrassed, I understand that it's stressful being under a block. Still, I don't think we admins are that insular. In fact, I genuinely don't know what another admin would say. As mentioned, the page was protected around the same time—which I actually was unaware, but still would have probably blocked nonetheless. Not punitively, but as a deterrent, since, as you yourself admit, the same scenario is not unlikely to repeat... Again, my advise to you is not to risk it: take it to BLPN for confirmation. El_C 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to how it's a "deterrent" if - actually this conversation is really going nowhere. It's obvious no amount of contrition on my part is going to get you to admit you made the slightest mistake. The article was protected in a BLP-compliant version, which is the important thing. Guess I'll just have to take one for the team here. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a deterrent in that next time, you are more likely to take to BLPN for confirmation it does constitute a genuine BLP issue, rather than risk being blocked for months. You already made it quite clear that you express zero contrition because you are certain that it was a BLP violation. An opinion we obviously do not share. El_C 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bet on it. If what you've taken away from the above conversation is that I "express zero contrition", I really don't know what to say. As I noted above, it has little to do with opinion, as I'm currently blocked for not sharing your "opinion". As in: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bet. But I hope for it. You said it yourself "I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me." I asked the protecting admin whether s/he feels this amounts to a genuine BLP issue. El_C 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't have wasted time to ask Bbb23 anything about me. Even without our personal history, he is as firm a believer in administrative infallibility as I've come across and will never, and I mean never say that a fellow admin made any mistake at all. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you would assume better faith. Is there anyone you deem neutral that you would like brought in? El_C 08:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be foolish of me. I told you, he and I have a history, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he's changed. Incidentally, Bbb23 is someone whom I respected as an editor. I actually supported his RfA. At that time I had every reason to assume good faith, which I did. Since then, the admin bit has gone to his head in a way I don't think I've ever seen. No admin is going to disagree with you; even the few whom I respect. It simply isn't done. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really did mean anyone—dosen't need to be an admin. El_C 09:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I'd trust myself to pick someone neutral, because to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't want someone neutral. I'm in a situation where I'm blocked because one person disagrees with me about a BLP issue. If I were to pick someone to review it, I would naturally go with someone whom I consider likely to take my side, simply to attempt to balance the ridiculous unevenness of the situation. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for someone even-handed, if you have any top picks. El_C 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the response that Bbb23 gave, this is just becoming more and more farcical, and honestly, it's causing me far more stress than the article did (not that I think that was your intent). There's really no need to bring anyone else into this. I know it was a bad block, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious why Joe's talk page was on my too-large watchlist, and it turns out I was one of the admins to block him a few years ago. So I don't know if I count as neutral to either of you, but FWIW, I think the following:
I don't think this is a BLP issue. At least, on the spectrum of BLP issues, it is not serious. It's much more an undue weight or coatrack issue than a BLP issue.
I think it is not unreasonable to think it a BLP issue; and therefore (mistakenly IMHO) think 3RRNO applied. I'm curious what would have happened if El C had said "I've reviewed the 3RR report, don't think this is a BLP issue, and suggest you go to BLP noticeboard if you're convinced. But any more reverts and I'll block because I'm currently confident it is not a BLP issue."
I agree the page being protected doesn't mean the block was obviously out of order; there is in theory a deterent effect. In this particular case, I'm not sure that's the right approach with someone who's been around for a long time editing in good faith and who clearly thought BLP applied. Joe might be wrong, but he's not playing games with BLP to win an argument; I'm sure he really believes what he's saying. Blocks aren't great in this situation.
I've seen good work from El C, and for a long time, so this is NOT an "El C sucks" comment. But in this case I'm not really... not sure how to word this... I don't support refusing to look into a situation in more detail unless Joe provides 4 diffs and makes a separate ANEW report. Part of dealing with ANEW is looking into the whole situation. There was another editor clearly edit warring, obvious from looking at the page history, who was not claiming any exemption. I don't understand why they didn't just leave it out until there was consensus to include it. If I had blocked in El C's position, I would have blocked the other party too. Note I am not saying a block is a good idea at this stage.
If I was God Emperor, I'd probably unblock, with a notation along the lines of "claimed a good-faith (but incorrect) BLP exemption", but comment that when another clearly good faith editor honestly believes there is no BLP violation, at least acknowledging you might be wrong, and going to the BLP noticeboard is probably a better move.
HTH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the second opinion. But I don't agree: I still (strongly) feel that the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation, and on them alone—if they can't be bothered, maybe it's not that important to them. About unblocking: My concern is that the user clearly states he will continue to invoke 3RRNO on Robert Sungenis, reverting what he sees as a BLP violation. I can't simply unblock and send him to BLPN if he intends on doing that. I realize the page is protected for four more days, but that still remains a problematic position. El_C 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're honestly pissing me off at this point. I don't mind being blocked, but playing these kinds of games is really unacceptable. Don't come here pretending to seek outside opinions, when all you're clearly after are opinions that support your position. I tried to engage with you in good faith; it's clear to me at this point you're not acting in good faith. Not only is it "not that important to me"; I told you I don't want him blocked at all. All I wanted was for you to admit you fucked up handling the AN3 report. If you're going to clerk the noticeboard, then it's your job to investigate the reports. You were wrong to block me, you were wrong to take no action against the other user, and you're 10 times as wrong for continuing to insist you were right. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Known for my seemingly unrelated comments, here's an image for the trial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you and only you could make me smile in the middle of all this nonsense. You're the best! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, blushing - again. If you look around on the page find the other image with the best advice I ever received on Wikipedia, and I don't have to tell you that life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
liked to read again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda. Your points are well taken. My wife was by so many magnitudes of order a better person than I. How she put up with me for all that time (or what she saw in a no-good-son-of-a-bitch like me in the first place) is beyond my comprehension. She deserved so much better. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Joe. I stick to a voluntary 1RR, and bet you could do the same. If there are BLP problems, I understand there's a noticeboard. You could contact also El_C, for example. Trust us around you, you don't have to do things alone. - I just made friends with an IP whom I can't thank you per click, - it's actually nicer in words ;) - see Floq's unforgettable one.
@User:Floquenbeam: Saw your post & went to quickly hit the "thank" button, only to realize I apparently don't have one. Apparently the potential disruption that could ensue were I left with the ability to say "thank you" is so great it must be removed as a non-punitive prophylactic measure. So, thank you. (Note to admins: this is not an attempt to game the system by circumventing the removal of my "thank" option and manually typing out the words "thank you".) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. As I recall, some vandalism-only accounts quickly discovered they could harass people with multiple clicks of the "thanks" button when it was first introduced, even when indef blocked, and there was nothing admins could do to shut it off. So instead of making that yet another thing that admins could remove if necessary, they just took away the ability to "thank" while blocked for everyone. So it wasn't a specific choice El C made. Anyway, glad to see everything is more or less sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
I've reconsidered and decided to unblock you. I still have concerns, so please don't let me down. El_C 03:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not 82.20.97.197. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...Here I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I might have taken too long. Probably just as well, headed to bed now I think. I'll pop by tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry. I got sidetracked with a phone call of my own. Anyway, this has gotten to the point where something needs to be done about it. I'm talking, of course, about a certain user that's been hounding, stalking, and yes, trolling me for some time now. I used to find him amusing, but not so much anymore. In practice, a 2-way interaction ban would work just fine. I completely avoid that user, ignore any conversations where he mentions me, and revert his edits to my user-space without response. These are largely the same reasons that I have some slight reservations about that solution in theory–the whole "pox on both houses" concept. I'm no angel on- or off-Wiki, but this is one situation where I can truly say I'm blameless. I take egregious pains to avoid that user completely, while his behavior is exactly the opposite. Is such a solution (or any other) within your remit as an administrator to impose? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had the time to look at this thoroughly yet, so this response assumes for the sake of argument that you've described the situation accurately. Don't interpret it as something I'm actually willing to do until I've had a chance to make sure you haven't been doing your fair share.
I do see the recent interaction not initiated by you at your talk page, his ping and comment about it at his talk page, and his following you to the page you were all 3 reverting on that User:El C is involved in. If that's all there is, it probably isn't enough. If it's part of a longer-term pattern, then it probably is.
If you're both sniping at each other, and both at fault, then I wouldn't really care about how miserable you two are making each other, but an IBAN might help the community not have to deal with the fighting. That would probably require a trip to AN/ANI. If I tried to do it unilaterally, whichever one of you didn't like it would just appeal there anyway.
If it really is one-sided, then I can tell the other user that they are harassing you, and if they initiate unwanted contact again, they'll be blocked for it. By definition this would mean you couldn't really initiate anything yourself. So it would have the same effect as a mutual IBAN, but wouldn't be logged anywhere, and wouldn't need some kind of community discussion first; admins unilaterally warn editors not to harass other editors all the time.
Save me some time: if I look into this, am I going to find recent cases where you picked the fight? If so, I'd suggest going straight to AN/ANI with an IBAN request. If not (if it never happened, fine; if it last happened a while ago, about when was that?), then I'll look into it further and act accordingly. Might be some delay before I can do that. In the mean time, using the "troll" word needlessly complicated matters, even if done as a reaction rather than an initiation. You should stop that. A simple rollback achieves the same thing. Except for the warm feeling of righteous revenge it gives you, which is probably not healthy...
I guess I'm doomed to handle this in two places now, here and on my talk page. A bit of a bother, but better than you two interacting, so let's keep it this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you will not find any recent instances where I "picked the fight". I don't pick fights at all. I'm a counter-puncher, something I've admittedly taken to hideous extremes in the past (e.g. Floquenbeam, TParis). That's what makes this situation all the more egregious–I haven't counter-punched; I've ignored. The whole two-pages problem is due to my own stupidity, and I'm sorry if it's causing you additional stress. I should have just pinged you from this page instead of going to your page and asking you to come here. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my post, I could easily see my exempli gratia being interpreted as some kind of J'accuse! against you & Tom–it was meant, rather, as contrition as the product of self-study. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.
Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL earlier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.
I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.
I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initiates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.
This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.
In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add one more thing: I really, really think you should consider Gerda's personal 1RR limitation. 90 times out of 100, that's what's getting you in trouble. If you did that, and just banished the word "troll" from your keyboard, you'd be in pretty good shape. After El C's unblock, future edit warring is going to be problematic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Floq. The end result of your work may look short-and-sweet, but I know I sent you into the trenches of Ypres. My apologies for any stress that has caused you, and my thanks for taking the time to sort through all of this (not to mention being more-or-less forced to carry on largely the same discussion across three separate pages). I will indeed consider your suggestion. I'll consider it seriously. At the same time, I'll refrain from promising to honor it–not because it isn't an excellent suggestion, but because I'd be setting myself up for failure. As this page, and others will show, I've told numerous people here that I would make an effort to dial back personal invectives and use less profanity. Similarly, I've been careful to avoid any pledges of complete abstention (I think it was Neil Dellacroce who said: "I can't curse, I can't talk"). If you look at the time since El C reversed his block, you'll see that while I haven't restricted myself to 1RR, I have removed myself from situations where previously I would have almost certainly continued, as well as escalated. Far from perfect, but a start. Baby steps. Thanks again. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Floquenbeam Christ, I'm sorry. I should have just pinged you on this fucking page in the first place. I honestly didn't see that coming. I'm sure I should have, but whatver. I obviously will not be making any further posts at the thread I began on your page. Sorry for yet more two-page bullshit. A simple "da" or "nyet" from you here will be just fine, after which time I will either make my post or not, speaking no more of it in either case. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Floquenbeam Fuck it. I just went ahead and did it. Alea iacta est, I suppose. I realized that my attempt to err on the side of caution was only going to exacerbate things, and I just wanted to be done with it. If I'm in violation, I'll accept whatever action you take without complaint. If I'm good to go, then you needn't even respond (although you're certainly welcome to do so). My thanks, my apologies, and all that happy horseshit. What a fucking ordeal! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Floquenbeam: Thank you. FWIW, yes, it was covered, you're right. I decided to err on the side of caution as a show of respect. In a situation where no one would have found fault had you broken out the flamethrower, you used the mop. I've no doubt the latter took an inordinate amount of time longer than the former, and wanted you to know that I appreciated it; took it sincerely. Concerned that it might appear to the community that I was testing boundaries, I didn't stop to think that it may have appeared the very same way to you. I also neglected, aaaaaaaa-gain, to realize that by posting at your page I lost the ability to lock the door behind me, and... ... ... The mess I created at your talk page must have been a lovely greeting after a peaceful weekend; I left you knee-deep in the very Wiki-shit you were attempting to avoid and I'm sorry. I'll shut up now, & I'm sorry to have gone on for so long. If going out of my way to be nice is going to leave me looking like an asshole, then I may as well just be an asshole. It's a hell of a lot easier. Maybe I just suck that much at being nice. I hope all is well with you and yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of sounds like you think I'm annoyed you asked. I'm not. I'm not annoyed you or PBP requested clarification, just a little surprised because I thought it was clear. But that can probably be chalked up to my having a clearer picture in my mind of what I'm trying to say than I can explain in writing. Now, if this had turned into back-and-forth bickering on my talk page, then I would have been annoyed, but that's why I preemptively archived it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Scaphism. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely was his intention, and you know it. Why are you using a template instead of speaking plainly? El_C 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the same reason he made a passive-agressive accusation of sock-puppetry, telling me he "hoped" I wasn't that 80-something IP. He's using circuitous language so he can feign disbelief and accuse me of "personal attacks" when I tell him to stop trolling my talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yes (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Kaye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Founding/founder member
Hi. I've just learned that founding member is an American expression, while the British equivalent is founder member. So you were just keeping with the BE style in your edition to the Camel article, which I reverted. My apologies for the reversion, then.--Gorpik (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As an American who regularly follows several British media, I too, was unfamiliar with "founder member" for quite some time. I actually challenged it when it was introduced at Roger Waters, but several users showed me I was wrong. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Mother's Day
I'd like to wish a very happy Mother's Day to everyone everywhere, to those of you who are mothers, and the women in your lives who are mothers. I send this wish in memory of my beautiful wife, a devoted mother, spouse, and friend. It was the greatest privilege I have ever known to have been her husband. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everest 2017
Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my first edit, I pointed out in the edit summary that the source said "the artist ... used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest".
