User talk:Joefromrandb

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at EEng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Be bold!

Don't be afraid to edit, the worst that can happen is someone disagrees with you and undoes it. Hopefully they will tell you why, if they don't, you can ask. Perhaps the two of you will then be able to work out an edit which is suitable to you both, and perhaps then superior to either. Do let me know if you need help with anything. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help and advice. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question

In connection with your kind offer to help me if I needed advice, I'd like to ask you a question. I noticed numerous discrepancies in the opening paragraphs of articles about countries. I perused WP:MOS, and several other pages I figured may be revelant. Unable to find a definative answer, I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. After I did this, it occured to me that as it is a talk page, it may be inappropriate to have asked there question there (i.e. the talk page should be used to discuss the policy, rather than ask questions about it). Should I instead ask at the help desk, and if so, should I remove my question from the talk page? Thank you in advance, and I apologize if I am being a nuisance. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no wrong place to ask a question (well expect perhaps inside an article!), worst case someone will direct you somewhere else to ask. The talk page of the MOS is fine, I think the ideal place would have been Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. And I believe WP:PLACE is the page you are looking for. Prodego ^talk 05:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! What a quick response. Thank you very much. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree redlinks should not be in lead, forgot the wikicode

As you can see I was trying to redirect and got distracted. Thanks for the assist! Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the note! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the Project! Tentatively entitled Homelessness because that's what most people think of when concerned with Unhoused, Unshelter Persons and (human) Habitat issues. But is that title POV? Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that entire phrase is the title? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Hello Joefromrandb, a very warm welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. We are pleased to have you join us! To start, you may want to copy edit an article from our Requests page, or pick one from our backlog. If you need any assistance, feel free to leave a note on our talk page, or you can contact any of our coordinators. If you are new to copy editing, you may want to join our Mentorship program. You may also want to participate in our Backlog elimination drives. Below, you will find list of useful links for your convenience. Guild home How to copy edit Membership department Guild coordinators Mailing list Mentorship program Backlog elimination drives Requests page Discussions Thanks again for joining the Guild, and do make yourself at home. – Your GOCE coordinators: Diannaa (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs and Slon02

05:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi

I posted a reply at WP:RDL. --Soman (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm a little busy at the moment, and may not get to look into that thoroughly for a day or two, but I wanted to express right away my gratitude for your help. This is truly an amazing place here. In the past few months that I've been editing I have learned more than I could have imagined. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

re User:Herostratus /Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations

Yes edits to material in someone's userspace are not usually done. It depends, and in this case it's perfectly OK with me, and in fact I don't want the page - I asked to have it userfied to my userspace just to save it (it had had to be deleted, not because there was necessarily anything wrong with it, but because it had been created by a banned user, and such material must be deleted).

By all means if you are interested in the material you may move it to your userspace. I haven't had time to really cogitate on the material, but on first blush I am probably not in favor of what the writer is saying. I only wanted to save the material because I think it's a valid and interesting point.

If you want to work on it or whatever by all means move it to your userspace or whatever (if you don't know to do this, ask me). It is probably eligible to be moved back to main space as an essay if anyone wants to do this. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the page has again been deleted. That's fine with me; actually preferable. I was not in favor of it either. Sorry for the belated response. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a set protocol about where to respond. Some users put a notice at the top of their talk page - many say "I will respond to you here", a few (like me) say "I will respond to you back on your talk page", many don't say. When I leave a message I don't like to have to watch and check back on that persons talk page for a response, but many users evidently don't mind this. There is also a template = Template:talkback - that says "Hey I have a message for you on my talk page". It's kind anarchic. I guess you can say "please respond here" (if you don't mind having to watch that person's talk page) or "please respond back on my talk page" (if you don't mind the disjointed conversation that results). To top it off, there are users who won't respond back on your talk page even if you want them to, and users who will be annoyed if you respond to their on your talk page back on their talk page. =/

Yes the page is gone, I deleted it following advice to do so from a couple of users, since I didn't really want it an no one else seemed to either. An interesting idea, but as for me I'm inclined to let it lie for now. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the talk page issue, the last scenario you mentioned is the one I was trying to avoid. It makes no difference to me where a conversation takes place, but I'm aware that certain users wish for a precise sequence to be followed. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Talk:Frank Buckles.
Message added 07:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there. Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Move Request

I've started a Move Request as per your comment at Talk:Anal–oral sex - You are invited to add your vote and comments  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Measurements

Regarding your edit here, yes, the measurements are included in the Playmate infobox template and are therefore on every Playmate's article. This has been discussed before, though I have to admit that I can't track down the discussion right now... At least three studies have been written using the data provided by Playboy in the Playmate Data Sheets: [1], [2], [3]

Just thought I'd throw that out there... Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed, I put it back myself once I realized that, though I still think it's unencyclopedic. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 02:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles idea

I was thinking about putting the quote box across the article section of the last section, as kind of the "last word" on the subject and then moving the image from the talk page into the place the quote currently takes up. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that it's a public domain image, which it appears to be, I think that's an excellent idea. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess I am the tie-breaker on this one. AYW didn't like the idea, you do....so, time for me to think. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go with it, give here a look-see and tell me if you like it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks great. (I will however admit that AYW's opinion should perhaps be given more weight than mine, as they have certainly contributed much more to that article than I.) But for what it's worth, I'm all for it. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I talked with User:The ed17‎ and a person for whose opinion I trust and we decided (against what you and I thought was neat) that the quote had to go back to where it was (on the side) and the third picture had to go (too many pictures). So, if we get some more information, perhaps we can add the picture back. Either way, it is still in Commons, so it can be accessed by users. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the reasoning, but OK with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason is more liked it the other way (with 2 pictures and quote on the side) than 3 pictures and quote at the bottom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, NH. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I think you probably want to move your post from WP:NPOV to WP:NPOVN which is the noticeboard page for NPOV issues. The policy page is usually just for discussion of the policy itself, not its application to individual articles. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 16:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great!! My contributions were minimal, but I was happy to do what I could. You should be very proud of yourself, as you were one of those who did the heavy lifting. I too, look forward to seeing it reach FA. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Teena Marie articles

It's nice what you are doing with the articles, but keep in mind that the majority of them are either unsourced or not sourced well, and that is the bigger issue than this. Please focus on this issue first. Thank you. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What? If that's a concern of yours, why aren't you focusing on it, rather than asking me to do so? I'm not supposed to make a minor edit to tidy up the article unless I make major improvements first? Are you for real? Truly the strangest message I've ever seen. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary McKinnon

Hi Joe, I added an important new section "new evidence" to Gary McKinnon which you removed 29 april 2011 can you tell me why? Nosli (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The section was tagged as original research. Everything in our articles needs to be able to be verified by reliable sources. This is particularly true in Mr. McKinnon's case, as he is a living person. Following the links I've provided here should be able to give you more details. Best. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My Cousin Vinny

Joe, before you change the two male character names again, either in the Macchio article or the movie article, please talk about it, either here, or on one of the article's Talk pages (the Vinny article probably makes more sense). My memory of the movie is that Vinny always called his cousin Billy. However, all of the cast lists outside of Wikipedia, plus some review articles I've read, show his name as Bill and his friend's name as Stan - not William or Stanley. What's your reason for changing them to the more "proper" names? It doesn't matter whether Bill is a nickname of William or Stan is a nickname of Stanley; what matters is how they are credited in the movie.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Some things aren't worth arguing. If you'd like them to be called "Stan" and "Billy", go right ahead and indulge yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm using Stan and Bill, not Billy - as I already said. Hopefully, your use of the phrase "indulge yourself" was careless as opposed to condescending.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Stan and Bill then. Have at it! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologized on user's talk page for inappropriate response on my behalf. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at File talk:Artiodactylamorpha.jpg.
Message added 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you. I probably didn't clarify my concern very well, but I'll return to it when I have a bit more time. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming interview with Benny Urquidez

I plan a direct interview with Benny "The Jet" Urquidez for publication within a few weeks. If you have any biographical questions that you would like answered for inclusion in his Wikipedia entry, please leave them on my talk page. Paul Maslak (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

RE Thank you

You're welcome, and you was forgetting the last "buffalo". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Red-linking -- your deletion of brackets

Hi ... can you explain what you mean by your edit summary here, which presumably is meant to explain why you deleted the related brackets? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I felt it was a topic with little chance of becoming an article, and therefore the red link was simply an eyesore that detracted from the Gilad Shalit article. If you disagree please feel free to revert. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to self-revert upon request if you're concerned about a 1RR violation. Just let me know. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha ... now, why would you think I would have a concern as to 1RR?  ;) I will have to look into it a bit further. I share with you a lack of interest in redlinks with little chance of becoming an article. I just thought this one might have legs. I had, btw, created an article from the Red Cross fellow mentioned in the article, prompted by the redlink. It has dozens of news hits and thousands of ghits, and goes back a few years. My only hesitation, upon looking further, is not knowing whether I can find its website and whether I can find enough meat about it. I'll come back if I have a chance to turn that up. Tx. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Fleeing" vs "Leaving" in the Charles Lindbergh article

Charles Lindbergh ("CAL") and his family fled the United States for Europe in the early morning hours December 22, 1935, to escape from and thus protect themselves from continuous hounding by the news media and other threats to their safety after the kidnapping and murder of the infant Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the Hauptman trial, and other overt invasions of CAL's and his family's privacy. "Fleeing" the country is exactly how CAL later described this event in his writings as well as how it was referred to in news accounts at the time. For instance the January 6, 1936, TIME Magazine story "The Press: Hero & Herod" said "News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a.m. ...", "The Lindberghs had secretly obtained passports in Washington a week in advance, slipped away from the Morrow home in Englewood, N. J. with farewells only to the immediate family.", and "Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs."

