User talk:Dicklyon

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Draft of PT change proposal

I'm thinking of proposing a change to PT to make it simpler, less ambiguous and less contentious. Here is a link to a draft. Basically I'm suggest we return the meaning to the traditional meaning only, but leave room for using titles with enduring significance when appropriate. What do you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Born2cycle/ptdraft#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F

--В²C ☎ 18:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I remain unhappy with "more likely than all the other topics combined" unless it is prefixed with "much"; because in general I think getting the wrong article is a much worse experience than getting a disambig page. The rest I haven't studied yet. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the current and longstanding wording. I don't think there is consensus support for you opinion that "getting the wrong article is a much worse experience than getting a disambig page", especially when the "wrong article" is "more likely than all the other topics combined" (so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone).

My goal here is only one change; not to change that basic usage criteria. The only change I seek is for long-term significance to be considered only when there is no "usage winner", regardless of the criteria used to determine the "usage winner". I want to avoid conflicts where one topic wins per usage considerations and another wins per long-term significance, because we have no objective way to resolve those conflicts. It becomes a free-for-all. --В²C ☎ 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jr.

My issue is that if you have a redirect linked in a navigational template it doesn't show up properly in the article. It needs to be a direct link for the name to appear in bold as it should, therefore I believe the articles should be moved first. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you requested the moves. Had I known that at the time, I wouldn't have reverted the changes. Good job. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, found a couple more: Afa Anoaʻi, Jr., Chavo Guerrero, Jr., Chavo Guerrero, Sr., Dory Funk, Jr., Rolles Gracie, Jr. and Zack Sabre, Jr. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive size

The archiver does not work that way see here the size of the archive in that case is set to 100k, but see archive 28 is 200k because that is how big the individual section was. So please revert your revert of my edit. -- PBS (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until the RFC closes. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

John Kennel

You have to understand that this page, like many others, was autogenerated by a bot from a big database that formats 90,000 names in such a way that they'll autosort in alphabetical order, including turning them around and employing unusual comma usage to permit the desired form of collation. Inconsistencies often arise, along with lots of outright errors; this is why we've turned strongly against using bots for this purpose. We cannot take their comma usage as any sort of standard, since they're naturally more interested in getting the computer to sort names properly than in a form of linguistic correctness that, while better for humans, is confusing to a computer.

If you were an admin, you'd be able to see a pair of deleted edits in the history of John Sr. Kennel Farm — the page's creator requested deletion immediately after creating it, for the reason of "wrong name". I have print documentation (a guide to almost all of Ohio's National Register sites) that speaks unambiguously about this place being the home of John Kennel, Sr., and a nearby farm it speaks of as being the home of his son John Kennel, Jr. [Not sure how to word this next sentence in a neutral way; it sounds angry, but it isn't at all meant to be] If you were able to consult these print sources, I strongly believe that you wouldn't have performed this move, since it's definitely not the form used in any source. Commas: I can't handle this tonight, as it's late (I should have been in bed an hour ago), and simply analysing a database that I know well, while being all that I can do now, is a lot less work than offering normative statements about comma usage. Nyttend (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I undid my move. I think we should undo yours next, to conform to the more modern style advocated at WP:JR. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agassiz

Hi, didn't mean to critique your ref style - one is as good as another. However it was the only ref in body of article formatted that way, so if you don't mind, I've put it with spaces rather than linebreaks so it looks roughly the same as the rest. Hope that's ok now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS in sports articles

Dick, here are two MOS:CAPS examples where most knowledgeable editors can agree: [1] and [2]. BCS National Championship Game and SEC Championship Game are trademarked proper names, should be capitalized per WP:COMMONNAME, and are capitalized Wikipedia articles titles; Consensus national champions, BCS national champions, SEC champions, and SEC Eastern Division champions are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. There has been a slow-rolling reversion game in progress for several weeks, and frankly I'm tired of playing along. Your assistance in maintaining proper capitalization and your input on the article talk pages would be appreciated. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but I don't see a discussion to join. Clue me in? Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dick, give me 20 minutes to copy and paste my comment above to the talk pages of these two articles, and then feel free to chime in: [3]. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dick, I invite you to review the capitalization of "championship," etc., in the Florida Gators football article, and the related season articles, starting with the Florida Gators football, 1906–09 decade article, and continuing through the 2014 Florida Gators football team individual season article. If you're up for it, this could be the basis for bringing more sports articles into closer compliance with MOS:CAPS, and also providing an example for starting a more cooperative relationship with several of the sports WikiProjects. Please let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean like how come we capitalize SEC Championship Game? If you want, I'll chip in on that if you start a conversation some place. The rest looks most OK. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Pick one of your choice with some work to be done, let me know, and I will start the discussion on the talk page. From there, we can branch out to the SEC Championship Game article series, etc. FYI, several other long-time college football editors like Jweiss11 are supportive of this effort,we have been aware of the issue for some time, and have made halting efforts of our own, sometimes being reverted by IPs, drive-bys and newbies. Your "outside" involvement will help us lay down a marker for future compliance. We may differ on capitalization of a few article titles, but we are in complete agreement on the overwhelming majority of basic capitalization issues. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and propose a move of SEC Championship Game? I'll support and we can see if the idea flies. Didn't go well at Rose Bowl Game though. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

