User talk:Andiar.rohnds

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page
You have repeatedly reverted me without discussing on the talk page, even though I've been posting messages there. Please join the discussion: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting.VR talk  02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have just violated the WP:3RR (three revert rule). You have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. In each of the reverts you move the "support" over the "condemnation". Here are your reverts: Please undo your latest revert. Otherwise, I will report you.VR talk  03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

Hi, I've responded to your inquiry at Charlie Hebdo. My apologies, as you are not the only editor who has been undoing my edits. You should also know that the entire "reactions" topic seems redundant... this is among many other issues undergoing this article. Best of wishes, Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to be confused on a few subjects. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mainly the part regarding: "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Also see Wikipedia:Policy shopping, thanks! --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —VR talk  06:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit War
Your recent editing history at Charlie Hebdo shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and other disruption. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * le sigh* :(

Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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: 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.
 * 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.

You'll be reported on your next revert, and your aggressive edit comments will only make things worse. You're editing in bad faith, as more than one has already pointed out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:52, 20 February 2015 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for 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:. 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. Per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By any chance are you evading your block at Charlie Hebdo shooting using Special:Contributions/184.77.94.119? You were warring to state that the policeman was Muslim and this IP is doing the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. EdJohnston, Rather than worrying of the petty affairs of certain users, please correct the manual of style/dating format which is expected to be used globally. I honestly cannot take your words seriously while being time-stamped with "21 February". Please understand how ridiculous this looks, even when formally interpreted.

Thank you. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're not denying that the IP is you? EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you seem heated, please take a moment and calm down. i am not the only person who reads wikipedia, other individuals also share the same mindset.--Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * actually this date format appearing in a timestamp isnt so bad. reading it through an article is atrocious though --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * another IP appeared doing the same thing. Article is SP for the duration of this block. Andiar.rohnds; have you ever been registered here before, using a different username? Bjelleklang -  talk 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you ask many questions mr. bj... the answer is yes. there are more people in this household and abroad Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. What happened to the previous users you had? Bjelleklang -  talk 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want to call my mommy? I will give you her phone number (im joking)Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you can take this a bit more seriously. Can you please tell me what happened to your previous user accounts? Bjelleklang -  talk 01:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * oh you would? dont you think your expectations are a little demanding and presumptuous? you're also making assumptions. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i hope you all know how old i am. and also know this will effect an annual 6 figure contribution wikipedia seems to rely on. although wikipedia has more cash than it could ever need, please at least pretend to care Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per "yes. there are more people in this household and abroad", and the lack of denial about the IP, I've extended the block of Andiar.rohnds by one week for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been watching all of this and I totally support this block extension. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here. Bjelleklang -  talk 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * abusing multiple accounts? yes i realize how i present my arguments; how colorful and stupid they are. but i assure you no kind of abuse has transpired, and that some of you people are full of yourselves, and please dont be surprised when even more contributions are lost. this website will not use its power to push an inferior timing agenda. humans deserve better. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * i'm telling mommy about all this. literally, as a toddler would... Andiar.rohnds (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your future at Wikipedia
Aside from whether or not you are a sock:

Your talk page edits are clearly snarky, rude, cryptic, loaded, non-collegial, evasive, disruptive, obfuscating, hostile, antagonistic, ll-natured, ill-tempered, irritable, ornery, petulant, prickly, querulous, battling, fighting, and warring.

I had to use a thesaurus to capture the whole spectrum.

Wikipedia has a laundry list of block reasons like WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTHERE, etc.

Three possible futures:


 * 1. You persist (and get blocked)
 * 2. You leave
 * 3. Your edits change (best plan!)

You can choose.

This is a place where we try to be polite and work together to get things sorted out. We are volunteers and do not need to tolerate being treated this way. It also wastes community resources (You made Ed and Bjelleklang waste their time asking again and again and others' time reading all of this.) which would be better spend building this encyclopedia that you use and love.