The Lindberghs were not just "leaving" the United States, they were literally "fleeing" (i.e. "escaping" from) the country as well because CAL felt that continuing to reside in the US had become untenable. Thus using the word "fleeing" in the introduction to the Charles Lindbergh article was neither "a poor choice of words" nor was it "foolishness", but is instead an accurate description of exactly what happened "At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, [when] Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S.S. American Importer" as the family fled the United States to live in Europe for the next six years. That is how ultimate primary source -- CAL himself -- saw what he was doing so it would be "utter nonsense" (as well as patently misleading and unsourced editorializing) to describe in his WP article what he and his family did using any word other than "fleeing". Centpacrr (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page, which is where this conversation belongs. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted the above comment here before I saw that you had added a section on this in the Talk:Charles Lindbergh page where I have posted my responses. Centpacrr (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Corgan China

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Corgan China, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dipankan001 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice was indeed placed here in error; not because I wish to contest the deletion, but because I didn't create that article, never edited that article, and know absolutely nothing about that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at January's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see this

Hi Joefromrandb,The user who created this was Corgan123,which had a link to your talk page.I thought that it was a misleading username.Anyway,I'm sorry,but I'll have to look upon this. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the note. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ROALD

Hello, Joefromrandb, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join! Please feel free to add to this list. If you feel a task has been completed feel free to remove it and start a new one! Become a member of the task force and encourage others to do so. Tag articles for the task force. Improve: George's Marvellous Medicine. Improve: Going Solo. Work on all Roald Dahl related articles mainly focusing on stubs. Assess articles on class and importance. Get Roald Dahl to FA or GA

I'm not sure how much help I can be, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for the invite! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cathlic and Conlin edits

You're making edits to controversial articles, and I just had to say that your edits are uncontroversial and helpful. Would that more editors could improve articles without stirring things up. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you very much!! I hadn't even thought of that, but it's quite a compliment. Very happy holidays to you as well!! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disamb

Your self revert was wise; imagine if we got hauled up for edit warring on that page. We'd never live it down, the mortifying shame. Go in peace ;) Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, my self-revert was short-lived, as I was just erring on the side of caution while I double-checked that it was correct. Fear not, as I don't edit war. If you re-revert me, I will follow the proper dispute resolution channels, rather than continuing to revert. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom it is so, you blinkered rule driven whatever. "I will follow the proper dispute resolution channels". After a friendly word. Get real, prefect. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Angel Rat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Dimension Hatröss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Killing Technology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Nothingface (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Rrröööaaarrr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

War and Pain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE

I was surprised to learn that the MOS does discourage linking within quotes. I'm not objecting at all to your removal of the links, but I've asked at WT:MOS for clarification of the reasoning for that rule; just wanted to let you know in case you wished to participate. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have responded there. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of General Hospital characters#Maxie Jones

I noticed that you think there is no discussion: there is discussion, but there is only one reply, and I need your opinions on merger proposal. There is no need to remove it, unless three months passed. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed it in Talk:Maxie Jones. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments at the respective talk pages, as well as your mentorship discussions page. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have a reply to your comment at User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions's talk page. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Things seem to have improved; it seems best to just drop it. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is better: Sam and Diane or Maxie Jones?

I have created "Sam and Diane" with Reception, Storyline, and Casting. "Maxie Jones" has no Reception yet, especially from critics. Let's leave tagging and other discussions out of this. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I know very little about General Hospital, and had never even heard of Maxie Jones before stumbling across the article. I'm very happy to see the work you're doing at Sam and Diane. If you're simply asking which article I think is better, "Sam and Diane" for sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam and Diane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam and Diane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there, George. I sincerely hope that it is kept, as I would love to see you focus your good-faith efforts on improving that article rather than more taggings and proposed deletions. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Jacques Charles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballooning (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) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Nice work with the article, it's nice to have some help. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

rmv

I suggest that you use "rm" or "remove" in edit summaries instead of "rmv". I read "rmv" as "remove vandalism", which I think was not at all what you intended with your recent edit to Little Black Sambo, and I think other people are likely to misread it similarly. You might want to browse through WP:ESL to see what other people are doing. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I wrote, "rmv; needs a source if it's returned". Obviously I wouldn't suggest vandalism be returned with a source. It was not my position that the material I removed was "vandalism". It was contentious material about a corporation, which while not a serious as WP:BLP, is still unacceptable. It was tagged for 11 months before I removed it. As you have provided multiple references for the story, it's obviously fine now. I have used "rmv" for "remove" in hundreds of edit summaries without incident. In any case, sorry if you were mislead by what I wrote, and thanks for fixing up the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I'm not very familiar with that article. I'll try to have a look at it and weigh in, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't feel qualified enough to opine. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

?

would you mind explaining what you meant by "and on it goes" in your edit summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke. i don't understand what you ment. LateNiteFluker (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

also what does "such foolishness" mean from Talk:World War I? LateNiteFluker (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"And on it goes" was in reference to your comment merely being the latest of many single purpose accounts that I had to tag. "Such foolishness" was in reference to what I perceived as trolling behavior from another user. Hope this helps! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sandboxes of Frasier Crane and Diane Chambers

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:George Ho/Diane Chambers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't figure out which one is too trivial enough to remove, and I don't want to commit editing wars there. Therefore, I created those sandboxes; you can discuss them there. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, George. It looks to me like these drafts are potential rewrites of the existing articles, and you'd like me to comment on them on the talk pages. Is that correct? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For starters, you can start a new section in either one. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help I can be in the immediate future (a lot on my plate IRL right now), but I'll see what I can do. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure, you are giving me your permission to edit pages in your userspace, correct? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You can edit my userspace articles if you want; not my main user page or main sandbox page, though. However, I would recommend that you go to draft's talk page first to address your concerns. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

George, I'm confused. You asked me to begin by adding new sections. Now you're asking me to start at the talk pages. Why don't you contact me when you are finished with the drafts, and we'll take it from there? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

All right. Deal's a deal. When I said "new section", I meant first section in a talk page. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Diane Chambers

Now I think I'm done now for the Diane Chambers sandbox article. I wonder if I'm missing anything; if so, maybe talkpage of the sandbox could help. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, and curiously I wonder if you have enough spare time to review my sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi George. Somehow I seem to have missed your previous message. I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you for two weeks. I'll have some free time after the weekend, so I'll try to look over everything and get back to you next week. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's over two weeks, and I wonder if you know someone else who can spend time reviewing my sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry George. I give you my word I will look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just started "Frasier Crane". Do you mind if I copy edit as I go, rather than making numerous minor-edit suggestions on the talk page? I do think that would be the easiest way to go. You of course would be free to revert to your preferred version if you disagree with my editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Okay. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Frasier Crane

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need your help on inserting important key points that would serve general readers and fit a general overview of this character. I have already done the Diane Chambers article. The current version of Frasier Crane is overbloated with original thought and too much detail. I wonder if you have enough time on this. Thanks! --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty much good to go, needing only a good copy-editing. I have quite a lot on my plate right now, but I'll try to at least give it a once-over for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a history merge in WP:REPAIR, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The histmerge request was rejected as parallel version. Anyway, I tried to copy-and-paste my current draft into main page, but Ylee feels that it needs to explain Frasier's personality and wealth. I don't know why, but my draft explains how he must be more than a mere love interest of Sam and Diane. --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nixon

Someone else reverted me before I was about to self-revert. I agree with your removal, there's plenty of information within the article that the link isn't necessary. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your request for rollback

Hi Joefromrandb. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer

What would you accept as a credible source for the "Ernest" nickname? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just about any WP:RS, I suppose. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Whip

Joefromrandb, I have noticed the problems you are having on whip, I have been having basically the same problem with the same editor on several articles and categories, I have told this editor that there appears to be some type of ownership issue on certain articles etc, often edits are made or reverted with no discussion by this editor but when I do the exact same type of editing I am accused of not discussing my edits first, I think you have tried to solve the whip issue in a fair manner.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. You are correct about the ownership issue with this user. Don't get me wrong; Montanabw is a good editor, and our horse-related articles are better off for her being here. But she also seems to think she has right-of-first-refusal on all horse-related edits. Ending an edit summary with "now leave it be" smacks of WP:OWN issues. Also, the "stewardship doesn't equal ownership" caveat on her user page is a good clue that others have had similar issues with her editing. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I love it. I work my butt off to bring THOUSANDS of articles up from stubs and nothing, inserting source material for years and years (some of the articles need newer and better sources, but I first worked on many in 2006 and 2007, when citation standards were different) and all I get is personal attacks from people who lack the common courtesy to take these discussions to the talk pages of the articles involved. A bit of conversation and collaboration can usually resolve such issues, such as Joe's spat over UK versus US spellings of a single word. As for Samurai, I will discuss your behavior elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Money (disambiguation)

Both of the entries I restored at this page are valid entries per disambiguation guidelines. One of your revisions actually violates the guidelines.