In your first reversion of me, you say:
That's a summary; the sourced quotes use "they"
You're claiming that the source is saying that the company is what used its Christian faith as a tool, and where it says that Kinkade did it, that's an incorrect "summary" which can just be ignored? That doesn't make any sense.
So I included an additional source which, like the one already in the article, definitively makes it exceedingly clear that it was, indeed, Kinkade:
A 2003 lawsuit -- it mirrored others brought by failed Kinkade dealers -- alleged the artist used his Christian faith as a tool to fraudulently induce them to invest in a Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery.
You a.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Kinkade&diff=782534379&oldid=782509039 reverted me again, not only restoring your theory, but also removing the source which I had added. You selectively restored another user's edit which had been wiped out by your revert, but you did not restore my ref. It is extremely poor form to remove a relevant source which contradicts your personal interpretation of events. Your edit summary:
There's nothing "unambiguous" about "they"; it's plural, not singular - it refers to the company, not the individual, against whom charges were not filed.
Well, I agree with you that there's nothing unambiguous about "they" (in other words, "they" is ambiguous). Here's what the original source says:
The criminal probe focuses on the same issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners. Those ex-owners alleged, among other things, that the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which must sell Kinkade's work exclusively.
"They really knew how to bait the hook," said one ex-dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They certainly used the Christian hook."
Nowhere does it say who "they" refers to. Maybe Kinkade did it with his wife, or a friend, or a clergyman, or it could have been anybody else. They also could have been using the singular they to refer to Kinkade. It probably means Kinkade and one or more representatives from his company. But, without contacting the reporter, there's no way to know. You have assumed that "they" means Kinkade's company, and apparently that Kinkade was not involved at all. You've then presented your theory as fact. (See WP:OR.)
But it is completely irrelevant who "they" are. Even if that one anonymous person who is quoted really intended "they" to mean the company, excluding Kinkade (which I think is very, very unlikely), that does not make the rest of the source false. The source discusses litigation brought by at least six people, and regardless of how one of them used "they", the source incontrovertibly states that the allegation of the group is that Kinkade used his Christian faith as a tool. The source which I supplied also unequivocally reports on the allegations against Kinkade.
Please revert yourself. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"They" clearly refers to Media Arts Group. You can call this "my personal interpretation of events" if you like, but I'm just following what the references say. I had meant to say there's nothing "ambiguous" about "they"; thank you for pointing out my error. At least we were able to agree about something. The six lawsuits were brought against Media Arts Group, not Kincade. The headline summary in your source indicts Kincade; this is the author's summary of his or her article. The actual material in the article cites lawsuits against Media Arts Group, and anonymous quotes alleging "they" did this or that. That "they" is obviously Media Arts Group, i.e. Kincade, et al. Thomas Kincade is to "artist" what Kent Hovind is to "doctor". Here, on my talk page, I have no problem calling him a fraud. The article is a different story. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corrupt bargain
Move for capitalization done. LMK if you have any problems or need further tweaks. Best jengod (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Handicap (horse racing) Edit
In here, you said `this whole section is nonsense`.
Is there a reason why you say that? Do you have a more informational list of features that could be potentially useful in making a computer horse racing handicapping system (preferably in published paper/books)?
Cheers Ryantam626 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "nonsense", I just meant that it's nonsense for an encyclopedia entry. It wasn't a comment about the material itself, which may very well be useful elsewhere. Wikipedia, as a rule, cannot give advice, and offering gambling advice presents an even bigger potential problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia giving advice (or rule of thumb rather), this for example; with that said, I do agree with what you said about gambling advice, and I thank you for making that edit. Ryantam626 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
June 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for incivility and continued battleground conduct.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilNtalk to me 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gee thanks! That'll teach me to talk back to one of the infallibles, huh? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Telling other editors to "fuck off" and calling them trolls seems like a constant thing with you. Please change the tone of your responses. --NeilNtalk to me 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. Unfortunately, dealing with trolls is a constant for me as well. I treat people the way they treat me; always have, always will.Joefromrandb (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are calling you a troll and telling you to fuck off? Diffs? --NeilNtalk to me 23:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's all there in the history. I'm no snitch. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, being called a troll is there in the history. The right to say "fuck off" is reserved for you infallibles. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:El C: Not sure it was gravedancing, given the context & circumstances. I appreciate the gesture in any case. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tremble before our most benevolent infallibles, and humbly inquire: I'd been meaning for some while to volunteer some time at Simple English Wikipedia; now that I'm blocked seems to be the perfect time. I started making a few edits, but now I'm thinking some wiki-lawyer will "catch" me doing this. As you likely know, I consider our policies here largely backward and bizarre. (I know, hard to believe, given how conscientiously I observe them, right?) So, my question is: Am I "allowed" to do this? I can all too easily imagine it being called "sockpuppetry". Joefromrandb (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your block only applies to the regular English Wikipedia. You are free to edit on other Wikipedias, including Simple English. --NeilNtalk to me 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My wiki-sins are as scarlet, and I'm not at all worthy of such magnificent largess. I humbly prostrate myself, and thank Thee for suffering me leave. I will be in Thy debt for all wiki-ternity, dear Adm-nistrator! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Floquenbeam,@ User:Drmies
Re: My message at your talk page; see also, User talk:Grayfell, as I'm certain that is not at all in compliance with what you said may be permissible. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the ANEW "report" contains the blatant lie that I was blocked for edit-warring at the article in question. A quick look at my talk page and/or block log easily confirms this. Also, note the wink & a nod to Grayfell (i.e. "I had to list your name, but I don't want you to get in any trouble"). Regardless of whether or not this complies with the letter of what you said would be permissible, this is obviously an attempt to fuck with me, rather than any genuine concern about edit-warring. I honestly don't care whether or not you actually block him. I just want it nipped in the bud that this kind of horseshit is not acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...
You've been here for a span long enough to be aware that an AFD closure can't be changed/altered at your will.And neither you are a sysop (uninvolved is far away!) to unilateraly undo a NAC.So, either approach deletion review or stoprevert-warring.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop revert warring? That's asking an awful lot, but I tell you what: I'm willing to stop revert-warring if you stop beating your wife. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that you have already understood and stopped in your tracks, I find little reason about why I wouldn't:) Winged Blades Godric 03:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. :) I now realize that you posted this before the drama-fest began. I actually wasn't revert-warring, but following the suggestion by the user who reverted me that I reopen the AfD. I never had any intention of performing multiple reverts. The user who actually did begin a revert-war is the same one who started the ridiculous drama-fest at ANI. He currently seems to be picking boomerang out of his teeth, so I suppose all is well. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Reading trough the text below, I am sorry for your loss, and symapthesise with you--at tough times!But what I want to add is that it may be a little difficult but prob. wouldn't hurt if you would agree to a more nuanced approach as to any issue. If you ever feel a NAC was incorrect straight off veer to WP:AN and/or WP:DRV(unless and until it's pure vandalism etc. where unilateral reversion is perfectly OK!); it's less drama (I have rarely seen an DRV however good or bad culminating in non-sense proposals to indef any contributor) and more work. Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 03:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep!And I clarified in this edit about how I landed up in the issue!Winged Blades Godric 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Where is the consensus that noone can undo a NAC? Even a bad one, that violates the part of WP:BADNAC that says "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." which was done here[21]? I suggest you step very lightly in the future. The above statements and actions of yours smell like an attempt to bully Joe....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE:--Thank you for your gracious comments!You may wish to participate at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government - review requested.Also, there's hardly little point in re-starting this drama given that it's well-settled(even between us).And I certainly don't need any advice from you about my steps.As a side-note your reversion was sincerely good!That's got to do with small fonts.....Cheers:)Winged Blades Godric 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joefromrandb:--Well, I didn't know I have been bullying you!Winged Blades Godric 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking back about your comments from 2012, I often thought of you as concerned by somewhat helpful. Well, before then... I was somewhat reckless. Years later to now, I looked at your block log and realized that you've gotten yourself in trouble. Right now, I saw your report at ANI. I don't know what changed you, but I hate to see you gone because of this. Feel free to contact me if you can, but I'm unsure whether you want to respond. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, George! Nothing's changed with me, I'm the same no-good-son-of-a-bitch I've always been. No, all kidding aside, George, I think the times we've collaborated in the past are an excellent illustration of my attitude towards others, both on-Wiki and off. I treat people the way they treat me, although it's probably fair to say that I may go to extremes in either direction. As I think you'll agree, when someone comes to me with a request for help, I'm quite happy to do what I can for them. I respond to politeness with politeness, and nastiness with nastiness. My wife died last September.There's no doubt I've had a much shorter fuse since then, and I'm sure I've gotten carried away from time to time. I don't suffer fools gladly in the first place, and I've never really been one to turn the other cheek. It is what it is. At the end of the day, if I've responded to anyone with snark and attitude, it's been in response to snark and attitude. What I truly can't stand is passive-aggressive hostility disguised as civility; the ones that poke the bear with the intention of being bitten so they can run off crying that the big bear is mean and dangerous, and has to be gotten rid of at any cost. I've always been more than happy to accommodate these folks with the desired response. My two youngest children fight like cats and dogs. Several months ago, my 5-year-old son was being incredibly nice to his 4-year-old sister. They were playing together quite agreeably. I was ecstatic about this new development, but kept an eye on the situation, with the regrettable suspicion that he was up to something. Sure enough, he came to me wailing and sobbing because his sister had hit him. When I asked him why she had hit him, he responded, "because I told her 'I love you". Turns out he asked her to hit him, convincing her it was a part of the game they were playing. His actual motive, of course, was to try to land his sister in time-out for an offense he committed. I let my son know that he was trying to bullshit a bullshitter (using different words) & gently explained to my confused daughter that it's never OK to hit anyone for any reason other than self-defense. I see this very same foolishness here on a daily basis. There's literally no difference between my son's behavior and the puerile baiting tactics of our ubiquitous civility crusaders. (Actually, there is one: these users don't have the excuse of being a 5-year-old-child trying to cope with the loss of his mother.) I've been chided here for being too easily baited; I've been told that I "walked right into it", or that I let myself get "played like a fiddle". Guess what, George? That's not the case. It isn't that I'm unaware of these things; I just refuse to tolerate it. If I am, in fact, "giving them exactly what they want", then so be it. There are plenty of users here, some of whom are certainly not "Wiki-friends", who see straight through this kind of nonsense. Thanks for your message, George. You're always welcome at my talk page. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need my assistance again at any time in the future! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for responding. Umm.... I think I might be fine without your assistance, but thanks. I have a lot in my mind, and a lot of things to take of, and lately I barely spend time editing articles. I might ask your help if I want to, but I think I'm good. :)
Furthermore, after reading all of your response, maybe family matters more, especially since... oh my, I am so sorry for your loss, and I must give you my sympathies. My suggestion: I think you're better off spending more time with your kids and take some wikibreaks until things are more stable at home. This isn't to offend your good hard-working efforts. However, how about organizing your schedule and doing more time management (I don't mean an article ;) )? Hmm... I am unsure whether you can take my advice seriously. I don't have children, and I am not widowed. However, I can express my sympathies about your situation.
