User talk:EnTerr

Welcome
Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sdrtirs (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Lutus
I put a copy at User:EnTerr/Paul Lutus.  MBisanz  talk 17:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

VoteRiders, Kathleen Unger dispute
Hi, I am rolling back your addition (again) of a notability tag to VoteRiders because you are behaving in a disruptive manner there and on the related article Kathleen Unger. The article itself has many references, even after you have removed several, and you have refused to start a discussion despite the tag being removed twice already. Cleanup tags are not to be used in that way, and doing so makes it seem that your aim is stigmatizing the article rather than fixing it. If you still dispute the article's notability, please put the matter to the community at a deletion nomination rather than warring over a tag that is not intended to be controversial.

Your recent edits to these articles have all the hallmarks of what we sometimes call tendentious editing. That is, doing things like warring over cleanup tags, making frequent reverts without discussing, engaging in arguments via edit summaries, removing citations and then calling into question the article's notability, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policies or sources (like claiming Wikipedia does not accept Huffington Post articles because it is a blog or that an ABC News report is "self-published" because it was reposted to the subject's website). Edits like this one, removing crucial information, are particularly egregious. You seem to have a point about the tone of the article, but you have gone so far in the other direction hacking it down and being unfriendly that you've done more harm than good to this point, and I suspect that by your frequent invocation of certain Wikipedia practices that you know very well what you are doing. This is amplified by the fact that a lot of this subject matter is related to a living person, and I think a couple of your comments in edit summaries have been irresponsible.

Please take a step back and, going forward, engage more sincerely with other editors. That means you should begin a discussion on these articles' talk pages about what your issues are, rather than just making retorts in edit summaries, and you should take the discussion to community venues like WP:AfD if no agreement about complaints like notability can be reached. Dominic·t 07:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Roku
I wholly disagree. Roku may be a genericized name for the roku player to people as Nintendo was to for the Nintendo Entertainment System. However in source media it is rarely (if ever) referred to solely as Roku. However the company is mostly referred to as Roku. Typing in Roku will find them information on the player and with a link to the full page on the player. There's as much justification of spinning off the name to the player that there is to th Village and the Avatar character. Roku has a stronger claim to the name. There's the Roku (disambiguation) free for you to use for the Roku Player.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that the articles should be merged. The Roku player is distinct from Roku inc. They are related but very distinct. The split was a content split wp:split. Roku is used primarily to refer to the company. However Roku is also widely used to refer to the player. I think the signs are that Roku will continue to strongly be attached to both. The company is is licensing both their hardware and software to other companies and there is a talk of an IPO. At the same time more devices are incoming. The answer this I think is renaming each. One Roku Inc and the other The Roku Player. Then creating a disambigious page under the word Roku that has links to all 4 articles that relate to the word Roku.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Roku
Thank you for your participation in the Request for Comment in Roku. I did notice that you also restored the contested content on Roku. Please refrain from editing contested content while it is undergoing discussion. Thank you for all of your hard work on Wikipedia and if you have any questions, please feel free to message me or discuss it below. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i would like the page to stay in the form it was for years before that 1 person started deleting sections of it since 8/18 - while we wait for a decision to be made. Why can't that ONE person wait before going ahead with their destructive changes - but instead all the rest of us should? Multiple people disagree with that single person (see the Roku talk page, see history of the edits). EnTerr (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have mistakenly moved my comment. No worries, I put back where it originally was. Do be more careful in the future.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I wouldn't have brought your comments together if i knew it would bother you. EnTerr (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's that whole pesky policy WP:TPO.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith
Do you have more bad faith accusations you would like to make?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? What is this about, please explain. EnTerr (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which part? Bad faith? Accusations?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever is that made you leave this note here. Please bring context. I presume something offended you? EnTerr (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith and baseless accusations. In case you forgot you accused me of having a conflict of interest. Am I one of four individuals 4 individuals from some random roku forum? How asinine are you going to get?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "... leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages" ... wat?!
 * Is this about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics
 * I asked for help at the WP:Electronics project, which Roku is part of. i'll drop by there to check/explain/apologize. EnTerr (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's bold words above such as nuetral. There's also a link to the policy canvassing. There's more info at that link that discusses non-neutral messages.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Inomyabcs (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)