When your block expires, please, please, please, try to make a complete turn-around and be nice and constructive and collegial, okay? The reason is that you will last in this the community only a short time if you continue this way. Think about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * no but seriously, where is the logic in adopting a substandard dating format? lowering everyones standard is not the solution in global friendliness or equality. thats like starving yourself, in place of feeding the children of africa. now everyone is hungry, great job --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * my love for wikipedia is true, but this new dating format genuinely mystifies me. and im usually not the type of person who rejects change. the irony is i tend to approach things more openly than even the most liberal social justice warrior this website has ever known. for instance, unlike most people i do actually consider the entire "spectrum", even in politics. being anything but independent seems illogical to me. and i assure you this is a genuine stance, rather than some niche-cool-looking-idea. but the dating format really has been killing my love for wikipedia as of late... iv'e been noticing subtle changes here and there; analytics that could possibly indicate an inevitable decline or misfortune of this website. and it all started with a simple change of an infobox template, where the color of an infobox header was changed from red to purple. there at least needs to be a new infobox class for ancient militaristic empires, such as rome. which should definitely be red. it is very pleasing to the eye and matches the article appropriately. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

gah!


 * Sorry for the late reply. It is nice to see you writing about article issues in a constructive way. Good turnaround. So, yes, take that to the article talk. I will stay out of it. If you want the article to be shaped a certain way, you are going about it nicely. Present good arguments and get others on board. Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

my lovely Anna, if only rational were the norm here... come sail with me Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. 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) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. 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) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
As per your recent vandalism/offensive comments at Min-maxing and Talk:Twinking, you have been blocked for a month. -- Pres N  19:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
Over the course of 2015, you were given many blocks and warnings about constantly being difficult when interacting with others. Sadly, you've turned right back to those activities. Virtually every comment of yours has had some sort of insult or bad-faith criticism towards editors, or inappropriate discussion going on. You've time and time again been requested to make an actionable request on talk pages, but instead it's just lots of long-winded complaining about things outside of the scope of writing that particular article. You've even been given other venues for some of your complaints that were misplaced (like going to WP:TFA to discuss your issues with review and selection process) and yet you still continued to complain at the wrong venues. All you seem to want to do is vaguely complain, you dont seem to be here to actually build an encyclopedia. Your response to my first warning to stop all this was this, and your response to your second and last warning was this and this, so it doesn't seem you intend to stop your disruptive editing of your own accord. Between all of your disruptive editing and past warnings and blocks for similar things, you are blocked for 1 month. I hope that when you return, you can make short, constructive comments about the subject that doesn't attack the participants involved. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK

 * Yes, thank you for the commentary, Ohnoitsjamie but facts of the matter within this issue still remain, and you also have not provided any useful additional information, which would have been quite helpful. Plus your talkpage looks very stupid, you should probably consider editing it. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Talk 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a 2 months you can help me edit it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, haha, oh damn, I am so upset over Wikipedia banning me Ohnoitsjamie, of course I'm being totally sarcastic, really, you are an inferior administrator and I will decimate you under the the power of [[Roman legion|

LEG XVII]] Andiar.rohnds (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Final Fantasy Type 0 article talk page is not the place to carry on about your thoughts on corruption of Japanese video game industry. You were many times asked to stop, but refused. Even after your block, you want to continue it on your talk page. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate your thoughts on this, but you refused to stop.
 * You were asked to propose constructive, actionable changes. You refused, continuing with inactionable rantings outside the scope of the article.
 * If you want to discuss the Featured Article process, go to WP:TFA. If you want to change consensus on source reliability, go to WP:VG/S. But you've refused.
 * Even in your unblock efforts, you couldn't stop insulting/complaining, which you were warned about multiple times. You still refuse to stop.
 * This is why you were blocked. I again recommend stopping, or your talk page access will be revoked too. Sergecross73   msg me  18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk page access revoked. Here's a hint - WP:POLICYSHOPPING is not a recognized thing, so it's a dead give away when you, and this mysterious IP address who appears out if nowhere and just happens to argue in your defense, both use it. Sergecross73   msg me  22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Block has been extended for block evasion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)