Another suggestion: if you want, you might want to email the WP:ARBCOM, tell your situation in full and provide diffs via email, and request a motion to encourage the community to do something. If motion to encourage the community to do something is passed, then you may take some breaks and cool off. Also, kids need a good parent/role model who can cope with and come to terms with their loss. Thoughts about my suggestion? Again, I'm not trying to offend you. I was saying that out of my concerns. Well, I hope you and your kids will do fine as well, so good luck. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, George. I'm not offended at all; I appreciate your sympathies more than I can explain. I did actually take a Wiki-break after she died. I began to make the odd edit here and there after a few monts; I've continue to edit as time permits to help me retain my sanity. It helps me to keep busy, and unlike a self-indulgent hobby, it's volunteer work that helps spread knowledge. I've long enjoyed donating both time and money to worthy causes, but volunteering has taken on a special significance to me as a widower. I didn't mean to insinuate that I have problem-children, but rather offered that example to illustrate the problems that arise from childish editors, who don't have the excuse of actually being children. My kids have all been receiving professional counseling on a regular basis since their mother died, and I continue to work closely with their therapist and implement her suggestions. My family will always come first, and although Wikipedia is very important to me, it's truly not even a blip on the radar, when put next to my family. Luckily, my children seem to have inherited my wife's intelligence, as well as her comeliness, since I have very little of the former, and absolutely none of the latter. Thanks again, George. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just read this thread. Hang in there, and please accept my sincere wishes that things get better for you and your children. regards Dom Domdeparis (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFD closure review
Hi there. Just letting you know I have self-requested my AFD closure be reviewed - at AN. Cheers. StevenCrossin 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll comment there, and once I have a bit more time, I'll return to the thread I started on your talk page to complete my thoughts on the matter. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a worry. I'm in no rush. StevenCrossin 03:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Waters
I'll admit that there's no direct reference to him no longer being in his father's band, but he's not in the current band. It's also been said that Nigel Godrich (who produced Roger's new album) had a hand in choosing the musicians for the tour. He apparently also wanted to have Roger work with new/Nigel's preferred musicians. Harry could always rejoin, I suppose, but for this current tour, it's not likely.
Current line up is listed on the tour's Wikipedia page.
Edit: additionally, a tenure of 2001-2016 is listed here in regards to Harry's participation in his father's tours.
http://harrywaters.co.uk
Lau Kar-Yung (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It was the "2017" that threw me. A man who's obsession with perfection renders him capable of sacking his own son!? Hard to decide whether that rates kudos or censure. G. Roger Waters is an awe-inspiring anomaly! Thanks for the info. Feel free to restore your changes to the article. Regards, Joefromrandb (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you mind pointing out the 2012 article in which Tony Banks states "Genesis have come to an end" ? I agree that the band is no more and see no reason to leave the active years as "2006 --", but we need reliable sources to change that information, and you didn't add them in your last edit. Clausgroi (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add them because the statement from Banks (with a reference) is already in the article's prose. I didn't change the opening sentence, as there seems to be some valid ambiguity and nuance as far as whether Genesis "were" or "are". My preference is certainly for the former, but users have long argued that Gabriel's allowance of the minuscule chance of a reunion at some point is sufficient cause for the present tense. My position is that even if such a reunion were to be announced tomorrow, they were still completely inactive going forward from 2012. Banks' statement would seem to me to shore up my argument for this position; YMMV. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found this quote by Banks in the article. Would you care to show me where it is ? Clausgroi (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find it. Bear with me a bit please. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look and I can't find it either. I definitely saw it, but it may be a day or 2 before I can track it down. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked some more and even did a Google search, and I'll be a son of a bitch if I can find it. I'll find it sooner or later, but if you want to change it back for the time being, go ahead. I still feel it's unnecessary. Whether Genesis "are" or "were" is debatable, but there's no argument as to whether or not they've been active. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in my best interest to leave the "active period" as 1967-2007 (with a hiatus between 1999 and 2005) because I agree with it (there has been no actual activity in the band since the end of the "reunion tour"). However, as you know, our interests must not affect the impartiality of the article. Let's look for a reliable source one more time. If we can't find it, then we'll have to revert back to "2006 --". Clausgroi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mystery's apparently been solved, as it seems an anon removed it from the lede. In any case, we seem to currently have a talk-page consensus regarding both their current inactivity and their "years active" status. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De Havilland
Hello Joefromrandb - I'm stopping by here to rephrase my edit summary upon which you commented, courteously and without re-reverting. My use of the phrase "completely rejected" was, as you say, misleading. I meant to refer to the fact that the people who entered a vote in the formal discussion and explained their vote were unanimous in saying no to the revision. Further, the consensus box from March 26th lays out the pros and cons of adding "British" to the lede pretty clearly, IMO. My bluntness in the edit summary was the second half of it - the first half emphasizing the need for collaboration and suggesting that such collaboration on the Talk page led to a consensus of "no" to a change. Now, I don't have a particularly passionate position on the issue, though clearly I agree with "American." I would, however, be entirely amenable to reopening the discussion with new and added info, as you have already done, and making a formal proposal again and see where it leads. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. I have no desire to reopen the discussion, and I figured a quick null edit would suffice for my 2 cents. I actually agree with "American", although there are valid pros and cons to several options (and hitchhiking). Joefromrandb (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: ). You appear to have broken 3RR. You should consider agreeing to take a break from this article, because WP:BLP doesn't seem to prevent addition of correct and properly-referenced material. Arguments from WP:UNDUE wouldn't be enough to let you break WP:3RR. It is a matter for editor consensus as to what is undue weight; reverting potentially-undue material counts against the 3RR limit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Done While I disagree vehemently, I respect the fact that you came here to drop a note rather than rushing to block me. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia De Havilland nationality reverse
I need a reasonable explanation in order to justify your reverse in my edit on De Havilland's dual citizenship. She is not just American, she is both British and American, there's no reason to avoid one of them. Please offer me an explanation, my edit was 100/100 accurate, there is no reason to forgive it, no reason to reflect about its inclusion; she is both nationalities, end of the talk. Does the word "British" cost cents with its inclusion or what? It's absurd to discuss something so clever. Alvite (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page, where this issue has been discussed at length. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your criteria. Sorry, I will continue editing her nationality over and over again, because you're not correct on your appreciations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my "criteria", it's the collective decision of the editors who are active at the article. You don't have to agree with it, but you will need to convince your fellow editors that your version is superior if you want it to stay in the article. "Editing it over and over again" is one of the best ways to ensure that your desired version will not be accepted, & it will also render you not only unable to edit the article, but unable to propose edits on the talk page as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain this
I'm mystified by most of your reverts at Kim Davis, but this one, with it's unhelpful edit summary, is particularly vexing. The sentence is almost verbatim from the source. You seem more interested in winning an edit war and berating other editors, than actually improving the content.- MrX 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please promptly revert your latest edit. You are over the 3RR limit. (I
Please don't repeatedly curse in edit summaries. It's not helpful and is not civil.
As for the sentence at issue, the text of the article said "release" but clearly meant "removal" (as supported by the source: "The governor added that he hYas no power to remove Davis from office.") - you could and should have fixed the typo rather than messing up the sentence and leaving cryptic edit summaries.
--Neutralitytalk 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 3RR limit. My edits have been to correct clear and obvious BLP violations, exempt, per WP:3RRNO. (Don't forget the perfunctory blue link to WP:CRYBLP when you respond with some nonsense about the article being WP:BLP-compliant.) Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what relevance BLP has here. This dispute, as far as I can tell, is literally about a typo ("removal" vs "release") and your over-the-top response to it (when most people would have fixed the typo). Let me focus on the article. Do you object to the following sentence:
"Beshear added that he lacked the legal authority to either remove Davis from office or to relieve Davis of her statutory duties."
Cited to this new CNN source ("The governor has no legal authority to remove Davis and cannot use an executive order to relieve her of statutory duties, he said."). Pinging MrX as well. Neutralitytalk 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. I'm not buying for a second that it was a typo, though. Had it been, Mr. X would have corrected it, rather than returning it verbatim. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it was. I though I had copy pasted the exact quoted text from the article. You could have easily copyedited it rather than punch the revert button. Or you could have pointed out the error and I would have gladly fixed it.- MrX 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did point out the error, again and again. You did not "gladly fix it", but rather suggested I "continue to reread the source until (I) understand". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are now edit warring over the infobox image. You're past 3RR. Please stop. EvergreenFir(talk) 16:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm editing it in accordance with policy, much to the chagrin of a handful of editors who have used the article as their personal soapbox for a long time. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undogood-faith changesunless an appropriate edit summary is used."
You gave no explanation for your revert.
Note, that I had written in my Edit Summary that the WP page is the same name as my change, not the redirected Chinese name used prior to my "Good Faith" edit.
The original Tibetan name for this ancient and famous location is certainly a 500+ years old and perhaps 1,000 or more years old. The relatively new name (after 1959) is a Chinese transliteration of the current Tibetan name as well as ancient Tibetan name of this location.A ri gi bod (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A second revert using Twinkle without using "Edit Summary" A ri gi bod (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite the Catch-22, isn't it? Trying to be an expert wiki-lawyer, while still needing to portray yourself as the poor, clueless noob who was just trying to be helpful. You seem to know how things work here well enough to easily understand why your edit wasn't appropriate, which, in turn, renders your feigned surprise at not getting any AGF rather moot. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Glossary discussion
Joe, I have opened up a discussion at Talk:Glossary of North American horse racing. In case you haven't seen it, I urge you once again to please stop removing cited content -- if there are problem entries, please use tags so they can be fixed, not deletion. It does appear that one web site has changed the content of their page or else things were aded but mis-cited, but that's a fixable problem by seeking content elsewhere. I spent a considerable amount time reviewing your last set of edits and would value you engaging in talkpage discussion. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "cited content" that I removed was copyvios. Obviously, feel free to seek content elsewhere, but that doesn't mean copyvios stay in place in the meanwhile. They have to come out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was not your original set of arguments, and it also is not an accurate statement for all the content you removed. That said, I ran earwig and found that one page that flags is a wikipedia mirror and I did an extensive review of the remaining pages flagged, rewriting several entries that had been inserted verbatim. Once again, please fix these problems, and stop blanking the entries altogether (in the above example, you could have removed the phrasing but kept the word itself if your concerns were not mere pretext.) From here forward, let's please continue the discussion at the article talk so others may weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Joefromrandb: You are engaged in revert warring. If you revert Ricky Rodriguez one more time, you will be in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. Please use the article's talk page to discuss why you think that paragraph is no well-sourced instead of reverting. Thank you. --Thorwald (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia de Havillad
Could you please show me what's being overlinked? Why do you keep removing linking in an appropriate location for linking? Rusted AutoParts 15:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already showed you what's being overlinked (as did another user). There's no reason to link everyday terms like countries and large, well-known cities (allowing for exceptions, of course, where it would be reasonable to expect that a link would be helpful to a reader wishing to get a more-comprehensive understanding of the topic). For instance, Tokyo could reasonably be linked from the Japan article, and Japan could reasonably be linked from the Asia article. There is no reason whatsoever for these links to be in de Havilland's article, info-box or elsewhere. If you feel there's an egregious reason that ignoring guidelines would improve the article, that's fine, but it's on you to make your case and build a consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Im finding your response a bit rude towards the end as when one normally cites overlinking I take it to mean it's been linked over and over in the article already. Quite frankly that argument is a tad silly IMO, but to avoid edit warring I won't revert back. Rusted AutoParts 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what's meant by "overlinking"; see WP:OVERLINK. Obviously, repetitive linking should be avoided as well, but "overlinking" refers to cluttering the text with low-value links that have little, if any, direct relation to the article. I believe User:Tony1 has, amongst his excellent tutorials, a page (or at least a section of a page) detailing the concept of "smart linking". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rusted AutoParts, it was recognised long ago on en.WP that linking carries a cost as well as a benefit. To briefly summarise the costs: dilution of the linking system in listeners' minds; lack of specificity in link target ; the sea of blue, which makes the text less easy to read, and brings a messy aesthetic to the page; failure to take the opportunity to use editorial skill and knowledge to ration the links for whatever we assume is the typical reader of an article (maximised utility, minimised linking); the forgetting of the fact that readers can type into the search box. Tony (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oshwah:That's some pussy shit there. Are you trying to fuck with me? A month! Make this fucking block for a month. Otherwise, this shit will just start all over in 2 weeks. I'm fucking serious. Please change this block to match the duration of whatever horseshit restriction has been imposed on me & don't make me cause any more needless disruption 2 weeks from now. It's almost like the "2 weeks" thing was on purpose, just to fuck with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:slakr If Oshwah doesn't have the balls to do it, maybe you'll have the decency, since you caused this entire fucking mess in the first place. Once again, I absolutely refuse to honor the restrictions you have imposed, and request I be blocked for the duration. Are you seriously going to make me make more meaningless edits to BLP articles in 2 weeks, as I just did? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joefromrandb: I think the 2 weeks was only to reflect the previous block, which was 1 week. I don't think there were any bad faith involved. Do you want one month just to make a point? Alex ShihTalk 06:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To an extent, yes. What I'm saying is that I absolutely refuse to abide by the edict set down by slakr. I said from the beginning, you may as well block me, because I promise you I will disobey the edict. It's not exactly "to make a point", unless the "point" is "I'd rather be blocked than obey an unjust edict". I will resume reverting any and all BLP violations once this 2-week block has expired, and I don't give a shit that I'm not "allowed" to. I'm asking for one month now to prevent the inevitable drama in 2 weeks, which will certainly lead to me being blocked again, possibly for longer than 2 weeks. Why is that necessary? Just block me for a month now and be done with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joefromrandb: Even though this would be against the principles of WP:COMPULSORY, I have extended the block to one month as I hope this would be better for the place. Hopefully we can re-visit the issue to reach a resolution at some point after one month. