User talk:Joefromrandb

Thank You. -Britta Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.211.66 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

 * 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  Ron h jones (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:, , 

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

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

Talkback

 * 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
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

 * 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
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". Tb hotch .™ 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


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 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)

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

WP:ROALD

 * 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
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
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
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
Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; 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 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)

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 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)

Sandboxes of Frasier Crane and Diane Chambers


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

Frasier Crane
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)

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)

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: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see 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)
 * 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.
 * Thank you very much! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 23 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)

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)

[User talk:Samuraiantiqueworld], [User talk:Nyttend]
 * 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.
 * 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 - 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)

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&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.

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 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)

Friend....
I get it that you are upset, but you can't do this. 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&cent;    &copy;  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&cent;    &copy;  13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 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 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 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 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 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)

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.

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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 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. &mdash; 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&cent;    &copy;  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&cent;    &copy;  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&cent;    &copy;  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&cent;    &copy;  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 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 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 01:00, 24 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&cent;    &copy;   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&cent;    &copy;   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. 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. dangerous panda  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.  dangerous  panda  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&#124;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&#124;contribs) 08:49, 17 August 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks,  &mdash;  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 dangerous  panda  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? dangerous  panda  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,  &mdash;  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  dangerous  panda  18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is closed per - "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,  &mdash;  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  dangerous  panda  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,  &mdash;  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 dangerous  panda  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*  dangerous  panda  09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can lead a horse to water... Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 16 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The former. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:09, 3 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 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Precious

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

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!  S ven M anguard  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&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.

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. Jauerbackdude?/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&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.

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)

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 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? Jauerbackdude?/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. Jauerbackdude?/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 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)

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)

It's finally arrived!
Hi Joe. I just wanted to thank you again for nominating me for a merchandise giveaway. That was in November 2012. My t-shirt finally arrived yesterday, a mere 15 months later. But it was worth the wait. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! With that long of a wait, they should be giving you a tuxedo! You're very welcome, Jack. You deserve it. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yikes!
Re this: No. Wow. Is it possible to make a Freudian typo? - Sum mer PhD  (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)
 * 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: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:37, 29 November 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)
 * ✅ 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)

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)

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&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.

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)

Proposed policy created
Or, well, I blued your link, anyway. 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 &#124; 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 &#124; talk 12:55, 11 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:. 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)

I'm "not not a Wikipedian"
Can you please clarify your statement at 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 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  p  b  p  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  p  b  p  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 p  b  p  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 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  p  b  p  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)  p  b  p
 * 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  p  b  p  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&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.

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. p b  p  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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. p b  p  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 p  b  p  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  p  b  p  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  p  b  p  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)

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&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.

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&#124;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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GabeMc (talk&#124;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&#124;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&#124;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&#124;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&#124;contribs)  02:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could ask you the same question. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Manual of Style/Lists:

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


 * List type: entry one, entry two, entry three

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&#124;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&#124;contribs)  03:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What's more likely, is APA wrong, or is Joe wrong? GabeMc  (talk&#124;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.  p  b  p  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. p b  p  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
 * I'm not a troll
 * "Troll" is a loaded word that shouldn't be tossed about lightly the way you're using it p  b  p  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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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&#124;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&#124;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? p  b  p  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. 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 &#124; 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&#124;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 &#124; 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GabeMc (talk&#124;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 Requests for comment/Joefromrandb, where you may want to participate. p b  p  00:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)   p  b  p  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&#124;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&#124;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&#124;contribs)  17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:30, 19 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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 p  b  p  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: 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 Articles_for_deletion/Niggers_in_the_White_House
I appreciate your participation in 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 &#91;talk&#93; 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  &#38;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  &#38;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  &#38;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  &#38;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  &#38;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  &#38;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  &#38;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  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, , , 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  &#38;L  15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Arbitration Committee for an e-mail address for the committee.   Ron h jones  (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  &#38;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 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 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)
 * 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 &#124; 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 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)

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&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.

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&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.

