User talk:HuntClubJoe

Court dress
Court dress in the US and Hong Kong are from "common-law tradition". That is beside the point. The section you tried to put India under explicitly says "Commonwealth realms". If you really think India should be listed there, then change the text. If you do so, there is no reason not to add Ireland and, for that matter, the UK. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The heading says "Commonwealth", even if the text below the heading refers to specific countries (i.e. Australia) which are commonwealth realms. The article is about court dress derived from the English system of common law (sorry for my previous imprecision), and as such is pertinent to those countries which have adopted or retained said dress code.  Instead of being an edit-killer, you could have changed the heading (or waited for me to change it, which I was about to do), as well as moving the relevant countries under that new heading.  As for the UK and Ireland being under the heading...no.  Court dress harks from the UK, so it cannot be made a subheading in its own article; The Republic of Ireland, due to proximity and tradition, should remain at the top with the U.K.


 * So...f*ck it. You want to revert edits ad nauseum, you can fix the page.  I give up. HuntClubJoe (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, martyr. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think my comment was totally acceptable. In addition to not actually addressing my point, which is that you kept putting India into a section that by its terms talked about a class of countries to which India does not belong, you made snotty argument, called me an "edit-killer", then said to "f*ck off" and that you were giving up because you weren't getting your way. In short, you were making yourself the martyr. If saying "okay, martyr" in that circumstance uncivil, it was much less so than what you said; thus, you should have been prepared for more than you got. Frankly, your post at my talk page was just another example of your trying to make yourself the martyr, so I have to stick by my assessment.


 * Now, on to more serious matters: I've edited taken the country sections back out of the Commonwealth section and made the latter explicitly about other Commonwealth countries (i.e., those without their own sections). Since I was the one who put individuals under the Commonwealth section in the first place, I hope you won't find a way to turn that into more "edit-killing" or "reverting ad nauseam". -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, douchebag. I'll also take that as an acknowledgement of your initial failed article, and frankly, it's still poorly laid out and factually lacking.  But because you were a dick, everyone loses.  Now please, keep your stench of arrogance in the US of A where it belongs.  You pollute my country enough already. HuntClubJoe (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't a dick; I tried to make sure the article made sense. You wanted to call India a Commonwealth realm, which is stupid. The article was never "my" article. I have edited and, as stated, reverted edits that were factually erroneous and that idiotically used a slash in place of real words where words would do the job nicely. I hope your throwing around words like "douchebag" and "dick" and insulting my country is just some sort of attempt at an ironic lesson in civility, but I suspect you are just a child, if not in years, then in disposition. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! -Rrius (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been smoking too much crack, buddy. The title was Commonwealth, not Commonwealth realm.  I honestly don't give a fuck what your intention was when you wrote the title, because YOU fucked up.  I was trying to fix YOUR fuck-up, but couldn't get two edits in edgewise before you fucked it up some more.  So take your attitude, shove it up your ignorant ass, and by all means, report me to the Wiki police!  At least then, someone besides me will see what a fuck-up you are.  God Bless America! HuntClubJoe (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User talk:Rrius has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. S ophie ( Talk ) 23:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Get a clue.

Further comment: User talk:Sophie Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cigarettes
I consider these pages primarily informative, not promotional (I removed some promotional wording from Dunhill). BTW, when you nominate an article for speedy deletion, you must say just that in the edit summary, to help us over-worked admins and others identify the edit quickly.  DGG ( talk ) 10:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. a number of articles on cigarettes   DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem reading? All these changes took place last night!  The deletions will invariably stand.  Thanks for making it clear that I'll have to go over/around your head, and use different means to make these changes stick.  Cigarette brands are not encyclopaedic content in and of themselves, and you will notice that I was selective in my edits of those brands with some real (i.e. historical) significance.  I'm not done, either.  Please cease and desist with the threats, or your admin status may be put into jeopardy.  You might also try assuming good faith, so as not to seem like such a putz. Cheerio.  HuntClubJoe (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Can you please point out the section in the notability guidelines which states that it's acceptable to list brand names just because they exist, especially those without neutral (or any) sources?  Thanks.  HuntClubJoe (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey man. Sup? What projects are you working on nowadays? --23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You will surely forgive my skepticism, as I not only don't know your identity, but your question/greetings come on the heels of a minor quibble with a certain librarian/admin who has opted out of automatic signing. Buh-bye. HuntClubJoe (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cigarette Brands (Notability Noticeboard)
I only made it through a small number of brands in the offending section, and won't continue until there is a clear and cogent way forward. I used the "db-g11" template for the proposals for speedy deletion listed below.


 * 305's: I proposed speedy deletion, and someone apparently did just that, thus the red letters.
 * 520 (cigarette): I tagged this one as advertising, so it could be edited later (rather than deleted wholesale).  User:DGG removed the tag.
 * Army Club: I edited this one, and it remains so.  [Diff]
 * Basic: I proposed speedy deletion, which was declined by DGG.
 * Benson & Hedges: I edited this one for style, as well as neutrality.  DGG reverted revisions [here], [here], [here] and [here] (diffs).
 * Capri (cigarette): Speedy deletion proposed and declined.
 * Chesterfield (cigarette): Speedy deletion proposed and declined.
 * Dunhill (cigarette): Speedy deletion proposed and declined.

This was as far as I got into the section. I didn't touch Camel (cigarette), Davidoff or Djarum, only because they were longer articles and I was minutes from falling asleep. Thanks in advance for your input, Wiki Troopers.