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 07:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That took balls (the good kind)! There will be nothing that needs to be revisited in a month. The "restriction" unjustly imposed will be over, and I will be free to resume editing. Again, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:slakr: I'll AGF that you still haven't noticed, but as I have chosen to be blocked for a month as a prophylactic measure in light of your baseless and unjust edict, will you please have the decency to revert your annotation to whatever page that was. As I can't edit anything other than my talk page for the month, it goes without saying that I can't revert WP:BLP violations. You've won; you succeeded in showing me who's boss around here, & your ex cathedra fiat will be obeyed by default. There's really no call to add insult to injury. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:slakr:Why would I want to appeal the block? I requested it. That was the entire point–I said I'd rather be blocked than edit under the ridiculous, egregiously unjust restriction of being forbidden to revert WP:BLP violations. I would have continued to revert them on sight, and with extreme prejudice, on a daily basis. (I know, what a malicious prick I am!) With escalating blocks for each "violation", I'd have likely wound up blocked for 2 years by the time a month was up. I asked you to simply block me. When this fell upon deaf ears, I set to making multiple null-edits, followed by reverting, to various BLP articles. I was openly defying your ridiculous punishment, yet you did nothing. User:Oshwah tagged in at this point; can't have one of us commoners publicly thumbing his nose at one of the infallibles. That shit's bad for business! Of course, the 2-week block was a second try at the setup, done no doubt with the knowledge that I would resume once the block had expired, earning me a new block, almost certainly longer than 2 weeks in length. Thankfully, User:Alex Shih had the decency and the balls to honor my original request, which first you, and then Oswah should have done originally. Please don't pretend I was blocked for my "ensuing behavior", as though I committed an infraction that merited a block. That sounds like: "You dont decide whether you get blocked or not; you're blocked, but because We say you deserve to be blocked, not because it's what you wanted". This whole thing is so fucking ridiculous. "The restriction stands regardless of the block"? Are you kidding me? That's like the proverbial jail-sentence of "life plus ten days". The "restriction" was rendered completely moot upon the block. I'm not permitted to edit Wikipedia for a month, and furthermore, during that same month, I'm forbidden to revert any WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours. Have you by chance served on the Arbcom at some point? Because that non-sequitor sounds like it was ripped straight from one of their "findings-of-fact". Again, I will not be appealing this block, as I'm the one who requested it (not that I've ever appealed any block). Therefore, the "restriction" of not being permitted to revert WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours does not exist, in practice or in theory. On the contrary, I'm not permitted to revert them at all. It beggars belief that you would insist on retaining something so patently absurd with no rationale other than "I Am the Law". Your "restriction" is far more than unnecessary at this point. It does not exist. It has been superseded by a more-restrictive set of parameters, albeit one of my own choosing. Is being "right" truly that much of an issue to you? I'm again asking you to revert these phantom "restrictions". They have no point, no value, and no effect whatsoever on any editing taking place here, good, bad, or indifferent. --Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, how do we get out of this? I happen to think you were right in the Waters article (and Piriczki's edit solved the entire problem in what I think is a proper way), but you were blocked of course for incivility. You don't want to ask for an unblock, that's cool, and you don't agree with slakr's edict, which I assume is the 1R restriction. Well, that restriction is only for a month, so that's not that much of a leash, and you could of course also disagree with it while not violating it. Or you could argue your case at AE--but I think, judging from experience, that the whole fuck fuck fuck thing will weight against you, even setting aside the edit warring (I know, you'll claim the exception, and that is understandable). I don't know; I suppose the ball is in your court and (I think I've said this before) I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here--but I'd rather have you editing than not editing. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I'll post a proper response at some point today, as time permits. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Ping me if you can there's anything useful I can do (that might be a first...). Drmies (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Drmies:Just wanted to take a minute to let you know I haven't forgotten. I have some family issues with which I'm dealing, but I still intend to respond to your message. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you don't owe me a thing, but thanks for the note. Good luck with those issues; they matter more than "something's wrong on the internet"--this is advice I need to take myself too. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joefromrandb/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke? No, I can't. I'm currently blocked, as I've chosen not editing at all over genuflecting before a corrupt administrator & promising to obey. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have to stand up for slakr here: you don't know s/he's corrupt, so I could cite you for a BLP violation. :) Drmies (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk Douglas
You made a pretty darn weak argument when you reverted my edit the last time. You do NOT own the Kirk Douglas article! I was trying to IMPROVE the article so it made better sense. If you are not a dope, Marvin Gaye was a British singer, and he was born in London. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck are you talking about? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Looks like it's about this. Classicalfan626, since the claim is supported in the #Style and philosophy of acting section, citation should't really be needed per MOS:LEADCITE. But I'll add it since it has been contested. Next time would you please provide wikilinks and/or diffs if you are going to talk about something that happened one or two months ago? Alex ShihTalk 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. Indeed, statements in the lede do not need refs, provided they're properly referenced within the body. The edit also changed Democratic Party "member" to "supporter", which is not at all the same thing. Alex Shih, you have far more patience than I. That you managed to deduce that from a cryptic mention of Marvin Gaye is quite impressive! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm X
Despite your assertions to the contrary, there was discussion about the changes and consensus was achieved. You have now made four reverts in less than 24 hours. Please self-revert your last edit or I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had already self-reverted, but seeing these puerile threats makes me seriously consider reverting my self-revert. I really expected better from you, Malik. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry that you think it's appropriate to make three reverts in 10 minutes, but that my concern about your out-of-control edit-warring on a featured article is a "puerile threat". If I thought it would do any good, I would recommend that you read WP:BRD, but I have a feeling that it would be a waste of both of our time. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Malcolm X
Thanks for your attempted corrections. You're in the right—most experienced editors can see that. Unfortunately you are up against a small group of individuals who nonetheless control the article. They insist on enforcing an usual set of standards that are unlike most other Wikipedia biographies. It's all very strange; it's been discussed previously. Best to quit now before you're accused of edit warring! --Hazhk (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, or the patience to deal with it right now,but this tiny group doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as guidelines go, and I will return to it eventually. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If taken to a community notice-board, with site-wide participation, this "local consensus" has zero chance of holding up. Nonetheless, I'm very hesitant to get involved with such things. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan as Nobel laureate (rather than winner)
Hi Joefromrandb, I saw that you reverted this edit by Skymandr [22]. I have taken a great interest in the Bob Dylan page and tried to keep it up to date and readable. I thought that in this instance, Skymandr was right. Winners of Nobel prizes are usually described as "laureates". I thought I would check with you, rather than revert, as was my initial impulse. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something? Best, Mick gold (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobel prize winner" is a common phrase. Multiple sources refer to Dylan as such. I'm sure that plenty use "laureate" as well. It's not a big deal to me either way. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSLINK
You can't just pick and choose which part of a guideline you want. The very same guideline that you cite to justify your edit also contains the explicit guidance The rules on linking applicable to disambiguation pages are set out in the disambiguation style guide. If you want to change WP:MOSLINK and WP:MOSDAB, please establish some consensus before making accusations of arrogance. older ≠ wiser 00:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Please fuck off and go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Joefromrandb, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. See WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 19:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@There'sNoTime: To be honest, as much as time sink it may be to let this drag on, an indefinite block 4 minutes after the AN/I report was filed, it is quite possibly an overkill here for an editor that has been around for nearly 7 years with 20k+ edits. This is going to generate a lot of negative response. Alex ShihTalk 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Frankly, and with all due respect, Joefromrandb can use the unblock requests to detail how they'd continue to contribute without the gross incivility. There's plenty of talented content contributors who manage, so I'm sure they can too -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There'sNoTime, I agree with Alex Shih. Toddst's silly NPA warning looks like pure provocation to me, designed to get more ANI fodder. I'm composing a note to that effect for the ANI thread, but I expect it'll be closed before I get there — it's often the way. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Gerda, as always! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can make you smile once more: look at the top of my user page. In case you look in a few days only: it's this title of which I said but forgot where that it's a perfect description of much we do here. I have my most recent DYK in the position, and after several days of changing every day, that title seems there to stay ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed! Sadly, there's more of them than there are of us, but as long as there's some of us left, it's still worth being here. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are in the same boat as TRM, did you know? I couldn't help mentioning the opera on the talk of the blocking admin. Missing Hillbilly on holiday also, - you are in good company ;) - In the future, please stick to 1RR and find another expression to reject being baited. Sorry, no new and better ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I won't be intimidated. I'll continue to use "fuck off" when it's appropriate (as it absolutely was in this case). Joefromrandb (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, when "fuck off" becomes indef-block worthy, then they have really won. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Doctor. You're a plain-spoken man. We don't always agree, but I always appreciate your input and the perspicacity that invariably accompanies your opinion, whether defending or rebuking me. Your conduct as an administrator has always been (IMHO) beyond reproach, something that's as laudable as it is rare. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sing your praises ... in memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda. That may be my highest honor yet; I'm in some very good company there. Meanwhile, the ANI has run for over a week; there's clearly no consensus for the block, yet no one has unblocked me. All the while, the appropriately named There's No Time laments as "surreal" the experience of being held accountable for his bad block. Only on Wikipedia (where "infallible" means INFALLIBLE!)! Joefromrandb (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good company, indeed. I thought 3 was a good number, or could have added Eric and Coffee. Alakzi gave up after a series of unbelievable blocks, - I miss him. - I understand that you unblocked now: that's good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. You've been a source of strength to me during myriad nonsensical blocks over the years, as well as a level-headed voice of reason, somehow managing to stay afloat in a sea of ubiquitous insanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that! Did you hear that, Toddst1? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of that Amen, I wrote a new article, Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, at least a start. The rest of the day, I'll be at the opera pictured on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, improved, - can you help to make it more English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try & have a look later tonight or tomorrow morning, but make no mistake, Gerda: your English is quite good. It's actually better than what I see from many native Anglophones. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joefromrandb, I have changed your block duration from indefinite to three months per this discussion. I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 08:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You must be very proud of yourself. Meanwhile, Todd's trolling goes completely unpunished. Double fucking standard indeed! (Does the block extend by a month, now that I've said "fuck"?) As for your offer to "unblock immediately" if I "throw my hands up" (read: prostrate myself before you and beg to be forgiven), that will take place on the day of Mahmoud Abbas' bar mitzvah. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly" and "the only thing I regret in this block is backing down from the indef. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)" are logically consistent? More evidence this new admin is really messed up. --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IHTS, both for sticking up for me an ANI, as well as having the balls to call them as you see them. The most toxic presence at that board is the claque of "this user is not an administrator, but might like to be one someday" folks, sowing seeds for their future RfA's by defending the indefensible. It was a stressful experience for me, but watching you tell it like it is to Snow Rise & AutomaticStrikeout brought me some much-needed relief. Be well. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I made it a point to never reply to Snow Rise in that ANI, nor would I. (I recognize that sickly sweet sophistry, it gives me a headache, it's shallow & like a bucket of water filled w/ 1000 holes. Not worth it. Frankly nearly every sentence he writes is hard for me to read w/o getting nauceous. The implied condescension, probably unintentional but unmistakably there, e.g. referring to you in third person constantly instead of by username, as though he thinks he is a clinical psychologist in white lab coat, vetting you as if you were some sort of animal or candidate pet for family adoption. "They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection." All this para-psychology on the ANI cesspool board, why do some people feel they can do that? They feel there must be "anger" behind a bad word, how shallow is that? Who the H does he think he is? Let's see you've been editor at least 7 years, and Snow Rise writes: "this user [...] may indeed just not have the temperament to participate in a project of this sort." And saying you have an "inability to internalize" ... "baseline conduct standards of this project". Always so superior, and always black & white. Sounds like a computer w/o the concision & w/ a screw loose. Really no one could pay me to have any discourse w/ Snow, the combination of mock argument & superior tone is just too creepy for me. For sure he'll be at RfA in a year. He said he thinks himself a "shoo-in". Oh nooooooo!) ¶ AutomaticStrikeout I'll also have nothing to do w/. He badgers my posts at RfA & now ANI, even I'm seldom on public boards. (He apologized once to me at my Talk; seems to have forgotten that. I was nice to him then, but he turns tail again. So I just give him smack back, he fabricates arguments to try & engage; I'm not that stupid.) ¶ As much as I think ANI is a disgraceful form of pseudo jurisprudence, one for the anthropological record books, I have to say, there were several experienced users & admins there who were great w/ observations & perspectives. Including Drmies. They were great, concise, all policy & experience talking. The parade of extremist civility warriors, I presume, get little weight from any closing admin. So I learned a little respect there for the process, even the format is a swamp, the thing is, there's no guarantee any of those experienced voices are not on a month-long vacation in Bali. And what then? (That's the point. The "community" is then the caste of warriors.) ¶ Good luck, me thinks you have multiple buddy-admins' eyes aims locked on. --IHTS (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso: Please, there's no need to get personal. Joe, is it possible to ask for voluntary 1RR? I think it's better to turn off the revert notification; the system design was flawed to begin with. Alex ShihTalk 06:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back
Hello Joefromrandb,
I just noticed on my watchlist that the block against you has been lifted. I just wanted to welcome you back to editing, and wish you the very best. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your ANI Thread
I've closed your ani thread with no consensus for a indef ban at this time, however your rough-around-the-edges commentary needs to be reigned in some. To that end, then, you're now subject to an editing restriction: incivility added outside of your own talk userpages during the next 6 months will invite an ANI thread on whether or not to move forward with the indef block. In an attempt to be fair, until that discussion occurs, you are not supposed to be indef blocked, and if that consensus is reached it has to be implemented by an uninvolved admin. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Joefromrandb and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 13:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a dirty fucking trick! So much for AGF! When you wished me "good luck" above, I was foolish enough to believe it meant "good luck". Apparently it meant "good luck; wait until you see the shit-storm I've got cooked up for you, ha ha ha ha ha ha!!". Joefromrandb (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precious five years!