• Money (Australian magazine) is a valid entry per WP:DABRL: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. What links here shows many links to the page (though TBH, it is unclear how many are due to the Template:Major English-language business magazines).
• Similarly, also per WP:DABRL, the entry for the townland in County Armagh, Northern Ireland, should contain a blue link to an article that support the asserted usage. You changed the link from List of townlands in County Armagh (which mentions the usage) to link to County Armagh which makes no mention whatsoever of that townland. One of your edit summaries mention NO piped links on disambiguation pages, but that is incorrect. WP:PIPING explains that For description sections, redirects or piped links may be used; follow the normal Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Piped link guidelines. In other words, the proscription on piped links applies to links on the ambiguous term, links in the description are explicitly identified as exceptions. older ≠ wiser 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Responded at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Saddle

Joefromrandb, since you are aware of the "problem" with horse related articles can you take a look at the revision history of Saddle? I just has 7 edits reverted as "vandalism" which I do not think even come close to being "vandalism". I have asked the advice of an administrator (User talk:Good Olfactory) ,I am not asking you to weigh in, just to be aware for future reference, thanks.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass-reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism" is completely unacceptable. I hope you follow through with this. Perhaps an RfC is in order. As I said above, she is a good editor, but her latest actions show her ownership issues are simply out of control. I'm beginning to think that a temporary topic-ban from horse-related articles may be a good idea. In any case, don't be pushed around! She can call it "quality control", "stewardship", "green cheese", "Randy in Boise"-whatever. The bottom line is these articles are as much yours as they are hers, mine, and everyone's. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, take a look here, this is what has been going on any time I have to edit or revert a perfectly reasonable horse related edit, and this is not the first time this has happened. Check this out.

[User talk:Samuraiantiqueworld], [User talk:Nyttend]

• Joefromrandb, thanks for your input on this whole horse matter. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, be aware that you may be an unwitting participant in a forum-shopping situation. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence: this and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia, and I am particularly concerned about this attack on an article with which I have minimal involvement. Montanabw^(talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've posted here. It's been a hectic day but I'd definitely like to discuss this with you a bit later when I have some time. I hope you're willing to keep an open mind even if you disagree with me, and I promise I'll do the same. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. AGF. Done deal That said, some good stuff got added to the saddle article as a result of this, the Beatie book was a good find, though I needed to do some copyediting to clean up the material added. Needs more, I hate doing citation template stuff. Later maybe. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems the next few days are going to be busy for me. I'm unable to respond with the amount of detail I'd like at the moment. But just one quick thought for now: if nothing else, if you could just avoid calling edits you don't like "vandalism", and stop using rollbacks for non-vandalism edits, I think that would go a long way. A perfect example is the breed registry article. An editor added a perfectly valid and truthful edit about Cigar, Arazi, and Azeri. Rollback leaves no edit summary, as it's for vandalism only. So with your edit, I saw "revert vandalism". With your next revert, you wrote: "appears to be a commercial plug for a specific breeder, we could give thousands of examples". Now that makes perfect sense. And I hope you can see the difference. Your first revert looked like ownership while your second revert looked like stewardship. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point of view on leaving an edit summary and your example is a good one. I appreciate your AGF. I do have 3000 articles on my watchlist and do tend to hit the button on things that resemble advertising or random removal of cited content or citations, each of which happened here. Nonetheless I really don't get the "ownership" accusation thing at all because I got that rant even before I got the rollback button. I really DO believe in "stewardship" - many articles I have created have been dramatically improved by others, and I am glad for it. Most of the people who accuse me of "ownership" are either people like Samurai, who are enraged that I dared to disagree with them, or they are the well-meaning people who get dragged into these spats I have with the same and just apply a broad brush without really looking at the issue. I suppose I irritate them by not suffering fools, but no one wore kid gloves when I started editing WP either. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I'm sorry I've had to mention your name at WP:ANI#user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing - nothing derogatory, but you're entitled to know anyway. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just when I thought everyone was beginning to get along. C'est la vie. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning, you're already over the 3 revert limit

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. -- Teapeat (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason to have this article in Wikipedia anyway, the entry at wiktionary is for all practical purposes the same, and the rule at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary actively discourages articles on adjectives.Teapeat (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already advised you to use the talk page, yet you choose to come here with clownish warnings instead. I have made multiple suggestions on the talk page, yet you refuse to address them. One of my suggestions was more-or-less exactly what you suggested. Instead of edit-warring and threatening me, please respond on the talk page. We're really not that far apart. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are, that was an explanation, not a suggestion, and actually, you should self revert, otherwise I will report you, and you probably will be blocked. The only reason you're not already reported and blocked is because you apparently hadn't been tagged before, (the admins require that you have been tagged) but all bets are now off.Teapeat (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I made 3 reverts, not 4, and I have made numerous improvements to the article while you have simply continued to revert while refusing to discuss. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree you've made any improvements at all, you've made it worse by adding a dictionary entry. Dictionary entries work very poorly as encyclopedia articles; they don't mix with encyclopedia articles because they're about very different things. There's no topic there, only three words, and who said them when. But we already have a wiktionary entry anyway, and it's substantially the same.Teapeat (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And you definitely made 4 reverts within 24 hours, specifically:

fourth

third

second

first

Teapeat (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The first edit I made was not a revert. It borders on being disruptive to come here and talk about edit-warring when you yourself made 3 reverts to the page as well. You need to drop the stick. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please bring any further comments to the article's talk page, which is where this conversation belongs. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, your statement is deliberately counterfactual, you very clearly were over the limit and I've mentioned it on the ANI page where you are being discussed.Teapeat (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeating that ad infinitum will not make it any more true. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Friend....

I get it that you are upset, but you can't do this [4]. It is unnecessary and unproductive. It is one thing to attack another persons ideas, but WP:NPA is pretty specific about not attacking the person. Step back, have a tea. The last thing I want to see is someone come along and block you. If you do stuff like that, you set yourself up for it, and that isn't helping Status or yourself. Honestly, you would be better to just remove it. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, or like him, just that you can't do that to anyone here, even someone who you are mad at. I hope you take this friendly and sincere advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I do take it as friendly and sincere advice, and I thank you sincerely for your concern. I disagree that "I can't do it", and I stand by my statement that it was "a bullshit block"; others seem to agree with me. It needs to stop! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as being blocked, I'm sure my comments put me on the shit-list of a plethora of admins, who will no doubt be watching me now. Most of my editing is minor and quite uncontroversial, so it's not too great a concern. It's rare that I'm moved to speak out about much here. We all know that despite what is written, blocks are meant not only as punishments, but also as a chilling effect on other users. Your point is not lost on me, and I genuinely appreciate your concern. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm replying on my talk page, where you asked about this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your comment, I don't think its asinine. There are some serious problems between two editors which needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Its called dispute resolution, and this particular case is ugly (as can be seen). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And FYI, I do edit articles, and even have an FAC right now, so your comment seems rather pointless in that way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tattle-taling is nearly always pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Who stands to gain the most from the ips actions? Go to one of Andreas' articles and see how you are treated when to attempt to edit the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt a user who's been here for six years would start socking like that. But I could be wrong. My point is the whole thing is now so fucked-up and out-of-process, it's become a circus. But when I asked for help at the ANI thread I was told to go fuck myself, so what do I know? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How did they know after only 70 edits what continent Radio is on if they are not Radio or someone who knows Radio? Its andreas I'm telling you, look into it. They think Macca is their article, look at the failed FAC by them, you'll see the same idiosyncratic flowery language. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. As long as the admins refuse to get involved, it seems to be of little consequence. My advice: Call a random user an asshole. Then we'll have a phalanx of admins ready to sort through this mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