per conv. w/ Randy Kryn

I sort-of sensed there would be backlash to my criticism of WP, so I didn't bother to log in till now... wow, far more than I expected! There was a time that I enjoyed this, but that was actually a decade ago; about 2004, things changed dramatically across the internet with an apparent takeover by "others" that I describe as defective dominance, (my best rated page accord. to google). The locus was not here, as I knew what to expect from an organization created by a commodity pit winner using academic oligarchs, but on Care2 which was/is much the same, but deceptive into creating an environment of "caring" by those unable to do so organically.

There is simply no stepping around "libertarian" on WP, going far beyond OR to OI, orginal invention. In parallel is the synthesis of the hate-tool of troll bashing by WP, which was originally troll-busting by wealthy white students in San Diego against the homeless. In short, any who disagree w/ the group (which is usually a subset of INhumanity) is asking for the bashing by being there in the first place: blaming the victim, or nazi-denial if you will, for any who attempt to enter new information. This is defined as a hate basic by Aron Beck, who described the KKK as such, but was actually (accurately) representing the down side of his culture (thanks to NPR).

Creating a misconception that anarchy is libertarianism was easy enough given misperceptions such as Sons of Anarchy, which really represents obvious biker fascism, (which I am currently, though subtly, showing is closely related to police action, symbolized by the MC jacket taken directly from Calif. HWP).

Given success w/ anarchy, the WP libertarian faction has moved on to, of all things, communism! Wholly Christ, I thought, now I have seen it all, Koch Bros as Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin! Because libertarianism was momentarily used to describe the Kropotkin anarchists of the Ukraine during the Russ. revolution, communism is therefore libertarian (despite anarchists fighting communists then as now). It is not the hypothetical of OR, it is purely fictional: OR, synethsis. Why should this even exist? Simple, defective dominance. Rather than fight online neoplatonism in its own terms in its own information base (purpose of the original academy --besides sexual abuse), the best strategy is to encourage its corruption, and then use the information in places where the oligarchy can be "brought around" such as FaceBook (where I have had success purely as an individual, at least one specialist is assigned to me there, intel is a wide open back door to penetrate the circle of "mini-guards" that Beck describes as the barrier away from hate to normal truth.

I believe that I can easily show that Libcom.org is a subset of WP, especially including its further synthesis of troll-bashing. The bottom of this page is my most recent finding while trying to find out what a "tendency" is in communism/socialism --still trying to figure that one out, no help on WP! My people, similar to Dana Beal's, just take my word for things (rather than tolerate the minutia), and, as we all know, educators will not touch WP, which I work hard to reinforce because of OI conceptions that are no different from Socrates' alternatives and Plato's cave.

My goal is presently to figure out how information controllers much like libertarian wikipedians succeeded in reversing basic Jewish values of moral kindness that we find in preserved original, genuine Christianity. My study of the "the Pale" (between Poland and Russia that spans from the Baltic to the Black Sea) shows a Judaism that is nearly the same as small-church Christianity, as I have experienced it, that is much different than capital-based Christianity of the cities, accurately described as "money pits" by former parishioners. Given the value of wiki-like structure, and the symbol of the tree as knowledge in Genesis makes one wonder why God punished Adam and Eve for accessing its "fruit." He didn't, that was added by information-controllers no different than libertarian wikipedians in the transition from oral/aural to codex at outset of the Diaspora; probably neoplatonists working to implement the Repbulic.

So, I am using WP as a parallel to the info-miscreants of the past who altered western society (a thing), into western civilization (a process, not a thing). Logic (as wisdom in word structures) vs. rationale (an incredibly poor use of math, but successful using hate strategies, such as troll-bashing).

Hope this helps --John Bessa (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a bit. Good luck. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you opening the door for another debate about capitalizing "Solar System"?

because I assure you, we've had that debate already. Serendi^podous 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The door is always open; I'm seeing which way the wind is blowing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jr. and Sr.