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  p  b  p  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  p  b  p  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.  p  b  p  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:. 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)
 * I am 135.0.167.2 (talk) and I do not know Joe (at all) and never talked to JBW (or even recall ever hearing of JBW) until I read JBW's above comment. For people reading this, you should be informed of what happened next. My attempt to put JBW's commenting to question was deleted as "trolling" here. I later had this lengthy argument with JBW, which achieved objectively nothing and was eventually ignored (now archived). If you read the arguments, I suspect you will agree that JBW failed to defend his behavior, and stopped replying exactly right when I made the most serious accusation: that he was cyberbullying (I didn't use the actual word there, but it was clear enough). Nevertheless, I feel that JBW is expecting me to simply go away and have no next step to take, as if countering the most serious accusations is unnecessary.
 * The truth is, I really do have no time for any further actions against JBW, but at least my post here will clarify to anyone reading the above that cyberbullying will not go unchallenged, no matter who it is by and no matter what it is a response to. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 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 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 &#124; 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!

 * 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)
 * 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  &#38;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  &#38;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    :Requests for comment/Joefromrandb has been closed. -- -- Trevj (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
  Grognard Mirabilaire

Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a and an, - 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)
 * There's hope, I added an infobox today, and it was not reverted ;) - my own, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 284 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

... six years now that we met in sadness and defiance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2018 (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 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)

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!
(Beyond My Ken, responding to my suggestion that his statement that "Jimbo Wales will forever burn in hell" was in poor taste.) Don't worry, Joefromrandb, every other day someone gets banned from that Talk Page. You're in good company. Liz Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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" 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)
 * 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. 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, 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. 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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. JodyBtalk 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)
 * At Talk:George Frideric Handel, for one. Info boxes, in their own peculiar way, have common-ground with more serious issues like abortion or gun control, in that a few nuts on both sides seem capable of hijacking any real chance of legitimate debate. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You say it: at talk. I asked where you (anybody) saw me adding an infobox disruptively. I looked at that discussion again: I don't see disruption there as well, simply misunderstandings. ("The infobox repeats the lead." - yes, of course, it's the concept, and actually the places of birth and death are not in the lead.) - What I also see now is that there were several supports, and the discussion civil, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we misunderstood each other. I never said you added an infobox disruptively. I thought you were discussing the issue reasonably, while others were being disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We understand each other, I think ;) - It's others whom I ask to please present one incidence of me (or Andy) adding an infobox disruptively in 2013. I would learn ;) - In that talk, I didn't see disruptive arguing, did you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 30 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)