True that! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that was one terrible ANI discussion. But see? I was right in many ways. For example, the editors were behaving very childishly (backed by Chedzilla). So many more. Of course, such truths came loaded with trucks of bad faith accusations, attacks and pointless refusals. Sometimes, Wikipedia can be weird. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't right in any way. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that Joe and this whole thing needs some leadership to get resolved. Now *you* have been getting involved and your behaviour is also becoming attrocious, attempting to push other editors buttons with issue distracting dirty politics. How would me being a sock puppet have any bearing on the content disputes? Can you nt defend content arguments? Then you attempt to wind other editors up and it complicates the original issue and it never gets resolved. Try to stick to the issue presented and stop using disruptive behaviour. This was the complaint regarding GabeMc I launched. Personailizing it and creating lynchmobs isn't helping the cause, your reputation or GabeMc, when he does it. Oh I know GabeMc has apologized for at east 5-6 behavioural errors and then he does it again. He isnot the only oe behaving like this, currently, and you have signed up for membership.99.251.125.65 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Woody Interruptus

Althought you are uninvolved (correct?), I wonder if you join in merge proposal discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I commented there, as you know. I think this merge proposal 2 months after a failed identical one is ill-advised. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how long must I wait for another proposal? If notability is relevant, then why are there no offline sources? As for the plot, that's what exactly and generally happened. Maybe I can find a book about premarital sex and Cheers and motel, but I don't think Woody and Kelly are widely or significantly discussed very much. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically you shouldn't start a second merge proposal unless you are offering new evidence that wasn't discussed in the last proposal or you have evidence that consensus may have changed. You certainly can't put up a banner telling editors they aren't allowed to use notability (or anything else) as a reason for their !vote. You have to respect the consensus. I realize that may not be easy for you. Believe me there are some things here that drive me up a wall. But I can't just go change them, and I can't keep repeating the same arguments, no matter how correct I think they are. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the same voters are the same contributors to this article. Therefore, there are other considerations, like notifying uninvolved, but slowly one at a time. For instance, I've waited for your opinion, and, since you removed the notice, my proposal would fail if we keep mentioning notability and awards. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

George, with just about any article, the main contributors to any discussion are going to be the article's primary editors. I know you're trying hard here; think about this: You nominated the article for a merge. The consensus was "no merge"-not "no consensus". Now, 2 months later, you start a new merge proposal, only this time you tell people, "you're not allowed to mention notability and awards". Do you see why you can't do that? Yes, the proposal will likely fail, but you can't start imposing requirements that favor your position in a discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule against it? --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn request and then have this discussed in WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was advised to create Cheers (season 9) before another proposal. If that Season article is created, then I can use that as new evidence for a newer proposal. How is that? --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Primary" creation myth

Just to give full disclosure: I am an evangelical Christian. I don't accept the JEPD theory but I understand it. I also don't agree with the theologians who argue for massive redaction in the Old Testament. I do understand all of their scholarly work and that's what Wikipedia reflects. I also believe that Leviathan as described in the Old Testament is not an alternative creation narrative but rather an allusion to common narrative in the ancient near east. However, that's not what scholarly consensus is. All of this is simply my way of clarifying my response on the Genesis Creation Narrative article. The account in Genesis is so common in modern Christianity and Judaism that the other, discussed and understood primarily by academics and theologians, is non-consequential. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• What article are you referring? --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Southwest Jiaotong University, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Alcmaeonid (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Please try to pay more attention. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

your disruptive reverts

Ok I get it, you hate me (for no reasons that I can think of, I don't remember really interacting with you before - or.. did we ?- but nevermind) and systematically reverting all my edits is your way to express your rage. However, blind revenge isn't the way Wikipedia works, and might have the opposite effects than what you tried to achieve.

Indeed, you seem to have neglected an important parameter in your crusade: Thessalmonster, Kopru , Jermlaine , Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) ‎, Astral dreadnought ‎, Athach ‎ , Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (just in case, these are all linking to archived AfD discussions) and possibly many others have already gone through AfD and were all deleted/redirected per consensus around 2008, and in 2009 someone apparently decided to have his own way and circumvent the AfD result to secretly restore the article without consensus and without any attempt at discussion. Such blatant disrespect of consensus is "at best" disruptive, otherwise vandalism. I'm merely enforcing the AfD decisions by redirecting these articles, I don't need any discussion to do so since it already happened, and I will continue to look for previously deleted and now unconsensually restored articles. However, if you wish to restore article that have been deleted per AfD consensus, then you will have to go to talk pages and reach consensus before doing anything to articles.

I don't care about your motivation, whether real hatred for me or just honest but misguided care for D&D, but in restoring these articles you have become accomplice to disruption/vandalism, and if you continue reverting my redirects without trying to know if they're justified or not, then I will have no problem in getting you blocked at WP:AN/I, particularly after your veeeery civil behavior at AfDs, of which SudoGhost and I are not the only victims, apparently [5].

I don't think the joy of cathartically displaying your hatred for me for one day, is worth losing your editing priviledges on WP, possibly forever, so be careful about your next moves here. If you ever touch the articles I have mentioned again, you'll get blocked.

By the way, please don't ever come again on my talk page to throw your ridiculous and groundless accusations of edit warring. You're the one edit-warring and violating a consensus established by several users without discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1.) I have no idea why you think I hate you. I have no interest in you whatsoever.

2.) I will continue to revert any disruptive edits you make to any article.

3.) Threatening me with "if you ever touch the articles I have mentioned again you'll get blocked" is enough to get you' blocked. Watch yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Then I think you can remove your personal attacks from the AfD and apologize for them, then.

2) You will have to prove they are disruptive first. "Disruptive" doesn't mean "disagreeing with Joefromrandb"

3) No it's not. But restoring article against consensus established in AfD is. Have a good day.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1.) I have made no personal attacks.

2.) You are correct "disruptive doesn't mean disagreeing with Joefromrandb". But "Folken doesn't like it so it shouldn't be here" is disruptive.

3.) Yes, it is. Have a good day! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to the comment you left on the ANI page. I want to note that you indicated you have stopped reverting and recreating these articles, which is a demonstration of good faith that will help you make your case elsewhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But you forgot to block me! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Joe, thanks for your note on my talk page. As for the articles from old AFDs, they should stay redirects unless we can find better sources for them. I know off the top of my head that the thessalmonster was in the Tome of Horrors, but I don't think the rest are in that book; regardless one source would not be enough to overturn an AFD.

Although you are clearly upset, you seem to have your heart in the right place, so I would not want to see you blocked. As for dealing with Folken de Fanel, I actually try to avoid him, but he seems to keep finding my talk page - he must be a fan of mine!  :)