The overwhelming majority of article titles that include Jr. or Sr. do have the comma. Is there a project to rename them without the comma? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No project, but advice in MOS at WP:JR, and recent RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. A big part of the problem is the widespread lack of understanding about the need for a matching comma after when a comma is used before; and the trend in modern style guides to recommend dropping the commas, partly to avoid such errors and partly just for a cleaner looks. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

All good stuff gentlemen but Dicklyon, when you make requests at WP:RMT please remove the comma from the target page. I did a double take this morning when I got the message "You do not have permission to move this page ... ask an admin blah" Had I been de-desysoped? No, the source and target were the same ... Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Dicklyon (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi - you may not have known, but your technical request at Martin Luther King, Sr. is the subject of a pending RM, and certainly not uncontroversial. I'd also like to request that any other comma RMs be treated as controversial. You have seen yourself the discussions taking place at RMs such as the Rockefeller parkway. This is no longer an uncontroversial area. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I had not noticed; thanks. I'll look and see what the controversy is. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dick - please stop requesting Jr. moves as uncontroversial, as you did here. You know by now, whether you agree or not, that they definitely are controversial! Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. When a move accords both with our MOS guidance and with usage in sources, how am I to suspect that someone might find it controversial? Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. The issue has been raised at some 4 or 5 RMs in the past month, with the unanimous result of retaining the comma. That is evidence of controversy in itself. Dohn joe (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinus strobiformis

If you would look, you would notice the cut and paste was from an article from one of my subpages. As far as I know, that is okay. LionMans Account (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Textile Strike

Hello, and I hope this day finds you well and rested. After watching the 2000 film 'Bread and Roses' I went to the Lawrence Textile Strike page to read up on the original 'Bread and Roses' event, and was a bit surprised to find that you had decapitalized the page. Guessing that you were unfamiliar with the event, and didn't know its place in union history in the United States, I moved the page back to its proper capitalized form. You then reverted my page move. Please revert it back again, to its proper name, and have a look, at a minimum, at the external links on the page to see the event capitalized (you assert that sources don't capitalize the name, which, upon looking through the name on search engines, shows that internet sources regularly capitalize it). Thank you for your time and patience in this matter. Randy Kryn 12:39 19 March, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, usage seems pretty mixed after doing a google search. Randy, are you taking care not to "count" titles, etc? ngrams make it seem pretty clear that lowercase is more common; it is more common by a fair amount despite the fact that even works who would use lowercase use uppercase in titles. What does familiarity with the event or understanding its place in union history have to do with anything here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[4].

GPS

Would you care to defend your position here before we revert you? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the issue? MOS:CELESTIALBODIES says The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; the Moon orbits Earth). They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context. For GPS satellites in earth orbit, we're talking about an earth-centered system, nothing to do with astronomy or planets. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comma vs no comma

RM at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. is closed as "no consensus" to remove comma. An ongoing RM at Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. has 'oppose' votes. Time for another RM, okay? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

WP:AE

Please see this WP:AE request. RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit articles with a conflict of interest, use the talk page

Hello, Dicklyon. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lynn Conway, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, that's 3 reverts today

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lynn Conway. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Skyerise (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that the third edit was a formatting thing, to be able to see a diff? Unrelated to the BLP-related edit warring that you note. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that WP:3RR is based totally on a count of reverts, regardless of their nature? Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you ask me, that seems to be a literal and moronistic interpretation of the 3RR (talk page stalker) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of economic thought

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh vandalism and elsewhere

Hi, I would like to inform you that the vandalism on this article, and my userpage and on many template pages, are by the same sock vandal from Hanoi, changing 3 IPs in the past 24 hrs, and will continue this vandal campaign for at least the next few days. Last time he did this was in December '14. IPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.71.112.198, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.113.226.51, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.187.85.114. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

So just revert him. Sounds like you don't need my help. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References

In Talk:Pixel, I edit Talk:Pixel#kilopixel should be mentioned and then I make Talk:Pixel#Photo Labs versus inkjet printer. The problem is the references is belong to which section, because when I press 'Show preview', I never seen the references. Please help to correct it if necessary, and thank you so much.Gsarwa (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If you edit and preview the whole article instead of just the section, you'll be able to preview the reference placement. Or on a talk page, put a Template:reflist-talk in the section to show refs at that point. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by adding that in the previous sections that needed it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note

I have mentioned you at my talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And another, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_demand_immediate_assistance, just FYI. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically that is AN, not ANI. Whatever. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts? I repeated one reverted edit, which you could count as one revert. That's all. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Blackfriars ?assacre

I'm not going to move protect either one as you both need to show some restraint. At this point the Massacre title has been edited after the move meaning an administrator would be required to move it back. I think you should both should probably be blocked but that would mean that you could not take part in any discussion, if there is one, to get consensus as to the final name of the article. However, if the pair of you decide to move and revert another article then blocks will be the only option. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we be childish. He yanks my chain, I yank back. We should stop. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• 4 move reverts in one day at Blackfriars massacre, plus "freezing" the move in place with an edit to the redirect, all while there is an active ANI thread about your moves, plus a long history of edit warring blocks, including two recent ones... something has got to give. I was all set to block you for 3 weeks until I saw CBW's comment here. Although I don't think your participation in a discussion about this is that important a consideration (because whether it's lowercase or uppercase doesn't matter), I'll defer to CBW's judgement.