Hey
If/when you have a free moment, send me an email. Hang in there, bro. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TWC. I hope you aren't offended by this, but I would prefer not to have any e-mail conversations about this situation. I appreciate your concern and I'm certainly interested in what you have to say. At the same time, I have a deep disgust for the way administrators engage in off-site collusion through e-mail and at IRC-admins. As a matter of principle, I would prefer my conversations about the matter to remain transparent. Do feel free to make any comments you wish here. Regards, Joefromrandb (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not like that. I'm not trying to be secretive for your sake about this situation. I actually wanted to ask you about something, and I was looking to keep it off-wiki for my sake. I already spoke up about this blocking nonsense here. Anyways, I think I'm good now, so no worries. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it involves Starblind's nonsense at the ANi thread, I'd be more than happy to discuss that. Starblind has a habit of quoting me out of context, to put it mildly. There was a situation where a user made the comment: "'R' is for 'retarded' and 'A' is for 'asshole'". I had a conversation with that user regarding the comment. Based on that conversation, Starblind made the ridiculously false claim that I had called a user a "retarded asshole". If any non-admin made up a lie like that, I have no doubt that they would be blocked. Starblind, cloaked in administrative infallibility, was not only not blocked; he was hardly even taken to task for it. Such is the caste-system that is Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are good and bad admins here, and unfortunately, the bad admins are really bad. I actually had an admin call me "retarded"... on the intellectual disability talk page, no less! Just more examples of a horribly corrupt admin system and a badly broken ANI venue... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I remember a citizen attempting to chastise a policeman who had parked his car in a handicapped-spot while he picked up his take-out order at a local restaurant. The officer went into a long-winded explanation about how "a police car is technically never parked" so legally he had the right to leave his car anywhere he wished. Similarly, administrators can't make personal attacks. If an administrator calls someone "retarded", it's obviously for that person's own good. It's apparently perfectly acceptable for an admin to call a user "a petulant piece of shit". I was quite amused when this same admin said I deserved to be blocked for saying "sycophant" (which I suppose I should take as a compliment, as it would put me in the company of a Wikipedia legend). Joefromrandb (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the analogy. Some admins here do envision themselves as 'policemen-of-sorts'. Real police find this amusing. The unfortunate thing is, there are some really good admins here. The bad admins just make wiki-life harder for the good admins (and everyone else) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  10:28, 1 December 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)
 * The munchies were free for everyone but me, as my partner and I footed the bill for the whole damn thing. We raised a good amount of money for charity though, which made footing the bill worth it, and the necessity of seeing my sisters-in-law two days in a row almost worth it. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:18, 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)
 * Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Joe....William 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Thomas.W: Thank you for your comments. I'm glad to see that someone noticed the comedy of TigerShark's proposal (i.e. IP writes "famous politician x is a cocksucker"; Joe reverts; IP gets level 1 warning; Joe gets blocked for two months). I couldn't come up with something so ridiculous if I tried. The more I realize how little TigerShark knows what he's doing, the less this block bothers me, believe it or not. It's one of the problems with adminship-for-life. In the early days, admin-tools were approved largely the way requests for rollback are today; just about anyone who asked could get them. Those that got them by simply asking continue to share equal privileges with those who had to earn their infallibility with a grueling week of hell. TigerShark is obviously completely misguided, but a bad block from someone who didn't know any better is certainly easier to swallow than one from someone who knows better but does it anyway. As for PBP, it's best to just ignore him. He is funny though; constantly linking to the RfC where he was ubiquitously chastised, or talking about my blocks for edit-warring when the last such block resulted in him being found guilty of the same offense and blocked alongside me. It's why I never kicked him off of this talk page, even though I probably should have. If you want some real comedy, check out his Simple English Wikipedia account, where he's banned. He managed to rack up about 14 blocks on his way to banishment, including being blocked for "whining" (no, I'm not kidding). Joefromrandb (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @WilliamJE: Thank you for your proposal and comments. In your tally, I think you missed Floquenbeam as supporting unblock. If BMK wants to get into the "support-of-argument" rhetoric, start by looking at some of the unlikely names supporting unblock: TParis and Floquenbeam are two administrators with whom I share a history of mutual dislike; Automatic Strikeout and I haven't shared the friendliest history; ES&L is someone I respect, but disagree with about almost everything; Drmies is another whom I respect, despite often clashing with him. It's hardly my cheering section calling for an unblock. As for the opposes, I'm not saying they're all without merit, but Admiral Caius' rationale that, "Joefromrandb will certainly continue BLP violations if he's unblocked", is ridiculous; Mark Arsten's rationale is both odd an and self-serving; PBP obviously doesn't even rate a comment; and TigerShark has continued to undermine his own credibility, particularly with his latest proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23: Re: "I believe I am uninvolved and could close this": You and I (and everyone else) know that you're involved. You attempted to shift the discussion in a fellow admin's favor by hatting perfectly relevant comments about concerns about TigerShark's lack of competence. You know perfectly well that this never would have been done if the comments were about a non-admin. When you were rightfully reverted, you re-reverted, this time calling your revert "an administrative action", and insisting that editors were forbidden to revert you. While I have no idea how winning an edit-war by invoking "administrative action" could possibly be permissible, I know it's useless to protest; fine. But please don't have the audacity to claim that you're uninvolved after taking such an action. (I'm sure you'll still swear un-involvement; no need for us to waste time arguing this here.) What I would appreciate a response to is your bizarre statement, "TParis didn't vote". TParis is the one who initiated this whole thing, telling TigerShark that he "blocked the wrong guy". With all the "it's a discussion, not a vote" rhetoric being spouted there, how can you possibly justify discounting a user's opinion based on the fact that he didn't actually cast a vote? I realize that you (or any other admin) would try to find any means possible to avoid a finding-of-consensus that a fellow administrator's actions were improper, but discounting the support of my most unlikely defender because he didn't cast a proper vote is beyond the pale. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 (again): That's a much better (and more honest) way to help keep the block in place, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: I hope, at this point, you'll withdraw your claim of "administrative action" regarding the comments you hatted. Whether someone decides to un-hat them or not, you obviously can't threaten to enforce administrative control of a discussion if you're going to participate. Finally, I just noticed the fact that you apparently had a death in the family. I hope you'll accept my sincere condolences. Regardless of what you and I think of each other in the context of Wikipedia, as one human being to another, know that my thought's and sympathies are with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe, I think your point about us as Wikipedians and us as people is spot-on, and I do appreciate your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you. I'm enjoying a Chimay at the moment, as a matter of fact. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have closed the discussion on ANI and unblocked you with a caution on future behavior. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I can't say I was expecting that. Thank you, Todd. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Joe, heed the above advice. Happy editing and see you around here....William 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and remember "outside chance" above, Jackson, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember to be careful. If someone is pissing you off, please take a moment before editing. Good luck. Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all of you who spoke up for me. I truly appreciate it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