Regarding the current AFD, if you want to give a "real" response, I will tell you that the adherer and brownie have additional sources beyond the ToH, so you may want to mention that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a waste of time. They could me mentioned in The New York Times; a troll like Folken would still argue for deletion. Best to just let this cool for a few months and revisit it once these trolls have moved on to their next disruption. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you change the minds of Folken or anyone who prefers to delete or redirect; I agree that's a waste of time. The object is to get other people to see your point of view with an argument that's more persuasive than the other guy's. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you should be misusing a term like 'troll' for Folken de Fanel; 'trolling', for example, might be better applied to something like going to Jimbo Wales' and adding a childish complaint against an admin who had the temerity to stop you from continuing your bad behaviour. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And you are free to believe whatever you wish. There seems to be a good chance that BWilkins is going to be stopped from continuing his bad behavior so further complaints from me will be unnecessary.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Apparently, CalendarWatcher's friendly nudge about this insult didn't make an impression on you. You've caused enough disruption and made enough personal insults; a templated warning is a more formal reminder that you stop attacking other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As I told your corrupt friend BWilkins, if blocking me will help you feel better, go right ahead and indulge yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on Joe, people are trying to not block here. Calling other editors trolls is problematic, you know this. Forget policy, it just isn't good in a collaborative environment and causes drama. No one is asking you to change your opinions, just to moderate your tone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I respectfully disagree. That "troll" comment is just an excuse to badger me; the real reason any of this is going on is because I dared to speak up about BWilkins' misconduct. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you look around, you see I have as well. I'm not picking sides here, I'm noting one problematic phrase being used multiple times, and offering friendly advice, that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're a maverick, no doubt. But for every admin like you, there are 50 more of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. And yes, one of them may very well block me, because that's what they do. So be it. Given the price people like John Brown and Malcolm X paid for speaking out about what's right, the thought of some child blocking someone from editing an online encyclopedia is not even worth mentioning. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see myself as a maverick, although I think it was meant in the most positive light, I just see myself as someone who wants to improve Wikipedia. That means being honest with each other, admitting our mistakes and helping each other become better editors and admins. I disagree with some of the methods that several admins use, but I still think that the majority are good people. This is why I get preachy about engaging instead of enraging, and why I try to change the culture so admins that mess up can admit mistakes without worrying about losing the bit over a single instance of bad judgement. But if you push it too far, you provide the rationale to get blocked, and your opinions are lost in a sea of rationales. This is why I say we should be at least as polite as we are asking our admins to be. Proactive, no doubt, but never becoming what it is we are protesting. I personally think Bwilkins is a good guy, he just gets a bit too blunt. I would rather work with him on that issue than lose him. And yes, we have a tendency to block too quickly here. All I can do is work on it via helping change the culture here, one day at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "you're a maverick" was intended as a compliment of the highest kind. I don't know BWilkins personally; he may very well be a good guy. His actions as an en-Wiki administrator are deplorable. I too don't think admins should lose the bit over a single honest mistake-even multiple honest mistakes. As an extremely flawed human being, I know all too well that to err is human. The problem is that our admin corps enjoys some bizarre form of immunity akin to papal infallability. Look at the administrative actions against which I've spoken out: Thumperward's block of Malleus; Rschen's block of PoD; Toddst1's block of Status; Kafziel's revocation of Kiefer's talk page. My position was never, "he made a mistake, let's hang him". The problem I had in each of these situations was that when called on his mistake, each admin chose to dig in his heels and insist he was right. Ditto with BWilkins. Sure, he said he was embarrassed after being publicly censured by Jimmy, but he offered no apology-didn't even admit he was wrong. So while your solution would be the better one in an ideal world, it's never going to work on a project where the overwhelming majority of admins feel they're better than the rest of us. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, if you followed the subsequent history of those blocks you'd know that three of them (I'm not familiar with the Status block) were very controversial: "papal infallability" simply does not apply. Thumperward's block was reverted after 73 minutes, Rschen had hell to pay for their block, and Kafziel's revoking TPA was reverted after half an hour. You may not know this, since you obviously don't know me (I am not a "child" and I am not a "friend" of Bwilkins, though I am not his enemy either) but I disagreed with all three of those blocks, and I was not alone. You paint with too broad a brush and while I don't really take offense at the remarks of someone I don't even know, I think it is important to point out that in none of those cases was there an "overwhelming majority of admins" (98%?) supporting those blocks. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. However, in each case the offending admin walked away completely unscathed, free to do the same thing again. Concerning BWilkins' WP:INVOLVED block of Volunteer Marek, BW boasted on his talk page how he's made involved blocks before and will do it again. There's the infallability. Perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush; mea culpa. There are probably more good apples in your lot than I've acknowledged. That doesn't change the fact that the problems I noted above exist. A bad block being overturned is of course a goood thing, but if nothing is done to prevent the offending admin from doing it again, then little has been accomplished. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There are problems, like on any project, but I don't believe it is most admins, not by a mile. And most of the admins who I think are a bit gruff are still good guys trying to do the right thing, even if I disagree with a few of their methods. I've also seen the good things they do, so it is easy to cherry pick the mistakes. And I'm forever an optimist. I'm not here to change your mind, but I still support the idea of engaging, discussing and working together, as "taking a stand" and being belligerent surely isn't going to accomplish anything. Calling people "child" or "troll" just isn't going to help the situation, and can get you blocked. I probably tolerate more heat than most admins, which may or may not be a good thing, but I can't stop them from exercising their judgment. Best to just take a break, go read a book and don't let the heat of the moment control you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely a good thing. If other admins took the same approach, 98% of the drama here would be eliminated. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin accountability

I was thinking about your comment on Jimbo's page that seemed to imply that you think anyone an admin has ever blocked is not a reliable witness to the admins overall behaviour. This would seem to suggest that all an admin would have to do to silence their detractors would be to block them, thus rendering their input invalid, or so your logic would seem to suggest ala reductio ad absurdum. Am I missing something here? Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gabe. Could you point me to that comment? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Joe, sorry, this was meant for soemone else, I posted it here by accident. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries! If you have a moment to post a diff, please do, as I'd still like to check it out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff of which I was speaking. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Locking and blocking

Per your question on my talk page. Typically, no, you do not lock a page and block a person for reverting. Many admins don't bother locking (full protection) at all, which I think is a mistake, but policy gives them a lot of choices. Once it is locked, you have already prevented further disruption as they can't revert further. Blocking would be seen as punitive, and possibly abusive. If it is one revert happy person who has no real reason to revert other than their own preferred way (ie: coi) and a few others who are trying to be neutral, then a block might make sense. If everyone is acting in good faith with just radically different ideas and crossing 3RR, I think you protect the page instantly, forcing discussion. Some admins think otherwise and block them, but I think it is shortsighted. But again, once you have prevented them from reverting, you can't block as that would be punishment, via WP:BLOCK. Of course, if you block them for a different reason, like personal attacks, etc., then that is fine, but not for the same thing you just protected for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis. I meant that as humour. I was referencing the block of a certain avian-named user after the protection of a certain lunar-themed article. Bbb23 still being a nascent admministrator probably didn't realize that's it's perfectly acceptable to lock a page and then block someone an hour later. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I must have missed that. He had just emailed me saying he was taking a holiday in the real world, so I was just trying to answer as he likely wouldn't have been here to do so. He is a pretty sharp guy, but from experience I know that when you first get the tools, it is all a bit overwhelming. It is very easy to say "block him!" at ANI when you are an editor, but when you have the button, you get a bit more cautious. Hopefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand. Humour is much harder to convey over the net. I remember some time ago, at RFPP an admin responded to a request with "protected for a fortnight". I told him I thought that was too harsh, and suggested reducing the protection to two weeks. It didn't go over as I had hoped. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am quite busy IRL right now, but I intend to do my best to look into this. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joe, just wanted to touch base. AFAIK, the only interaction that you and I have ever had was related to D&D articles on ANI. It was a pretty tame interaction, so I'm not sure how I ever raised your ire. Jimbo recommended that I voluntarily request removal of the admin bit temporarily - no RFA would be needed to regain it. So, by editing only using my non-admin account, how I am somehow violating that - or indeed, posing in some "charade"? A couple of people got what was asked: me not adminning. Would you kindly explain to me the issue that a) is between us in the first place and b) with how my actions have not met the request for voluntary action from Jimbo - remembering again that it was voluntary. dangerouspanda 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Even before our ANI encounter, I've never much cared for the way you treat people. Myriad examples of your offensive remarks have already been noted; there's little point in providing more. I will note that on July 20th, regarding your WP:INVOLVED-violating block of Volunteer Marek, you stated "there's a reason my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, although I make so few of them". Then, on August 2nd you said, "my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, and I make many of them". (Emphasis added) As my grandfather used to say, when you lie you need to have a good memory. As far as the ANI thread, I don't even know where to start. First of all, you should have informed the complainant that it wasn't an ANI issue. Secondly, your full-protecting the articles was absurd muscle-flexing. I had stated that I realized I was at 3 reverts and would not be reverting further. Had I stated my intentions to continue reverting, then yes, protection would have been in order. Having agreed to stop reverting, I would think an AGF-zealot like you would have taken me at my word. Hence my "admin-phallus" remark. To which you responded that by using your "admin-phallus", you solved the problem. Bullshit. If there was a problem, it was resolved the instant I said I wouldn't revert anymore. So I didn't care for you strutting around, claiming to have solved a problem that didn't exist. But I really got angry when you said "a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path". Excuse me? What path? I made reverts in good faith, acknowledged that I was at 3 reverts, and agreed to stop reverting without being asked. What is possibly blockable about that? Let me guess; you don't have to break 3RR to be blocked for edit-warring. That may have held water had you warned both of us. If you had said, "While neither of you has broken 3RR, you have each made 3 reverts, and you both risk being blocked if you continue", I wouldn't have had a problem. So to sum up my personal issue with you, you assumed bad faith and protected articles that I had already agreed to not revert, and you threatened me with a block while issuing no such threat to my counterpart who had engaged in identical behavior.

As far as your second question, nothing. I simply noted that temporarily editing from a non-admin account while retaining admin powers is pointless, and hence a charade. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so essentially you're mad at me because you've misread a few times - and added some of your own meaning to things. Got it. I appreciate your candor. When it comes to your second part: I think it's your erroneous belief that I would have needed to re-RFA that's irking you there. Sorry about your misunderstanding, and the continued grief that it's causing. dangerouspanda 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's easy to make generalizations. Please tell me what I've misread.
• Yes, I'm irked, but no, I never had the erroneous belief that you would need to re-RfA. It would be the right thing to do, which is why I never had a glimmer of hope that it would actually take place. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask again, what have I misread and where have I added my own meaning to things? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

KBlott, etc.