It is with great pleasure that I remember how I met you five years ago, missing the same great editor. We sit in the same boat, labelled for battleground. My voluntary ways to overcome it (although I realize that it will always stick): 1RR, no more than 2 comments per discussion, and ignore ignore ignore (or even more than 3 times, see?), the best advice from a dead friend. Some edits don't deserve the effort of an edit summary. We still look for a good cat image to illustrate ignoring. - I decorated my talk with a song of praise today. The Magnificat is a good text to reflect, any time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :)
I have not, to tell the truth. On the other hand, I have been in a cockpit, & I've seen a grown man naked. Realize that by opening the interrogative statement used to test knowledge with "Joey", you've ruined the chance for me to demand that you stop calling me "Surley"! Cosi e vita.
Hey, I laughed so hard there I forgot to sign my post! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI
...you've been mentioned on the ARBCOM page in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nathan_B._Forrest, however the filing party apparently didn't bother to notify the people in the statement section, hence the message. If you'd like you are welcome to leave your two cents on the page, otherwise feel free to disregard this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Reading & responding at that page was causing me an inordinate amount of stress. I decided to just get back to improving articles, & not even look at that page until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For what it's worth (and I betting its not worth much), the arbcom folks look ready to punt your case, which means it'll go back to the community...which can't decide what to do with you, so that in turns means the community will answer to me with regards to blocking you until April, and after that it looks like you'll be free to edit with everything you've got for good long while. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the community will (or has to answer) to you at all, in this case. You chose a lengthy bureaucratic procedure. Your reasoning (among other) was "As much as it pains me to admit, this is beyond my ability to adequately deal with, and due to the long time over which this has played out it its probably beyond the community's ability to adequately deal with as well. At this point it is my professional opinion that this matter should be referred to the arbitration committee for a thorough, independent, and formal investigation into all aspects of this matter and to better balance the needs of the community against the allegations of the editor." The committee looks like it's going to decline. I think Joe is free to edit with everything he's got as soon as that happens (though, in the encyclopedia's interest of keeping you unblocked, I, of course, don't hope you really will use all you've got, Joe :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joefromrandb arbitration case request archived
Hi Joefromrandb. The Joefromrandb arbitration case request has been declined by the Arbitration Committee and has accordingly been archived. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More music, - it's unbelievable how it doesn't leave my mind almost a week later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's amazing how much beautiful choral music I've discovered as a result of your many DYK's. Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For this one, there's even a YouTube of the first movement (last years version), bottom of the article ;) - If you want more ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! I love it!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good wishes, happy thanksgiving to you and yours! This year I have only music to offer, but there were more delicious variations before ;) - I planned to expand today the song pictured but meeting people was more important. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a Few Dollars More
Your recent revert at For a Few Dollars More. Please visit the talk page. Thank you. Hull16 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! Hull16 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping Genesis (band) edits
Hi joefromrandb, you recently reverted an user's edit on Genesis (band) with the change comment Knock it the fuck off. I think your revert was completely right so thanks for doing that. However, please can you keep the change comments WP:5P4 and "respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree". At worst, it can provoke time-consuming behaviour from aggrieved users. I know the Talk-discussed history behind the 'is'/'were' thing in Genesis (band) and understand that it's very annoying to have to deal with it twice from that user. On that, I'm right behind you and thank you for your edits to fix Genesis (band). All the best. ToaneeM (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had I said, "knock it the fuck off" the first time, I would understand your point. When I explained it thoroughly and politely, only to be reverted without comment, I don't see the need to be so obsequious. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my POV here is only that WP:5P4 applies all the time, no matter how many reverts. Without that, we all know that discussions between a huge number of people on so many controversial subjects get quickly out of hand. Politeness isn't obsequiousness and it doesn't seem much to ask of us all. I hope that you'll see what WP:5P4 is about, makes life cooler. Again, I appreciate your work there, I'll leave you in peace and best regards.ToaneeM (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to cut Joe some slack here - although he's used the "dreaded 'F' word" it doesn't seem to be any less WP:CIVIL than this edit, so for me to criticise him would be a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have the article watchlisted after I took it to GA and there are a number of perennial things that people squabble over. This is unfortunate as there are probably bits of prose that could be tightened up, and some of the sourcing improved in places, but people tend to focus on the easy pickings which really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“Example creep”
What does “example creep” mean? LinguistunEinsuno 19:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed! There's also WP:CREEP, but it seems rather pedestrian next to fortuna's example. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving!
I got sidetracked while in the midst of sending some of you holiday wishes; to those of you I wasn't able to address personally, I wish you & yours a very happy holiday! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Time to say thanks for another year, Reformation and reformation, and best wishes for the next, pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda. Einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Joefromrandb. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited QQ (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chery QQ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that one was intentional. Joe: 1–Robot: 0. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi
Hi. Please see WP:REDYES - all these actors have 50+ film credits, so could easily have articles. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They sure could. They don't. WP:REDYES does not apply to red-linking personal names. This is because of potential WP:BLP issues. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are edit-warring. Please discuss any further changes on the article's talkpage. And none of them are BLPs, as they're all dead. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
I think you might need to review WP:3RR - please disengage in edit warring and enter sensible discussion. violet/riga[talk] 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, perhaps I am overstepping, but would you please consider accepting voluntary 1RR? Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the kind of horseshit that drives me round the fucking bend. A user who has made four reverts to the page in the last 24 hours comes to my page with bullshit about 3RR, yet here you are rebuking me. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, by "horseshit", I was referring to the above user's disingenuous behavior, and not your good-faith inquiry. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're an admin and should behave 'better' than us mere users. You have broken 3RR and I have not. violet/riga[talk] 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have fairly thick skin. Calling me just about any name is water off a duck's back, but I refuse to abide being called an admin. The audacity! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I thought I saw that you were. violet/riga[talk] 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put it to you that "second album" is more universally understood than "sophomore album". I don't really see that it's particularly debatable and, moreover, I don't really see why someone would be so adamant about same that they engage in an edit war to enforce their view without anything more than "No, it isn't". Our own sophomore article starts "In the United States..." while Wiktionary gives only (US) definitions. violet/riga[talk] 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "civil discussion" when you start with nonsense about "edit warring". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to list for you how many Wikipedia articles use the term "sophmore album", or "sophomore effort", but I stopped counting after the second page. As for it being a "U.S. term", fine; the article is written in American English. We don't change semantic plurals in British English articles; we don't change "tire" to "tyre" (or "tyre" to "tire"), "founder" to "founding", etc., etc., etc. Your change is not an improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were quietly edit-warring and have only stopped because I have held back. You have broken 3RR. Finally you engage in discussion but go with "other things exist" as a defence? Right, so it's a US article and it's American English, we agree, but given that "second album" is accepted in all versions of English do please explain to me how it isn't preferable. violet/riga[talk] 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, holy fucking shit! You "held back"? Seriously? "Held back"? I stopped edit-warring because you stopped edit-warring. The difference between us is that I admit I was edit-warring, while you engage in identical behavior, yet have the audacity to act like an injured party. Please see my user-page, specifically the part that says: "This user has a low tolerance for bullshit". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, stop lying that I broke 3RR. It's kind of foolish, considering that the entire history is right there for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't know you knew swear words! Right. You don't know how to count though - you reverted four times. violet/riga[talk] 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep saying it until you believe it yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now stop the straw man and discuss. violet/riga[talk] 20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 of those are the same edit. Give it up already. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the article's talk page is where you should be proposing this, not mine. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are all separate reversions as is easy to see. Perhaps a third party might be able to explain this to you.
The article's talk page is not needed - this is a revert war that you instigated but you're totally unable to defend yourself. violet/riga[talk] 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as soon as you tell me you won't undo my change again. violet/riga[talk] 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joefromrandb. Can you please provide a further response to this report at the noticeboard? --NeilNtalk to me 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying; I keep edit-conflicting. I have already self-reverted, upon seeing Davey's opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two SEPTA station names
I noticed your recent move-reverts of Fortuna (SEPTA station) and St. Davids (SEPTA station). While the moves you reverted were done by a now-banned sock - and thus you were right to be suspicious of them - they were actually correct per WP:USSTATION (a policy enacted a few years ago). I believe there's not a need for a move discussion; unilateral moves to comply with USSTATION are generally considered uncontroversial technical moves at this point. (I was actually against USSTATION at first, but it's proved to be a well-thought-out implementation of the wider naming policy). I wanted to let you know rather than revert your moves and risk appearing rude. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be disambiguated with "SEPTA station", and if WP:USSTATION says otherwise, then USSTATION is wrong. With that said, I really don't care if you want to move them back; I've too many other dragons to slay at the moment. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Kim Davis
You are going to participate on the talk page, right? El_C 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being referred to as a troll, Joe. I wasn't trying to get any reaction from you other than respecting WP:DS and your fellow editors. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting involved in the actual dispute, but I saw MrX's edit summary here just now, and Joe, to the extent that you trust my judgement, MrX is not, and has never been, a troll. He's good people. Maybe you guys disagree on whatever is going on, but he's good people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I do trust your judgement, I feel the need to point out that this editor has repeatedly, and I do mean again and again, edit-warred demonstrably proven lies into that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear, I have very little patience for this woman; she's an obnoxious homophobe, and unlike others who were indoctrinated since birth with irrational hatred, Davis picked up her nuttiness well into adulthood. Here, on my talk page, such sentiments can be expressed freely. Our articles, on the other hand, should just present the facts. Editors who are unable to check their biases at the door should refrain from editing sensitive topics. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating "demonstrably proven lies" with information that is simply incorrect. I know you're smart enough to know that "lies" carries the implication of intent, if not malicious intent. If you are trying to say that I lied, or intentionally added lies to a biography, I wish you would at least have the guts to say it directly. Your constant passive-aggressiveness and overt bellicosity is so tiring that I wonder if it's just a tactic to win content disputes, or if you really are just a person with a large chip on his shoulder who seeks to make others miserable too.- MrX 🖋 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now. This is not going to lead to anything constructive. Let's, instead, focus on the content at the article talk page. El_C 00:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Passive-aggressive"? Now there's a first! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red links
Hi Joefromrandb,
Please revert the red link. See Wikipedia:Red link "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" and "Do not create red links to articles that are NOT LIKELY to be created and retained in Wikipedia". As I have noted in the Edit Summary "Red link for future article, which I am writing....Please leave as a RED LINK". I am currently working on an the article Gary Pickford-Hopkins....thanks. 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joefromrandb. Re your delinking here, etc. Your three edit summaries read simply "WP:MOSQUOTE". But there is nothing about links there. I wonder could you direct me to any clear advice that WP:MoS gives for the use of links in block quotations? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As much as possible, avoid linking within direct quotes, which can clutter the text, and in some cases, alter the meaning". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Where is that located? Your interpretation then, seems to be that links are to be avoided regardless of whether or not they actually do "clutter the text, and ... alter the meaning"? Because I'm finding it hard to see how those removed links did either of those things. Thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/snuck-or-sneaked-which-is-correct --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Snuck" may be more common, but it is not, nor will it ever be, "correct". Joefromrandb (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others.