However, you should be aware that I will block you from editing if you revert anyone else's page move (or revert their revert of your page move) on any page in the next 3 weeks (the duration of the intended block). So that's a 0RR restriction for page moves in April.

This is in lieu of blocking for the single incident mentioned above, not as closure of the wider-ranging ANI thread. Another admin, who spends more time reviewing and closing that thread, may determine that additional constraints are necessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Flo, you have apparently confused March 7 with April 7 in your counting. I only did two moves in April, not 4. Nevertheless, I accept your suggested restrictions for now. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well thank God for CambridgeBayWeather, then, preventing me from having quite so much egg on my face. Yes, I misread the history, I'm sorry about that accusation. Most of the rest of my comment still stands, so I'm heartened to see that you've agreed with the restriction in spite of my mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can't fix George Ho's fuckups like this one then. I wonder why he insists on reverting my moves that conform to WP:JR. Oh, well. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks. The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it's not about me, for a change. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Station stuff

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

Haters gonna hate...popcorn?

Why the hate for popcorn? Just curious... I admit, there can be issues with eating it. It can get caught in your teeth, in your throat, and it can be too salty or greasy. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on ROM talk page?

Hi, I think there has been some mistake. That edit was definitely not me, and I believe it was the previous owner of this IP address. It may have been reassigned to me, for some reason. But that edit was definitely not me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.36.100 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) IP addresses are almost always dynamically assigned by your ISP, and may be changed at any time (you never "own" an IP address in these circumstances). So, when you edit from an IP address, this sort of thing can happen. The cure is to register a username. Jeh (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That. Plus the fact that I left the message in 2008. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Station/station moves

I appreciate the notification, but in the future I don't need to be notified about station move requests. Thanks. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting you know that in the future you don't need to be notified about station move requests. This is not one of those. In the future, I don't need to be notified that you don't need to be notified. I'm not going to leave you out when I notify all participants; deal with it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

jr. comma rfc

Hi Dick - I tried reformulating the pings. Would you let me know if you get this one? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No ping seen. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Darn it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Six-month page ban

Based on the discussion at WP:ANI, I have imposed a six-month page move ban on you. Please read the ban and let me know if you have any questions (although I'm about to go off-wiki for today in a few minutes).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do have lots of questions about exactly what it is that I've done besides the one set of article moves that that section started out about and one move war that RG provoked with me. There's no support for the various claims that I moved lots of articles against consensus, and no indication of any long term or ongoing problem. Just some disagreements with a handle of over-capitalizers and some jumpers on. Would it help to request a specific list of what moves I have done this year that they see as problematic, or as indicating a likely ongoing problem? Probably not, but I can ask. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The only questions I'm willing to answer are about the details of the ban itself, not about the underlying issues that triggered the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon

If you're willing - you are not required to do so - could you please post a response to the allegations? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have posted a brief response to RG's nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please admit to what you've done. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is totally inappropriate. Please limit you comments to the investigation page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated derogatory comments are included in WP:PA. Please don't make a habit of them. GregKaye 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is unsubstantiated. This will be dealt with. RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What language are you attempting to write here?

The question, I think, potentially cuts both ways. A response would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Proposed change to "Naturalness".

A alternate content such as: "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that with wording that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles..." works.

In relation to searches the existing wording rejects titles such as Hillary Rodham Clinton (in favour of Hillary Clinton) out of hand. Please consider the search trend evidence. A title such as, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is barely searched for. A wording such as 'Hillary ... Clinton" is. If you can think of a better use of language that still does not leave policy in a state of internal contradiction then this will also be appreciated. GregKaye 06:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to distance myself from RGloucester's behavior

You and I have disagreed, but I never doubted your good faith. I admire MOS warriors (and while that's a riff on SJWs, it's not intended to be a negative one). You see the pedia from a different angle than I do. I appreciate that. I'm a better writer in RL because of editors like Tony and yourself. I hope you can accept our disagreements as civil and in the best interest of creating the best online encyclopedia. If I can ever be of assistance, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violations of the sockpuppetry policy. Please contact functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org to appeal this block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)