Hi, Joe. Could you tell me what you know about User:KBlott vis a vis this guy and his drawer full of socks? You mentioned him in connection with that whole mess after my misguided SPI last month, but I'm afraid I never followed up on the KBlott connection.

Of course, I've been told that there's really not much that can be done, given that this guy can apparently IP hop with the best of them, but I would like to get a firm establishment of his previously registered identity, if possible. I don't know if there was a previous SPI that made the connection, but I'd be willing to open one myself if there's enough evidence. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know too much. You might try asking User:BullRangifer, as xe was the one who first made the connection. The important thing is that he is blocked now. He can keep hopping IPs all he wants; he'll just keep getting blocked. Long-term trolls are a pain in the ass, but it's the cost of doing business on an open wiki. The problem before was that the admins were treating him as a bona-fide user. Now that they're on to him, he's little more than a common pest. Sorry I don't have any more info but please let me know if I can be of any help. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He has been unblocked now, actually. It was decided that original indef was overkill, but the template was never swapped out. Thanks for the tip, though. I will consult BullRangifer. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GOCE news and September drive invitation

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September activities

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Shirley Marquardt

Actually, she's probably about as notable or more notable than Frank Kelty, also a mayor of Unalaska, whose article reads like a cross between a resume and a vanity piece. She's the president of the Alaska Municipal League. In the real world, that and $1.49 will get you a large cup of coffee at a convenience store. All kidding aside, she's probably not notable in the sense of being well known outside Alaska, at least outside of political circles. I've watched very little of Deadliest Catch. Could that show be why someone would think her to be notable?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If she's a regular on Deadliest Catch, she may have some margin of notability. I certainly don't want to see an article created for her if it would look anything like that Frank Kelty article. Red links are supposed to encourage article creation, and I don't want to encourage anything like that. If she's notable enough for an article, I'd rather someone start it from scratch, but if you think the red link should go back, it doesn't seem like too big a deal. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I added the member list from the Alaska Conference of Mayors to the infoboxes of the pertinent city articles just recently, removing a number of redlinks from names already entered in the process. I think the only one I left redlinked was Peter Micciche, the mayor of Soldotna, who defeated an incumbent state senator for renomination in the primary election two weeks ago. He's very likely to win the seat, which as a state senator would make him notable and would probably result in someone creating the article before too long.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification

I've taken you to ANI for your actions. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, modifying other users' talk page comments should be done only in certain situations. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

?????????????????Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit prompted my post. Another editor pointed out on ANI that this was probably due to an edit conflict, not an intentional removal of another editor's post. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, and ANI is the last resort - one always discusses minor things like that with the other editor first - I see no other discussion about that glitch - only an ANI posting dangerouspanda 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly odd because I didn't get an edit conflict when I did that, but looking at it, it definitely removed text so I suppose that must be what happened. It certainly wasn't intentional. I don't see why he couldn't have just asked me about it. I've been here coming up on 2 years and it's not like I have a habit of going aroung removing peoples' posts. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The even better question: what's the relationship between User:Jasonasosa and User:VQuakr ... why does one continue on with someone else's discussion/explanation? dangerouspanda 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We're sleeping together. Geez. Anyway, I apologize for over-reacting. I really thought it was intentional with the comment Proofread. I rescinded to WP:AGF and now the matter is closed. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No sir, not closed one bit. If you honestly AGF'd then you would have come here before ANI - ANI is last resort. If you'd like to explain why you took him to court before you even asked him about it, it might be helpful dangerouspanda 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is closed per Niceguyedc (talk · contribs) - "Resolved. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)". If you don't want to accept my apology as I indicated above, then you can go to ANI. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. That means the ANi thread you started has been closed-nothing else. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

...and the discussion that I tried to politely have with you on your talkpage was simply removed with the false statement "archived" when it doesn't appear to have been archived anywhere. You're finally here having the discussion you were supposed to have ... you cannot start the discussion by pointing out you said sorry elsewhere. Joefromrandb deserve more than that, and I think the project needs to know that you're aware of how you're supposed to resolve issues between editors. So, start from scratch dangerouspanda 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's apparent you cannot read, because I apologized about 5 statements up above on this page, not "elsewhere". If you cannot accept my apology, take it to ANI. If you want more out of this and you just want to eat WP:HORSEMEAT, take it to ANI. There is nothing more to be said, other than your complaints. The posting that I archived can be found at User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive. This archive is opened to the public and accessible from my main page. I am not required to respond on my talk page to your attempts to "politely" interrogate me. Any further inquisitions, please take to ANI, because this is my last posting on this talk page per: "The page "User talk:Joefromrandb" has been removed from your watchlist." So any further comments on this talkpage, I will not be notified. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I have to ask the simplest of questions directly to the editor on their talkpage - it's so much easier to say "it was an error, and I learned from it" than to not answer dangerouspanda 08:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I got a stonewall of "I didn't hear that" while trying to explain the RS/N issue; this looks like more of the same. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It has become more bizarre. All I ever tried to say was "next time resolve simple problems between editors first, ok", but take a look at Jasonasosa's talkpage, my talkpage, and now look ANI! *sigh* dangerouspanda 09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water... Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Think twice.

I suggest that you reconsider your conclusion, as you have heard arguments that I had no opportunity to rebut. See my talk page for more. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infer that you deserved what you got. I personally would have handled the situation differently than TP did. Basically what I meant to say is that upon further review of the situation, while I still disagree with what he did, it certainly wasn't administrative misconduct and it was extremely irresponsible of me to have accused him of such. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. He's thrown away any pretense of neutrality by defending WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow that logic. Without discussing my own political leanings, I would have no problem defending WikiProject: Conservatism, WikiProject: Liberalism, or even WikiProject: Socialism. WikiProjects exist to improve articles, not to further an agenda. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. If you talk a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism, you'll find that this project is on the ropes because it exists to further the conservative agenda, not improve articles. See for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should consider the advice my friend Dennis gave you. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you saying you don't see any such behavior from the WikiProject or are you saying you can't find the discussion on their talk page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The former. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Give Me a Ring Sometime (Cheers)

Merger discussion is in place. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping! Your response is replied. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks George. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Thanks for your note. With some of the cherrypicking-style canvassing that takes place here, it's always refreshing to see someone attempting to include a broad spectrum of editors with different views in a discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi. Your comment here [6] is not helpful and I have reverted it. Everyone at that thread needs to calm down and discuss in a rational way and repeatedly denigrating the character of your opponents gives the appearance you're trying to goad them into an outburst. Please don't do that anymore. The Garbage Skow (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that to read, "your comment was spot-on". And "trying to goad my opponent into an outburst"? Are you for real? "My opponent" just goaded one of Wikipedia's finest editors into a site-ban. You need to get a grip. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And I have re-reverted. As a supporter, you have some nerve removing an oppose comment from the page. If a neutral editor thinks it should be removed, so be it. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I see who you are. You're a previously indef-blocked vandal with an axe to grind against Merridew. Should have known. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	Grognard Mirabilaire
	Thank you for experienced copy-editing and your effort not to lose content editors and admins with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely kind of you; thank you very much! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 08:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is there something you don't understand?

Regarding Bill Nye, I've explained how the overlinking policy doesn't apply, and asked you to provide some sort of argument for your case. But you continue to revert, saying only "overlinking" or "please stop". Can you see how it might seem like you're just being stubborn? Please, offer a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have explained nothing. You have, however, had it explained to you -particularly by User:Tony1, who knows the WP:MOS as well as any editor on our site- why the low-value links you are continuing to add are not helpful to the article. Your latest obsession, "Washington D.C.", is an extremely well-known geographic location. The only reason to link to it would be if important aspects of Nye's life were directly germane to the District. The simple fact that he was born there does not make it a relevant link. Just as his being born in the United States doesn't make that a relevant link, his being an American doesn't make that a relevant link, and his father having fought in World War II doesn't make that a relevant link. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't just born there, he grew up there for twenty years and was a fourth generation resident. If that's not particularly relevant, what is? Seriously. Seattle? Boeing? Ellen Degeneres? Washington is well-known insofar as people typically know it's the capitol of the US. Other than that, what? You may be right about WWII, since it's an indirect connection, but overlink says nothing about major wars.

Tony's "explanation" was that the "particular relevance" exception doesn't apply to major cities. If he knows the MoS, he knows that isn't true. It specifically applies to "major geographical locations".