This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in participating in one of Arbcom's famed show trials at all, let alone one opened upon the testimony of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. If Arbcom wants to railroad me the hell off of this website, they're going to have to do it without my help. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of you today
... when I advertised the beautiful Main page. I should have come sooner. Look for song, toys and pride and prejudice, "spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda, as always. The star chamber is apparently in session, so your presence here–again, as always–is a much-welcomed breath of sanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know my dangerous thoughts about arbitration. On one of the talk pages, I met the phrase "net-negative" which I despise. We should be a collaborative team, no. Calculation of plus and minus is heartless when it comes to people, also depends on who looks. You feel sanity when I come, others smell battle ;) - I still believe that sticking to 1RR and relying more on others is a net-positive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who smells "battle" when you come around obviously lacks the very "sanity" of which we speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, blushing again. Quote from the above: "I am known for my dreams. How about amnesty?" - My most famous saying, it seems (Look for my name. The user is blocked.) Dream, dream ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of the many wise quotes on that page, none ring more true for me than Carlin's admonition to "think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are dumber than that". Alas, my wife used to remind me of that all the time: the overwhelming majority of people who piss me off everyday in all likelihood truly don't know any better. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heard the same thing: your "opponents" probably did what they thought was best. - Completely different topic. I face a major boring task. The template lang changed (and see the talk page). In case you don't know: it identifies foreign language. One result: screenreaders don't try to pronounce something in English. So far, so good, I spread it generously. It was - until recently - neutral to italics, so you could format to your liking. Now that changed to italics when you don't do something, and they tell you that no bot can fix the changes, so I have to do it. Deep breath. Every Bach cantata (motet, chorale prelude ...) title needs to be touched, not only in the article but in all links to it, because the title should be italic, but not the BWV number. Every hymn title is "wrong", italic where it shouldn't be. I go now and change one hymn and see how long it takes, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did 4 short hymn articles, 90 occurences, 20 minutes. Now to the cantatas, "only" those linked from in peace and joy I let go, 15, I'd guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One cantata has about 40 occurrences of the template (at the least the better ones), and of course, while reading you find this and that else that profits from change, - anyway, the hymns and cantatas related to Luther are done. Letting go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'll see if I can help with some of those, although I'm afraid I may very well screw it up, adding even more to your workload. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed what needs to be done with Trappist the monk, who did something about the italics (too many) in {{Richard Strauss}} while I did the songs (but wrong, and corrected). For examples. With the Bach cantatas, I'd like to know if "lang" should better be specified in the link than outside - something I had not considered but it seems to work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Trappist the monk! I remember him: an administrator who wanted the tools simply to make use of them and improve the project! If only we had a hundred more like he! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and again, passing an image from the desert, with greetings from the cabal of the outcasts. Yesterday was Handel's birthday, he composed He was despised in 1741, and I made it a redirect in March 2012. I actually returned from the desert pictured, and am going to upload a few of my own impressions, will keep you posted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking of you, because arbcom keeps coming up on my watchlist. What do think of this: reply to an edit as if you never heard of the user, and she or he might be your child? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, although I can't tell you how many times it's dawned on me that my children have infinitely more common sense than so many of the troublemakers on this site. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt about this, but you might still try it. I did, with some positive results. If you meet troublemakers, you could review some of their articles, for example. - Remember that Opabinia regalis gave good advice last year? - One simple bit moar: typing an extra "for fuck's sake" shortens your life time ;) - How do you like the image? The trail begins behind the little blackish peak in the centre. Not easy but good for new perspectives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ps: look I began the singer's article yesterday, helped the Bach cantata long ago, and made Psalm 130 a focus in 2018, - without knowing this was going to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
look, for refreshment - working on something lovely, which was on my mind when walking in The Hidden Valley, comments welcome here, where the outcasts meet ;) - Did you see that I uploaded more pics from desert and sea? (click on "the desert")--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We had to sing in memory of a choir member who died, the program is on my talk, "say yes to me when all say no" will be my article tomorrow, by Diethard Zils. I sang with him once, same church, in a project choir for the victims of the Holocaust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fore-edge painting
Hi Joe, just to let you know, my edit was not made haphazardly. You might want to take a look at this article: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discrepancy in any case. By all means, change it back if you think it's better. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat: I have no desire to participate in a show trial, especially one accepted upon the word of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this has been closed already. Now for the debrief. @BattleshipMan:, may I suggest that if you are going to do something like this again, you do so without appearing to be basing an entire case on an editor's background? Yes, in your view, J<R&B has a history of being a major disruptive editor and he's a history of blocks [sic], but I'm afraid all that did was attract attention, and not in a productive way. Not that the entire thread was ever likely to produce anything except wasted spleen and cheap coffee. And I hope this isn't true, either, although- Incidentally, if you could please sign your remarks with four tildes (~~~~, thusly), that would be appreciated. Take care and happy editing! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 09:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:
For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk ·contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry it came to this, Joe. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Bish. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Song without words
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More women, pictured, and flowers for the desert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, and please follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thought of you again with more music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of you on Bach's day of death, adding a fly for the dead and the otherwise missed, hope you like my DYK on the occasion:
... that the oratorio Sankt-Bach-Passion by Mauricio Kagel, premiered for the tricentenary of Bach's birth in 1985, "changed the game by making Bach himself the suffering protagonist"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as always, Gerda, my most valued Wiki-friend. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe - I see you've been renaming the The albums with a disambiguator, but I'm not sure you're correct. You're right that within prose the first "the" should be lower case, but every other song or album article that uses a disambiguator with a band name that begins with "The" uses a capital letter in the brackets. I realise that with the The there's always going to be confusion over which part of their name should be capitalised, but as it stands, it's now different to every other disambiguator on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; many of them were moved following "The Beatles" RfC, and I've moved a few more since then. (Incidentally, I'm just following what was overwhelming consensus; I myself voted for "The Beatles".) With that said, The The may be an isolated case. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I apologise then, I didn't realise that there had been an RfC about this and that it had reached a consensus... if it's reached a consensus about the most famous band in the world, it's safe to assume it's fine to do it for the other "the xxxx" bands. Personally I don't mind one way or the other (it's just a disambiguator), I was just worried you'd opened up a can of worms... you've certainly given yourself a LOT of work to do now. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much work. As I said, I'm more or less just tying up loose ends; most of them have been moved already. In some cases, it was determined that simply omitting the definite article was the best course of action. For instance, "Real Love (The Beatles song)" was moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)", and then moved again, to "Real Love (Beatles song)". While that solution works quite well for many articles, I don't think it would fly for The The [xxxxx (The album), xxxxx (The song)]. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't – I'm working on the Soul Mining article at the moment with a view of getting it to GA, and doing background reading on the album... their frontman Matt Johnson regrets having chosen the name because of how hard it is to Google, but of course that wasn't a concern in 1983... Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, I've just reverted a couple more of these cases where you've changed "The" to "the" where it clearly looked wrong. This was "the Killers and "the Adult Net" in bullet lists, and "the Police" when the next sentence used "The Police" in a quote. Having now found the RfC it seems the consensus was 'to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence' which is not the same as 'change every band name beginning with 'The' to 'the' without any further consideration '! MrMajors (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
Could you show me where it says that? This is directly from WP:MOSFILM: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." -- "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Notice how it states that the infobox contains the details about the film that we would use to provide an in-line citation. That isn't the case with character pages, thus you need to source it. It's still a primary source, but that does not remove the need for the citation. It's {{cite video}}, you'll notice that the rest of them have it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then put a "cite video" there if it satisfies your desire for pedantic process-for-the-sake-of-process, but don't disrupt a GA by returning a "cite needed" tag for an egregiously trivial statement that, again, anyone can easily verify by simply watching the film. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is not on me. It's not disrupting a GA article by requiring a citation in the plot section that has citations for every other film there (except the new one). Yes, they can verify by watching the film. The point is not that it's a primary source, the point is that there isn't a source listed. For a source to be listed, you must have a reference point filled out. Would you be allowed to go into an article and say "In the Washington Post in 2018, they reported...", but not actually put a citation there to back up the claim? No, you need to identify the information necessary for verification. Yes, it may seem mundane, but the reason it's a GA article (I would know, as I wrote the damn thing) is because it has standards. Those being that it is fully referenced. There is NO guideline or policy that removes the right to put a source in there when it's a primary source. The only exception to this is when the sourcing information is already present in the article (i.e. infobox, episode table). That is NOT the case here. At this point, you are repeatedly violating WP:V and edit warring over a citation tag. Either fix it or leave it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you wrote "the damn thing" doesn't mean you own the damn thing. I already fixed it. Go do something productive. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it how? Removing a citation request tag is not fixing it. Either fill it out or leave it be. As of right now YOU are the one making a GA article unstable by constantly removing a citation needed tag from the section. Clearly, you see the rest of it is sourced. So, if you feel the need then fill out the template. Otherwise, please stop removing per WP:V. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red link at Register (sociolinguistics)
Hello, Joefromrandb. Your edit summary at Register (sociolinguistics) on 8 November was "WP:REDNOT". That guideline says, "red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability." Since T.B.W. Reid presumably meets notability guidelines, the redlink was appropriate. That – and not the fact that he is usually referred to by his initials – is why I re-added the link. For the time being, your solution of linking to his German-language article seems appropriate. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for the note. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Myers (Halloween)
Hi Joe. I was asked by Gerda a few days ago to look into a case request from last year concerning you. As I was looking into your background, I noted the above discussion with BIGNOLE regarding the Michael Myers (Halloween) article. On looking at that article I noted this edit [24] and then this second edit [25], are restoring this edit [26] within 24 hours, which appears contrary to your restriction. I don't know your full history, nor yet the details of the case, but felt that someone should speak to you about it. Preferably someone with more knowledge of you and/or the case. I left a note regarding the incident at Gerda's question, asking someone to look into it, but it would have been better if I came direct to you myself. So here I am. Considering the ArbCom ruling that if problematic behaviour continues you might face an indefinite ban, it would be wise of you to think very carefully about the consequences of making any sort of revert, and of the way you communicate with others. In your defence here, the second edit is dated the next day, so you may not have been aware it was within 24 hours, and you made another minor edit at the same time which might make you think it wouldn't be counted as a revert, however you do need to take care, as you were making those reverts after BIGNOLE made contact with you regarding your initial edit, and you are continuing the slow edit war with another revert yesterday: [27]. Whatever your feelings in this matter, you either need to move away from that article and edit on safer ground, or engage in a more productive discussion with Bignole on the article talkpage, otherwise this might turn quite unpleasant. I don't think attempting to win a slow edit war over a CN template is really worth losing editing privileges on Wikipedia. Although this is a friendly warning, without any kind of templates or formal notifications, it is a serious one. Please take heed. SilkTork (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to discuss the value and purpose of the cite template on the article talkpage with Bignole, I would be willing to mediate. SilkTork (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a citation in the article, so I think this matter has now ended. If you wish to discuss it further, please leave a note on my talkpage as I am unwatching your talkpage. Safe editing. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked for an opinion about an old case, and somehow wound up coming here to threaten me instead? You, sir, are most definitely Arbcom material! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Joe. I wrote about petty restrictions in February 2012, DYK? That was before I even knew what an arb is, or an infobox. The whole system translates to pettiness and waste of time to me. I have asked the candidates about that edit because I want to support those who answer like Drmies ;) - Please pick a rose on my talk today, a happy anniversary day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping ;) - the movements section is the least developed, will try to improve, but am too tired right now. This is a great week: rehearsing Christmas oratorio (which has some of the music) on 6 of 8 days! [28] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have a look at it – I'm incredibly busy with work this week, and likely won't have much time until after the holiday. To whatever extent Thanksgiving or something roughly equivalent is observed in Germany, happy holidays to you and yours!! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We have no equivalent (Erntedankfest in early October is really more a harvest festival), but I lived in the US long enough to know, and remember several extraordinary feasts, especially the community feeling where the Rabbi held the sermon in the Catholic church, followed by a meal at their house to which everyone invited brought one dish. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Joefromrandb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Talk:Seth Andrews. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NPA inquiry
Can you point me to the passage at Wikipedia:No personal attacks that applies to the words, "original research by Joefromrandb"? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly lying is most certainly a personal attack. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not "owned"
That I disagree with your point of grammar, does not mean that the article is "owned". You think that the sentence is saying that "one single proof solves all mathematical conjectures" I think that the sentence is saying that one single method—i.e. the technique of mathematical proof—solves solves all mathematical conjectures. As Trovatore has pointed out, "proof" is being used as a mass noun. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you're blue-linking to an article that does not use it that way. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I assure you the noun "proof" is used this way. And in any case what does this have to do with article ownership? Paul August ☎ 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how does poor grammar make a sentence "mathematically incorrect"? I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a single proof solves all conjectures is "mathematically correct"? Must be a new theory of everything of which I'm unaware. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of a "single proof", however. I take "by mathematical proof" to mean "by means of mathematical proof" or "using the technique of mathematical proof", not "by a mathematical proof". Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... what Lord Bolingbroke says is correct. Let me try to explain another way. Imagine that the sentence were "Mathematicians seek and use patterns to formulate new conjectures; they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof, instead of hand-waving." Would you want to instead make it "... they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, instead of hand-wavings"? Mathematical proof (notice the use here as a count noun) is something which sets mathematics apart from other disciplines, much like the scientific method sets science apart. The main point of that sentence is that, more important even than all the thousands of mathematical proofs which have resolved all the thousands of mathematical conjectures, is the method of mathematical proof itself.
Look, you seem to feel like you are being mistreated, If so then let me apolozize for that. I assure you that even though I disagree with your edit I mean you no ill will. And I assure you that, for my part, all editors are welcome at that article. Here's wishing you a Happy New Year.