Wikiquette alert
Hi, because I am unwilling to deal with your hostile attitude, I have taken the liberty of filing a Wikiquette alerts. Thank you. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * HuntClubJoe:  Earl Andrew is correct: your attitude on that page (and on other pages, based on what I read above) is not consistent with the WP:Civility policy.   While edit-counts alone are meaningless, the fact that Earl has 42,000 edits, and you have 320 is an important factor.  I suggest that you focus on content issues.  A good rule of thumb, when adding comments in a Talk page, is to never mention the other editor: focus 100% on the content-change proposal.    --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander: Are the following the hallmarks of civility?


 * "Sir, first of all, please sign your comments. Stop spewing Wikipedia policy if you can't at least do that."
 * "It appears that you don't want to reach a consensus however, so please don't have me protect the page."
 * "Let that be a lesson for you on Wikipedia. "


 * These are some of the gems from the keyboard of the user for whom you're busting my balls. Given how much "talk" there was on the discussion page, I don't blame you for not reading every word.  However, you could probably be more conciliatory in your approach given your limited perspective.  I made several attempts to hear Earl Andrew's suggestions for improvements, but there were none forthcoming.  Of all things, directing me to WP:Tenditious is absurd.  Are edits "tenditious" because a single user (who, incidentally, authored the article) doesn't like them?  Like I said to that user, the article is not my baby, I'm not attached to every word.  One cannot reasonably say the same of Earl Andrew; he cautioned me to not edit the article until there was consensus, and then proceeded to edit it himself, including adding a whole new section of nonsense!


 * If edit counts alone are enough to give weight to incoherent arguments, I can spend the next week making insignificant tweaks on articles for the sake of boosting my numbers. Hell, I can get a bot to do it!  The question is, will it make me a better editor?  You decide.  If you have a minute or three, perhaps you can peruse the article in question, along with the reverts that Earl Andrew made to my edits.  Then you can also decide who's being "tenditious".  If you want to be fair about this, I suggest you direct Earl Andrew to WP:V and WP:OWN, for starters.


 * I may not have a complete grasp of how to elicit other editors' opinions in disputes, but I understand the English language well enough to know that most of the article is not in compliance with Wikipedia norms. My edits reflect that, nothing more.  Earl Andrew's reversions and edits reflect...well, you can decide that too, if you choose to delve into this further.  Otherwise, I'll be at the mercy of any editor who has a higher edit count.  It should go without saying that there will be editors whose edit counts do not reflect their ability or dedication, be they very high or very low.  Just something to consider.


 * Now, back to making "disruptive" edits! HuntClubJoe (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Via Rail
Hello. I noticed that you recently added an tag to the Via Rail article without explanation. I have removed that tag. If you wish for it to stay there, I would suggest you explain your reasoning in the talk:Via Rail page. Jmajeremy (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry Farrell (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, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luiza Savage
Hello, HuntClubJoe. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Luiza Savage, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Luiza Savage to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Riverview
Hello, the only other page you edited today was Scarborough-Agincourt, and as far as I can tell, you've made no edits there that I contend with. As for Riverview, your removal of some of the political stuff isn't worth fighting over at the moment, which is why I didn't revert it. I'll come up with some references for the demographics when I get a chance. Cheers, -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puttee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National War Memorial (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) 08:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overturned convictions in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Bryant (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) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Papineau (electoral district)
Hi! I have noted you recently made a revision to the Papineau (electoral district) page. I have opened up a discussion about that change on Papineau's talk page. Please feel free to chime in. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour toward fellow contributors
Please refrain from making baseless claims against fellow contributors unless one has concrete evidence of untoward behaviour beyond ones personal and wild speculation. Any hostile or perceived threats against others are also not welcomed here. Do try to exercise some civility. -- dsprc   [talk]  17:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-I have a better idea: Take the shit out of your eyes and read it again! User:Raysonho has been admonished for both 3RR violations AND tampering with Rogers-related articles. I made no "baseless claims", but you sure as fuck did against me. I will assume you're a sock puppet and re-add the advert tag on Rogers Communications. Feel free to take this to a higher authority,. The absence of swearing in your flippant reply is not remotely akin to "civility". Rather, it's polite violence.

P.S. "Consensus" is not a thing on Wikipedia. "Be bold" is, and I am, especially when it comes to section headings like "Going Beyond Wireless" (clearly non-NPOV adverspeak). Get stuffed.HuntClubJoe (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus is a thing and the very foundation this project is built upon; boldness, is not (further, if one is to invoke WP:BOLD, it is helpful to be aware of what it actually says as well...). Claims of sockpuppetry are risible but WP:SPI is the proper venue - hope to see you there! Obviously "Going Beyond Wireless" heading was BS from their propaganda department -- one will notice this edit left intact. However, rather than flying off the handle and resorting to childish name-calling, one could either move along when there is disagreement, or work in a constructive and collaborative manner to achieve a consensus on text in the best interests of everyone. Many experienced contributors have been party to heated debate and discussion on a variety of topics, but it is never OK to call someone a "worthless sack of monkey filth" as it doesn't advance the project, and makes one appear petty. Again, one is encouraged to review the civility guidelines, which all contributors are expected to abide and uphold. Namaste. --  dsprc   [talk]  13:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion involving recent behaviour
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible uncivil conduct; requesting mediation. Thank you. -- dsprc   [talk]  14:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks
This is a warning regarding your personal attacks directed at other editors. Name-calling doesn't solve anything and cannot be tolerated in a collaborative environment. Please do not make personal attacks again or you may be blocked. You need to redact the attack in the thread further up this page. Thank you, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have redacted the attack in the post above. Do not restore it. Your excuses fall woefully short and you are trying to somehow rationalize and excuse your behavior which is unacceptable. You don't get a free pass to violate the policies and then try to pass off blame to others.

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)