Now please stop disrupting Wikipedia, unless you have a better reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please take your trolling elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to be that useless in the discussion, skip the reversion part, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A little hard of reading, are we? I'm beginning to see why you're having so much trouble. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm an excellent reader, and not trolling. What do you think I've missed? And be civil. I'm not trying to fight, just understand why you're removing the link (which I'm not adding, by the way, just restoring). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting 88.104.5.244

Please don't revert 88.104.5.244, even to re-close the discussion. While I'm glad to see that you want to close it, I don't want things to escalate between yourself and 88.104.5.244, since they're pretty bad right now already. Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than WP:TTR, I'm just letting you know you're at your 3rd revert, and I've already warned the IP for going way over. Please let someone else handle it now. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Bill Nye 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't we discuss this?

please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you stop reverting, of course. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ROFL!!! Now THAT made my day. You are currently at 15 reverts-FIFTEEN!-including 8 times that you have now vandalized the page by removing comments. You're priceless. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Please stop reverting, let someone else step in. You are to involved in this right now. GB fan 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone else finally did step in. This wasn't just about reverting; the IP was vandalizing the page by removing comments. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw what it was about and I was also stepping in. Sometimes when you get as involved as you are the best thing is to step back and ask for help instead of pushing it further. You were not helping diffuse the situation. GB fan 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying; I hope you understand my frustration as well. The IP reverted fifteen times before someone finally stepped in. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand you were frustrated, but where did you report it so that an admin could step in and try to stop it? I don't see anything in your contributions that shows you did that. Maybe I missed something. GB fan 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

GB, I accept that, and hope for fair resolution; please let me know my best course. Thanks. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-troll zone. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel better now, big guy? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who's watching, in addition to violating blocking-policy (I was removing clear vandalism), TParis has also violated WP:INVOLVED, as he was involved in the discussion. No surprise, of course. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch to call that vandalism. Actually, good faith edits arn't vandalism. You were in a dispute and you used rollback to win it. And excuse me if "Thank you for posting that information" constitutes a discussion that I was involved in. Both stretches there. Do I feel better? I'm inclined to ask you the same thing. What were you thinking? If you had to explain in an edit summary that it's 'clear vandalism' then it's obviously not.--v/r - TP 04:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I missed that. "Thank you for posting that information"? You know fucking right well that wasn't all you said. (Something about me being an embarassment to the discussion, maybe?) And even though your edit is right there for the world to see, you have no problem lying about it here. Have you no shame? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It makes me want to vomit to think I ever defended you. StillStanding was right. You are a fucking disgrace of the lowest order. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one warring with an IP. Nor am I the one joking about killing others. I really don't see how I come out to be the bad guy. Looks to me more like someone lashing out for bad behavior and getting called out on it. In any case, I don't hold it against you. Feel free to be upset. We'll see you when your block expires.--v/r - TP 04:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You can count on that motherfucker. Might not be until a looooong time later, but you will see me. (And lest you now go to ANi and tell them I've threatened to murder you, "You can count on that motherfucker" means I will not rest until you are desysoped. It is not a threat of violence.) Joefromrandb (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this block, and it would've been my next step after I revoked the rollback right. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you endorse it. You yourself might be blocked if you didn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm curious. Why do you say? I'm not seeing it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do I say? Oh don't be daff. You children aren't supposed to disagree with one-another, and not having a fellow admin's back when they make a policy-violating block is verboten. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback and WP:VPM

I have revoked your rollback for the flagrant misuse in the edit war at WP:VPM. You've been around for quite a while; you should know better than this by now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I hadn't thought of that...maybe I will. Thanks for the suggestion. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because now I'll have to click twice to undo vandalism instead of once. Whatever will I do? Only a Wikipedia admin-prefect would possibly think that rollback is a big deal to anyone. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you only had to click once to revert vandalism. The main purpose is that now you cannot revert edits that aren't vandalism by clicking once. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well as I've never done that, I certainly won't miss the ability to do it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit you reverted here (and here) was so far from vandalism I don't see how it could even be passed off as such to justify using rollback. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you're incredibly fucking stupid, and entirely fit to wield the admin-phallus. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

=D Why, thank you! What an honour! I'll wield the admin-phallus with the utmost pride. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have to ask though...does it require a codpiece? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Your shitty attitude is plenty. And thanks for blue-linking to "codpiece" like I have no idea what one is. You admins are so fucking arrogant.Joefromrandb (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I should point out for all that this little fucker is nineteen years old. When Malleus talks about "the children who run this site" that's not just figurative. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha not for long...I turn 20 in three days. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your clique works something like Menudo. You may have to turn the bit in if you get any older. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm glad you enjoy taunting users you've just blocked (or attempted to block-I know one of your little friends beat you to it). That the ADHD? Forget to take your Dexedrine? I guess with your generation it's probably Adderall. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE:When Ks0stm was censured on his talk page for his behavior here, his response was: "I'm not a pushover to insults". Sort of the thing you'd expect from a child.

@Jasper Deng:Mind your own fucking business. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants some real lulz, one of our beloved arbs has awarded Ks0stm a barnstar for this taunting. You simply can't make this shit up! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

adminhelp

Someone want to explain how it's OK that the blocked IP (you know, the one who is actually supposed to be blocked) is using his talk page to edit by proxy? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Template removed. It was foolish of me to worry about what the IP is doing. Focus my quest for justice where it needs to be. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For your info. Tony (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. As you can see, the with the admin abuse I'm dealing with from TParis and Ks0tsm, Jauerback's poor behavior pales in comparison. I was blocked for removing vandalism, so Jauerback's threat doesn't surprise me at all. TParis has decreed that I be punished for two days. It's much more important to these children that I recognize who's boss here; improving articles is merely an afterthought. I wish you luck with the article. Right now I'm more concerned about how I bring these 2 clowns to justice. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please enlighten me on where I've demonstrated poor behavior? Also, where did I make any threats? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, don't bother responding. I've just read the discussions above regarding your block. Great job. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Comments such as this one are utterly unacceptable; I would have blocked you for making personal attacks, but TParis got there first. In the future, please refrain from acting in such a disruptive manner. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You've obviously taken leave of your senses. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Balph Eubank

Someone should really take a look at this. He's posted a perfectly reasonable, logical unblock request (2 of them actually) and been denied. Proof that his block, just like this one, is punative. I personally would never prostrate myself before an admin to request an unblock -especially for an offfense I didn't commit- but his unblock requests make perfect sense, and an honorable admin (we must have 1 or 2 here) should undo it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that the part about me "goading him" is obviously nonsense; however the essence of what he said -that I am blocked and therefore there can be no discussion between us- is quite sound. Two admins have ruled that it doesn't matter, he must serve the duration of his punishment, proving that his block, like all others here, is strictly punative. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm also thinking of starting: "Category:Wikipedians who have been blocked for removing vandalism". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Since block logs can not be expunged or even annotated...

I will state for the record here that I was blocked by an involved administrator for an imaginary infraction. From WP:3RRNO: removing obvious vandalism such as page blanking (my emphasis). The IP who I was reverting repeatedly blanked 5467 bytes of my text. This was an open-and-shut 3RR exemption. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Joefromrandb. Thank you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Running to ANi because I didn't prostrate myself before you and beg for forgiveness? I thought that sort of thing was handled at IRC-admin. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Slip

Sorry. Amended. Occasionally terrible eye-hand coordination. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries here. Of course Ks0stm may now remove your rollback... Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tag on grain entrapment

Good point. As I told the guy who placed it, I wasn't surprised. But it wasn't for lack of looking ... there's hardly any non-American material out there on this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a quick note on Jarble's talk page too. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Re this: Shouldn't you have said "help readers grain a better understanding"? (rim shot). Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. BTW, if you want to remove the link again, it isn't a big deal to me. It's just that, as a major opponent of overlinking, I felt that this illustrated one of the rare cases where linking an everyday term is actually helpful. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry; I see your point. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on AN

Some administrative discussions are automatically archived in 24 hours after last comment without official closing, and everyone just moves forward. This is happening when none of administrators wants to be involved or unsure about best course of action. I think that was going to happen here. But now, thanks to your unclosing and especially to this edit by another participant, this is not going to happen, and the editor in question will be possibly banned. This is not to tell that you did anything wrong; I understand your sentiment. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself into to thinking that there was any chance that was going to happen. In any case, there is certainly no consensus to ban that user; in fact, in anyone should be banned, it should be the user who supported banning and then closed the discussion. If an admin did that there would be a desysop-conversation going on now. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The user who closed discussion was actually the one who moved this discussion to AN from the beginning... I personally do not think his closure was that much inappropriate because the discussion is almost over. I saw a number of threads without merit to be automatically archived and forgotten. But that was mostly on AE and ANI; I did not watch AN a lot. It's true that one administrator who commented in this thread blocked Niemti previously on more than one occasion, but he is not going to ban him right now. It's also true that a lot of people are involved (one said: "we had a dispute about robots"). My personal problem with blocking Niemti is that I talked and collaborated with him a lot a few years ago (and a little bit more recently) in a highly charged politics/history subject area and found him much better (neutral, capable to improve content and constructively argue) than some other contributors in the same subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

inre trout

Wakin' up to be smacked by a nice, big trout. But I like trout. :)

Though I must clarify, I tagged it for A1 as I did not quite understand the concept of "context" back then, I thought all one-liners qualified for A1 for being to short; I realised my conception was wrong and I better understand A1 now. As for the silly "first article" template, that really wasn't my fault; It was Twinkles'. :D

So ya and thanks for the trout. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 03:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, blame it on Twinkle. Actually, that's why I opted for trout rather than Bish's dried stockfish! :-) Joefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Urkk! I wouldn't want THAT! Haha, how about slapping me with Pacific bluefin tuna (nicer than trout, methinks. They should have a template for that) ?? I'd fancy that. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

refdesk

I reversed your edit criticising the OP's link. You weren't answering what seems like a good-faith question, just mocking. If you think it was in bad faith the talk desk is available, as is the OP's talk page. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, noticing the admin involvement above, I have notified the OP of your remark and my action. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That'll do the trick just as well as if you had left it there. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party

I'm sorry to say that I don't greatly care what your beef with Baseball Bugs is. I really don't think that what he was doing in this case was so disruptive that you had to wade in and ham-fistedly hat his comment alone. As a Brit, I really don't have a horse in the Democrat-Republican race. Rather than get into an edit war, I'll just ask you to reconsider how you've handled this.

Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had explained this clearly but I'll try again. I agree with you that what he did in this case was not egregiously disruptive. He is a serial-soapboxer who does this kind of thing constantly. (Hint: I alluded to his talk-page template calling Republicans "wiki-losers".) This isn't a one-off incident (in which case, as I already said, I wouldn't have hatted). This is an ongoing problem. I would have a beef with any user who behaved this way, no matter what their party-of-choice was to attack or defend. And as an American, I would have just as big a problem if the soapboxing was a Labour-Conservative "race". I am far from the first editor to hat this user's soapboxing at the ref desks, and I feel I've handled it entirely properly. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination of me

Wow and wow again! What a lovely surprise, Joe (may I call you Joe?). I had no idea Wikipedia did this stuff.

Thank you for nominating me for this. Best news I've had all week. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. You're quite welcome! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes!

Re this: No. Wow. Is it possible to make a Freudian typo? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I would have left it alone, but I figured it was harmless enough to fix. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lazy Talkback

I replied at the AfD where you questioned my vote...Go Phightins! 05:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't question it. I pointed out that it was merely a baseless pile-on. Your new, lengthy post is just a long way of saying: "A bunch of other people like it so I say keep". Don't worry; it's not unusual. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply is supporting a procedural keep, as this discussion is beating a dead horse. Go Phightins! 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then the horse needs to be resurrected because that article is a disgrace. It has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. A "procedural keep" is asinine. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Wikipedia's based on consensus, and at the moment the consensus seems to be on my side, but it could change...I just don't believe it's been enough time since the last time we debated this for consensus to have changed. Thanks. It's Thoereau, not Thoraeu. Go Phightins! 03:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's not worth having another debate on this since we've already reached consensus. Go Phightins! 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you have no opinion. If we had reached consensus, we wouldn't be having this debate. I know it's hard, but try to follow.Joefromrandb (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly, then, do you call the other five or so debates listed at the top of this AfD if they weren't to build consensus? Go Phightins! 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Goatse Security

As there was a court ruling a few days ago re: the most notable section of the Goatse Security article, which is still generating significant press, how does it not constitute a current event? Admittedly, things have died down enough now that it's a moot point, however, simply removing a tag without stating any reasoning is a bit rude. yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I now see I might've used the Current related template instead, which would make more sense. yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did state a reason. In any case, I wasn't trying to be rude, so sorry if you were offended. But it really didn't warrant either template. Just as "recent death" is to be used under certain parameters and not just for anyone with an article who dies, the "current event" and "current related" templates should be used judiciously. First of all, they're just a group of Internet trolls - they're not important. (Yes, I realize they are surely important to some people, but not to the mainstream, which would be the threshold for tagging.) Second, it wasn't a case of "rapidly changing information". I think you would have found that someone else would have removed the tag rather quickly even if I hadn't. But I'm sorry if I didn't explain it clearly. I agree that undoing someone's edit without explaining is extremely rude, and I would never do that intentionally. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with some of it, I understand your reasoning. Cheers! yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-December newsletter

End of Year Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

I noticed you took part in one of the articles I edited which involves questionable source. I have a reliable source debate in progress here. Would you mind taking a look? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Joefromrandb (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Rescue Me (Cheers)

Merger of this episode article is proposed. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Joefromrandb. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

I assume you're trolling, but in the odd case you're sincere read WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Joefromrandb! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our May backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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).

It's been quite a while since something has made my day here; thank you!! :) Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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).

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive. The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Canadian Paul 07:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ah, who could forget the infallible TParis? "Caught being naughty"? Seriously? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, do you have a trademark on childish insults?--v/r - TP 15:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

GOCE July 2013 news report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now! Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you, I appreciate it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Apparently I was writing on your talk page while you were posting this. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

Sign your posts. Enjoy your laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
  • "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)

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)

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)

I'm frankly tired of your sarcastic lip pbp 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(←) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shut up and stop edit warring and personally attacking me and other editors pbp 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So the answer would be "no"? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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:DICK pbp 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • It's certainly hard to argue with that advice. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop.

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I just want the Waters article fixed. I have no personal interest in you whatsoever. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • I could ask you the same question. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists:

In situations such as infoboxes, a single-line list may be useful—in this case:

List type

entry one, entry two, entry three

Heading 1	Heading 2
List with commas	Entry 1, entry 2, entry 3
List with {{Flatlist}}	Entry 1 entry 2 entry 3

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)

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)

Joe, do you have any style guides that assert your position as best practice? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• What's more likely, is APA wrong, or is Joe wrong? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Repeating something ad infinitum isn't going to make you any less wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"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.

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Purplebackpack89, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

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)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read meta:What is a troll. When you read it, you'll find that

1. I'm not a troll
2. "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)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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).

Thanks Bish!! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

Joe, if that was libel, then there would never be an SPI. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you're quite wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, you do realize that accusing another editor of libel is possibility a legal threat? pbp 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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).

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. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Joefromrandb)

Hello, Joefromrandb. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb, where you may want to participate. pbp 00:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) pbp 00:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You two have fun with that. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, found it! Doh! Have to use the "WP" prefix. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As do I. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. {{center

Sign up for the September drive! <sspan style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|mall>To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC) }}

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus and Jimbo

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)

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)

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)

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)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As promised

You know the drill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Help request

{{Admin help}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 building ES&L 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You should feel shitty every day of your life, little boy. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rollback is part of the admin toolset - it cannot be removed separately ES&L 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Another example of how admins get to abuse tools at will, free from any potential consequences. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Oh, a non-apology apology. How quaint. Spare me. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

I was expecting you to do exactly as you did; stand by your abuse of tools. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs)

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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).

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)

"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)

Breeze Barton merge

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Two notices of edit warring

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seek help, son. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

I've never seen James in #wikipedia-en-admins.--v/r - TP 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

• @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)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Indefinite Block of Joefromrandb. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

You've got a lot of nerve linking to WP:CIVIL. A lot. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

He was already blocked before he made his juvenile remark. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since when did I become an admin? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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).

I am NOT poking. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(watching) "never encountered Bishonen"? - Go meet Bishonen, and your life on the project gets bearable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For nourishment after the above discussion which I consider closed. ...William 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting tool, where did you get it? Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing fancy, just the basic "edit count" option at the bottom of Special:Contributions. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)
  • "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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

Hello, Joefromrandb. The RFC/USER discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb has been closed.

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)

Precious 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I certainly did :). Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I wrote on Kafka, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

"Great article", tell PumpkinSky, it was his idea. I miss him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So do I. He's gotten the short end of the stick more than once. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

'tis the season

• Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

I appreciate that, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

You're probably right, which makes the tagging all the more inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
  • And Joefromrandb's finally response is notable as well: "Fuck off" [12] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ah, my curiosity thanks you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay, thanks for clarifying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have started a BLP noticeboard thread on the matter.[15] Regards, Neljack (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • @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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Strike that last part. Your comments were obviously lip-service. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • @Drmies: Do you know you voted twice in the John Mark Karr AfD? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do now! Thanks--old age, I suppose, and disturbed sleep. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx, I've amplified on your observation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worth the effort. After all, infallible means infallible. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)
  • 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. JodyB _talk 00:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

    • 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)
      • "I don't think I'll be visiting anytime soon." is a "vow"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I sure hope so. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Yeah, it's on my list of things to do. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

LOL. I should probably wait until this comedy of errors has reached a conclusion before archiving. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

• @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)

(watching) I am ready to deliver a message you phrase here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sounds good. Maybe you at least got some free munchies at the function.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• @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)