Paul August ☎ 11:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mistreated here plenty, but not by you. I disagree with the way this is being handled, but I coukd have less of a dickhead about it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whose been mistreating you? And how would you prefer it had been handled? Paul August ☎ 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help last year, and for bearing with me! How do you like Ray's Rules? - So proud to have helped bringing Amos Oz to the Main page, besides Bach and Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should be proud! Thank you as well, and happy New Year! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am proud of the TFA on the tricentenary of the work, prouder of having our local music pictured on the same page, prouder for Amos Oz, just a bit sad that Raymond Arritt wasn't there also. How do you like his rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oz was a legend! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was there when he received the peace prize, - unforgettable. I understand only now how early that prize came, internationally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope there are no ill-feelings for the revert I made. I'd like to explain my action in greater detail. The redlinks you removed are articles I want to get to in the future. I've created articles from redlinks for the following CJNG biographies: Abigael González Valencia, Elvis González Valencia, Gerardo González Valencia, José González Valencia, Rosalinda González Valencia, Martín Arzola Ortega, Érick Valencia Salazar, and Rubén Oseguera González. Not to mention dozens more from other cartels. Those redlinks removed were original members (founders, per say) of the Milenio Cartel, and there are plenty of sources about them. I usually decide if a cartel member deserves a biography if they (1) have outstanding international charges; (2) were high-ranking members or founders of a cartel; (3) received detailed coverage on their criminal career; (4) had a lasting impact in the organization and are mentioned years after they were active. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to post a detailed response at the moment; bear with me. For now, though, just one quick question: if you plan to create these articles yourself, why are the red links necessary? Your criteria seem reasonable, and I have no objection to to the creation of those articles. There is, however, an issue with them sitting as red links. Hopefully I'll have some time to explain this in detail within the next day or two. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this message. Per WP:REDLINK: It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. I set them as redlinks and then add them to my to-do list so whenever they are created they are linked immediately. If someone gets to them before me, that's fine. Wikipedia is far from being done and I think redlinks can encourage new contributors to start writing. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good. The problem isn't with red links, but with red-linking personal names. Someone looking for a scientist or a poet can all too often wind up at an article about, for instance, the head of a drug cartel. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
March 2019
Can you please leave the {{split-apart}} tag at Shooting of Trayvon Martin until May 2019 or when the discussion is complete? Also Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 767.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I like my talk page the way it is. If it bothers you, do feel free to refrain from posting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An Explanation
Firstly, what RfC are you talking about exactly? You mentioned it in one of your edits. Secondly, you shouldn't accuse other users of trolling without any proof, as you did here. Accusing other users of trolling without explicit evidence goes against the practice of assuming good faith. And thirdly, this edit summary gives me the impression that perhaps you are overreacting and getting heated up over having your edits undone. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Whitten
Hello again! Some years ago we had a brief chat about whether Danny Whitten was born Daniel or Danny. Happily, I discovered that the Danny Whitten page now cites a book by Jimmy McDonough (about Neil Young) that contains some biographical information about Whitten; this includes his full name at birth, which turns out to be Danny Ray Whitten. My original edit was motivated by the databases of performing rights societies, but these do not always store the birth name. The book by McDonough seems to be a reliable source. All the best, Labalius (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I remember this! I intend to respond properly to this when time allows, but, for the moment, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Joefromrandb. There may still be time for you to back away from this dispute. If you agree to stop all reverts on the MOS-related issue and stick to 1RR in the future, the AN3 complaint may yet be closed. Due to the severity of the past restrictions, if you make no concessions at all admins may feel they have to take some action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Ed. Anything for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This reply would be more convincing if you made it at a noticeboard, and used your own words to say what you're agreeing to do in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was meant to be taken at face value. As I said at the noticeboard, I will not reply there for the sole reason that I stated. See User:Floquenbeam for details about that, as I'd rather not even discuss it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules you are supposed to be blocked for one month. Now you are too scrupulous even to defend yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said I would not respond further at that noticeboard, and with good reason that has nothing to do with "scruples". I think User:Swarm summed it up quite well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, my memory is not what it used to be. I thought there was an i-ban between you two, but can find no evidence, and maybe it's my imagination. Am I wrong? Have you just been unilaterally disengaging? Just a "yes there is an i-ban" or "no there isn't an i-ban", without getting into any details or names or giving them a reason to post here. On a separate note, remember that there are literally millions of articles with errors, and most of them are frequented by people who actually appreciate the help. If you run across an article where someone wants their article to be wrong, just let it go, and move on to one of the million other articles where the principal authors do want their articles to be right. You aren't going to fix them all, so fix the ones where the work is appreciated. Good for the encyclopedia (maximizes the unreverted corrections), good for everyone's blood pressure, good for everyone's soul, good for everyone's block log, good for everyone's karma (except the person who wants their article wrong, and who cares about their karma?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual I-ban; you investigated things at my request a while back, and told him he would be blocked for 2 weeks if continued to harass me; before long he resumed stalking me, and you followed through and blocked him. As far as my end of it goes, it has been my personal policy for years to have zero interaction with him. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Monkee's 'Christmas Party'
Can you please point me to the policy that justifies moving the page? I'm not saying you're wrong (though it doesn't make sense to me), but you did not indicate the policy that justifies the move.Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:THEMUSIC, for starters. As a corollary of sorts, take the song "Real Love" by the Beatles: originally at "Real Love (The Beatles song), moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)" after The Beatles became "the Beatles", and now at "Real Love (Beatles song). Similarly, "Christmas Party (Monkees album) would be fine too. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think I'd necessarily object to "(Monkees album)". But you didn't do that. And since "the Beatles song" isn't used, I'm not sure why the Monkees material doesn't follow the same system. Unfortunately, I can't find a guideline that specifically speaks to the word "the", as part of a band's title, at the beginning of a paranthetical phrase, only at the beginning of or within a sentence. I don't see much difference between the Beatles and the Monkees on this issue, so it's odd they are being treated differently.Rhindle The Red (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of job titles
Hi Joe,
I see that you have made a large number of job titles lower case, in good faith. Please see MOS:JOBTITLES. There you'll see that certain job titles are capitalized, when unmodified. I hope that you will consider undoing edits that you have made that counter this rule, to save others from the need to do so.
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the ones in the infobox at George H. W. Bush because "These are in title case because they are titles of sections of the infobox (as are the sections below them [which are title-cased])". It really doesn't look right or consistent otherwise, and there is probably a guideline somewhere about it, not to mention extensive use. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey joe, I'm as active as anybody on this JOBTITLES compliance, but I agree with the preceding that the infobox headings are in title case so JOBTITLES doesn't apply.While I'm here, I'll note that you were incorrectly reverted a few times recently after using the editsum "lc", and that user self-reverted after being directed to MOS:JOBTITLES. So at least one user actually respects guidelines when aware of them, and it might be worth your time to link to it in your editsums. That is, if you're more interested in avoiding fights than in winning them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that I should have written "sentence case" instead of "title case", though there is rarely a difference (i.e., most usage is of the form "Title [of|from] the CapitalizedProperNoun", which is the same in title- and sentence-case. One example is at Chuck Grassley, we have "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa's 3rd district". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you correctly wrote "title case". If it were sentence case, uncapped would be correct when there a modifier, in this case the ordinal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you're thinking about things other than the title, such as "district". This issue is not about those things as I understand it, and the JOBTITLES guideline is not about them ("from Iowa's 3rd district" is not part of the title, certainly). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had been linking to "JOBTITLES", but seeing as how I was being blindly reverted anyway, I eventually went with "lc" as a matter of convenience. I have no quarrel with title-case or sentence-case in the info box, but I don't see why it would be capitalized when a numerical rank precedes it. Suppose it were "2nd person to win 'x'"; would "Person" be capitalized? Frankly, the whole thing is a mess – not the guideline itself, but rather the ubiquity of unapologetic noncompliance, a la "IDONTLIKEIT", as well as a generally poor understanding of un/modified by those claiming an exemption (which, in most cases, is actually just a thinly veiled "IDONTLIKEIT"). Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In title case that would be "2nd Person to Win 'x'". I.e. all words capitalized except the preposition "to". That's why JOBTITLES can't apply to titles within title case text. (Nothing at all confusing about the two definitions of the word "title" in that! :D)The unapologetic noncompliance is (mostly) from editors asserting the principle that guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should reflect the implicit consensus demonstrated by what editors have done in articles. There's no disputing that a majority of existing content is non-compliant with the current guideline, so the principle dictates that it's the guideline that should change, not the existing content. The principle is completely dysfunctional in my view—particularly with respect to MoS, and even more so with respect to MoS that seeks to base itself on today's authoritative sources rather than what editors think looks right, what they have always believed, and/or what they learned in the 4th grade. But, while dysfunctional, it's still an actual Wikipedia principle that can be found somewhere in policy, and that makes this a largely unresolveable problem for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that anything is still in dispute as concerns your original complaint. AFAIK we are in agreement that infobox headings should be (and generally are, in my experience) in title case. The thread has moved past that to stuff that is just fine on this page—and may be itself finished now. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra
Hi,
You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"
Image unrelated, but just for you ;) - Learning: so you would say "in an article of the New York Times?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how it's being done now. Initially, I was vehemently opposed to this practice, and in the "T/the Beatles" RfC and subsequent RfM, I was firmly in favor of the uppercase "T". Consensus, however, was overwhelmingly in favor of lowercase. I began making these edits through clenched teeth, but was slowly swayed upon seeing how various media and style guides treat the issue (most sources even use a lowercase "t" for the The at this point), and eventually, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the lowercase camp, where I now happily reside. That being said, I would never in a million years dream of edit warring with you, Gerda, and if you would prefer uppercase, I promise I won't change it back if you revert my edit. Always a pleasure to hear from you; hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and especially the transition from screaming to happily ;) - I was "converted" from opposing infoboxes to understanding that the intended "redundancy" is good for some readers in a 2012 discussion on Talk:Samuel Barber. You - as everybody else - are/is safe from edit warring with me because I observe my personal voluntary !RR happily, - saves time! --
Never signed that one ;) - I have a GAN under review, and would appreciate if you'd give it a read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not my area of expertise, but I gave it a quick once-over and made a few copy-edits. I hope I was of some help. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. That "psalter" and "book of hours" are lowercase has nothing to do with the fact that "Gospel Book" is not. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment I thought that said apostles-to-oranges. EEng 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the bizarre punctuation conventions to which you subscribe, it should have apparently read: "apostles –to–oranges". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Ask yourself that question) Well, ok, good RS usage varies a bit between "gospel book" and "Gospel book", but it should be the former, and certainly not "Gospel Book". Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WTFs at Donkey milk
This and this were parts of a vandal edit that nobody noticed for a whole year:( Thanks for fixing! DMacks (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol Lynley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Englander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me great pleasure, because I read again what you wrote seven years ago (partly collapsed), and found it still good and uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, good old Jack! Hard to believe it's been seven years. Hopefully he still edits among us quietly. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder. I met a few accounts I thought could be him, one (forgot the name) was blocked often ;) - but I'm afraid he has better things to do. While Dreadstar kept in email touch after having enough, he cut all connections. Such a loss. But nothing compared to this. - You people in the thread, you really made me stay seven years ago, - I thought I shouldn't support such a "community", expelling her best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... the day I have 3 recent deaths on the Main page, but not the 4th, Márta Kurtág, see my talk. Thank you for being you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're incredibly kind, Gerda. I can tell you that that is not something I hear often. I would normally question the sanity of someone who commented such. Most would prefer that I were someone else entirely. The tiny soupçon of folks who can tolerate me being me aren't exactly lining up to thank me for it. I appreciate it nonetheless, and your kind words are indeed reciprocated. You being you, along with your friendship, have no doubt enabled me to become a better me. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
blushing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bantustan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Namibians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
Looking forward to 2020 with your helpful presence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda. I'm looking forward to it. Happy new year to you and your family! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report
February flowers
A late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. - I thought of you. The song "Der Weg" was played in the pictured church, written by a singer-songwriter who lost his wife. It's on YouTube, look in Mensch (album) for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Gerda. What a beautiful message. I've been a bit busy with family issues lately, but please know I cherish your friendship (and all of the wonderful music you've helped me to discover) more than I can explain! I hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide at any point that you would like to act like an adult, I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you'd rather stick to puerile passive-agression (which I personally view as little more than trolling), I can promise you, you have the wrong guy. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing response. The guidelines have been shown to you, that's all I can do. Enjoy your day. SolarFlashDiscussion 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see how being called out on your bullshit would indeed be "disappointing". It's a part of growing up though. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you reverted this edit a while ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_(band)&diff=955796272&oldid=955611167
I wondered if you can explain to me what the criterion is for associated acts and why MCZ fail to meet it?
It's the only group Kiss have ever collaborated with. Kind Regards -ipuser 80.0.45.128 (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're inference is perfectly reasonable, and one that tripped me up more than once during my early days here. Generally speaking, I think MCZ could certainly be seen as an "associated act". However, for the purposes of the "Associated acts" entry in article info-boxes, the criterion for inclusion is the bands must have (at least) two common members. (Incidentally, I just removed "Chelsea", as they clearly fail this criterion.) "Wicked Lester" easily qualify, with Stanley, Simmons, and Criss in common; "E.S.P" qualify, with Singer and Kulick in common; "Frehley's Comet" technically don't qualify, but here in the land of "ignore all rules" they should eke by, with Frehley and Anton Figg as common members — Figg has done extensive session work with Kiss, and was the ghost-drummer on the entire Unmasked album, with Peter Criss appearing in name only. "MCZ",on the other hand, while certainly collaborators with Kiss, are not an associated act, at least not for these purposes. Hope that helps. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining it to me :) 80.0.45.128 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete page criticism
You don’t need to Blame yourself for anything. It’s good that you gave me a constructive criticism and this has given me the experience, and motivation to learn about how the delete system works. I failed in my original argument by repeating everyone, and now I learn that I need instead give a direct reasoning to my vote, which I suppose I did in a small way in my reply. But anyway thanks for pointing me out, Goodbye (:Vallentunar (talk)9 August 2020 (UTC)
It was constructive criticism, but at the same time, I was kind of a douchebag to you. Your comments were clearly well-intentioned and made in good faith, and my response was at the least unnecessarily acerbic. Thank you for your kind words, and I'm glad you're learning so much so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know. I feel like quite the horse's ass. I'm not sure why I acted on the basis of my own supposition; forget due diligence, I didn't even attempt the most cursory inquiry into it, such as, oh... typing it into the search-box? Thank you for educating me. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
September
I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that this morning. I didn't have the time for a good look at it (although I plan to), but I was fairly sure it had to be one of yours. Great work! Beautiful piece of music! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. (Just click on "September".) A funeral in 2 days. Brute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful
[29]
This used to happen to me as well until I turned off word continuation prompts on my mobile devices :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's just bizarre. In 10 years, I have never had that happen before. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars I won't post a user warning here, but your edit reversion was unconstructive and your edit summary 'who gives a flying fuck if "the link is in the article"'? was uncivil. At Sweep the Leg Johnny there is a mention of ZZZZ and a redlink to ZZZZ (band). That justifies an entry on the disambiguation page Zzzz. If you don't like that, take it up at Sweep the Leg Johnny and not at Zzzz. If there's another band called ZZZZ then write about it. And don't swear at me again. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
October harvest
music, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore, as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16 October memories - eight years that we met --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My, where does the time go? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That link took me to your current talk page so I looked in your archives but I wasn't able to find an interaction between us on 16 October 2012; I'm just curious as to what was said between us and how you happen to know the exact date! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I also meant to thank you for that beautiful music — above, as well as for the past 8 years! So much wonderful music I probably wouldn't have discovered if it weren't for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The link takes you to my 16 October talk page (which didn't change much since because I like it), and if you scroll beyond the highly interesting conductor's bio and my song of defiance (from 2013), and hit the first link, under the bish-wish-protection image, you should see where I first noticed you on 16 October 2012 (same image there further up, btw). You said "Another example of the jealous little ones foresaking good content-contribution for the opportunity to play hall monitor." My heart was heavy so I responded by Precious only some days later, wait and see right here, - I (or rather RexxS who gave me a great template) changed the procedure to mention the Precious anniversary when it comes, even if more than once on a page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precious anniversary 8
... as said above I was a bit slow with recognition ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bottom dealing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magician.
DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm
When I saw your edit to Grim Reaper (disambiguation) I thought "good catch, someone must've vandalized it an hour ago."
Then I went back into the page history and it's been there for months.
I was about to write a polite "why did you do that" letter to the person who put it there, but I figured "let's see what is on the Mitch McConnell page. Well, in Mitch McConnell#Political positions it says McConnell stated that if he was still Senate majority leader after the 2020 elections: "none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper."[1].
References
^Re, Gregg (April 22, 2019). "McConnell vows to be 'grim reaper' of socialist Dem proposals". Fox News. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
So, if anyone is calling the Senator the Grim Reaper, it's himself.
That said, I didn't undo your edit. I just wanted to make sure you knew the background of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of the statement. The "facepalm" summary was me sighing aloud that someone felt this isolated self-reference was sufficient to add him to the disambiguation page. With Scarpa and Grimson, "Grim Reaper" is a long-term epithet. Disambiguation pages are meant to assist our readers in finding what they're after, and I just found it absurd that someone searching for Mitch McConnell would do it via "Grim Reaper (disambiguation)". YMMV? Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the week or two after he said it, someone might search for "Grim Reaper" then follow the hatnote. But yeah, it's outlived its usefulness as a search term. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Howdy!
Very interesting edit here. You are right. Thanks for the edit. Cheers. Ktin (talk)
Thanks for the feedback. I don't think I've ever had someone call one of my edits "interesting" before. It's a really cool compliment. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
November
Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - instead of turkey --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's good stuff! Just don't let our governor hear about it. Here in Pennsylvania (and I swear I'm not making this up!), the governor has admonished us that there is to be no singing at our (six-person-maximum) Thanksgiving celebrations. Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause an earthquake in Bolivia, lifting our voices in song in the keystone state will apparently give corona virus to a polar bear, or something like that. The thought police can't be far behind. I hope all is well with you and your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm healthy, so is family, - I miss singing which I can do only at home. Choppers came yesterday to the two trees pictured under "November songs" on my talk, - that was a shock, and the beauty of the earth was diminished. Sing my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for removing unnecessary caps, but WP:JOBTITLES says to use caps "When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon". Some of your recent downcasings seem to go against this guidance. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always value your advice, Dick. Can you be a bit more specific? I don't need diffs or anything like that, just the article(s) in which you feel I've been in error. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that 1960 U-2 incident is one of them; I've started a discussion at that article's talk page (soliciting an opinion from Tony as well). Please let me know if there are others; if this issue is ubiquitous, it may be better to have a somewhat-centralized discussion somewhere, rather than going article-by-article. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having been obsessed with Bach since I was a child, I was until recently only a casual fan of Beethoven. Delving into his oeuvre, I was amazed to discover the depth and nuance of his writing. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Off-topic ping for Joefromrandb: If you are going to be obsessed, at least you are obsessed with someone worth obsessing over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How true! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at Philadelphia crime family
Your recent editing history at Philadelphia crime family shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not troll my talk page again. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he broke 1RR at the 25th Amendment article, but rather on the page originally reported, plus I was saying that at the same time he's being insistent at 25A on something he obviously doesn't understand. So, ya know, maybe he should just slow down and pay attention, give that he's under the 1RR for a reason. EEng 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Something I don't understand"? As this is coming from someone who insisted compound adjectives should be joined with a dash instead of a hyphen, and carried on with such nonsense after being corrected by multiple editors, understand that I'll be taking any answer with the perfunctory grain of salt. With that caveat firmly in place, do tell, EENG: what would it be that I don't understand? Joefromrandb (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand that the 25th Amendment has nothing to do with the presidential line of succession, you don't understand that the list of cabinet secretaries in this section [30] has nothing to do with the presidential line of succession, and you don't understand that the eligibility of anyone on that list to hold the office of the president is irrelevant to that passage. And yet you've had to be repeatedly reverted, by two different editors, in your clueless attempts [31][32][33][34] to insert nonsense about presidential eligibility into the article.
As to the stuff about compound adjectives, I have no idea what you're talking about and you apparently have me mixed up with someone else – merely the latest example of you wandering about the project in a confused state emitting random mental debris. EEng 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm surprised to find you wrong on all counts; not (entirely) wrong factually, but rather wrong as to what you have impeached me of not understanding. You apparently don't understand my supposed misunderstanding. Now I can certainly be one ignorant motherfucker, but in this case the one who stands in ignorance is not I. The older I get, the more I realize how little I know, and I'm always excited to be able to learn something; learning I was wrong is even more exciting than learning something new, and my lack of surprise notwithstanding, I'm still disappointed. As far as compound adjectives, are you sure you don't remember? The "wandering about aimlessly emitting random mental debris" comment shows I've clearly hurt your feelings. It's a defense mechanism, I get it. Same with the class clown routine. It's obviously a mask for something unpleasant (although humor can be a healthy catalyst, and your comment about "not knowing Kirk Douglas was trans" made me laugh until my sides ached). Trust me I do not, and I could not possibly, have you confused with someone else. Fear not, as your attention-seeking behavior has not been for naught. Perhaps Bishonen would remember. She was one of several editors who corrected you, although as I said, you refused to accept said correction. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an admirable admission. With Dunning & Kruger, even though those of low ability were blissfully unaware of such the majority of the time, with even minimal instruction, these same folks were generally able to identify their shortcomings, and improve their scores dramatically. I'm glad someone pointed you to Dunning and Kruger in the aftermath of "punctuation for the insane", and I'm impressed that you chose to use it as an instrument of self-improval. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EEng 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I understood this discussion I don't think I would find it reassuring. Should the dispute resurface on the articles, admins might start doing things to make it stop. So it could be worthwhile for the two or three of you to make your own agreement among yourselves. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, Ed, particularly the part where it's 2 of us. The complainant was misinformed as to the seriousness of the situation, but he's clearly well-intentioned, and a bit more tact on my behalf earlier would have made things much more mellifluous. Seeing his sincerity, I'm happy to help with the article and try to be a bit less of a dick going forward. EENG, OTOH, is free to take his tetragrammaton and his Zara Cully "nobody's paying any attention to me" routine elsewhere. Between trolling a closed AN3 report, while failing to realize that using "new math" doesn't magically make division by zero possible, to blue-linking "Dunning-Kruger", perhaps fearing I would otherwise think it meant harassing that fellow from Elm Street to repay a debt more expiditiously, the time has sadly come to retrieve the millet from that poor goose's esophagus and gong him off the stage on which he hadn't been invited to perform in the 1st place. I'll AGF that he simply missed the word "tomorrow" on the "amateur night" poster. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2021
Proud today of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you should be! Splendid piece of photography! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A friend liked the frost on nettles better ;) (although he is the father of soprano 2) - Today, I decorated for the birthday of a friend, - she sang with us in 2019, pictured, and you can listen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today see Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The information you just added back is currently being challenged on the article's talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joefromrandb/Talk:Kiki_Camarena Before adding anything please discuss it on the talk page. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So i take it you're just going to continue to edit war without discussing anything on the talk page. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jaydoggmarco, the talk page doesn't show any consensus to remove all content related to the Amazon documentary made about Kiki Camarena. I agree with Joefromrandb and don't believe you should have reverted four times in a few hours. I've opened a report here: [35]. -Darouet (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
February flowers
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting! I was away for a spell; always so nice to come back to find your usual kind words! I never cease to learn something new when you post on this page. Hope all is well with you and yours! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said more or less yes until minutes ago when I learned that Yoninah died (most likely). March flowers later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as always. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are still around. See my talk for August, - I'm a bit short on time this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been away for a while. It's always nice to come back and see you've visited while I was in absentia. I'll probably be tied up again for the next few weeks, but after that I'll likely return to more active participation. I hope all is well with you and your family. We'll talk again soon. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a FAC open, please check out the prose? Two many people (article subjects) died, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gerda, I had meant to check this out but I got sidetracked somewhere along the line. Guess it's a bit late now, but hopefully it worked out well. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, visit my talk from time to time, always something new. - arbcom time again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to you as well!! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
today: my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a pic in 2009 that was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gang stalking edits
My apologies; I missed those. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All You Need Is Love (JAMs song) Featured article review
I have nominated All You Need Is Love (JAMs song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of bare-knuckle boxers
Hi Joefromrandb and Muboshgu (courtesy ping). In the past I've worked on the article George Godfrey (boxer, born 1853) and noticed today that the see-also link to List of bare-knuckle boxers is red. I guess it's been a while since I found that Muboshgu deleted it as an expired PROD way back in 2019, and then a couple years later you asked for it to be userfied. Were you planning on doing something with it? It doesn't seem that you've edited it since the move. It seems to be a useful list, and the PROD rationale links to a deletion discussion focused on a source that isn't used in the list so I don't think it was all that valid in the first place. Do you mind if I move it back to article space? Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Niklomder kui poolt. Kodu selge
Britta 174.250.211.66 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July music
My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death - and there was your name. How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is continuing to make personal attacks on his edit summaries on the talk page. He attacked me on this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGino_Jennings&diff=1239719235&oldid=1238708359 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very confused: read the history of the last 10 edits to that page, with emphasis on [36]. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Хорошо. -- Джордж Хо ( обсуждение ) 00:47, 11 мая 2012 (UTC)
Здравствуйте и добро пожаловать в Википедию. Хотя каждый может внести свой вклад, по крайней мере одно из ваших последних изменений , например, то, которое вы сделали в Университете Юго-Западного Цзяотуна , не было конструктивным и было отменено или удалено. Пожалуйста, используйте песочницу для любых тестовых правок, которые вы хотели бы сделать, и прочитайте страницу приветствия , чтобы узнать больше о конструктивном вкладе в эту энциклопедию. Alcmaeonid ( обсуждение ) 12:01, 19 июля 2012 (UTC) 
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
) and more work. Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 03:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Gino Jennings, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)