False accusations!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your false accusations have been noted. Your honesty is quite refreshing. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist again
Thanks for your recent words of wisdom at my recent dust-up at Wikipedia noticeboard/incidents. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Kiss (sculpture)
Hello Joefromrandb, about your recent move of The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) to The Kiss (sculpture), please see the Talk page. Since there is another article about a sculpture with the same name (by Constantin Brâncuși) I recommend moving the title of the article to The Kiss (Rodin). Thanks in advance for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Joefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think the Brâncuși sculpture should be moved to "The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture)" and "The Kiss (sculpture)" should be made into a disambiguation page. Thoughts? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe E Ross
I've started a discussion at Joe E Ross on how to resolve our disagreement on the personal life section. I hope you'll join in the discussion. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have joined the discussion. I have also reverted to the long-standing version while discussion is underway, following WP:BRD. I have presented what I feel are compelling arguments why a blog-article titled "King of Slobs" is far from a reliable source for posting defamatory information about someone. Don't worry; you're one of the Infallibles, so I'm sure you'll win in the end, regardless of what our policies say. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

PC2
I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would oppose PC2 on a page which 1) would, under current rules, be fully protected AND which, if PC2 were an option for that article, the Encyclopedia would be better off if the page were editable by non-admins subject to being reviewed by reviewers.

In other words, why would you categorically recommend that even if PC2 were an option, that no page which would be under full protection under current rules have its protection changed to PC2?

To play devils' advocate, I'll name two possible arguments: While both arguments are valid, I'm not persuaded that they outweigh the benefits of making more articles editable by more people. I'm asking you if you have other reasons to oppose PC2 that I haven't yet considered. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of cases where PC2 would be better isn't worth the increased bureaucracy.
 * The criteria for selecting reviewers is too loose or has been too loose in the past, meaning there will be more opportunity for unwanted results than the current system, where administrators copy edits from article talk pages.

Re: George Washington
I did presume him dead, circumstantially. The best general reference, the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz 2nd edition, has no date of death listed, and Oxford Music Online has no updated information on him in its entry (which is taken wholesale from the print run of Grove). Since he died or is dying in obscurity, the date of death might have to be dug out of social security records or local obituaries. There's someone around here who specializes in that, but I can't remember who it is...Sorry, if the name hits me I'll let you know (it was someone I saw updating a whole bunch of jazz biographies I created a couple years back). Chubbles (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much to for your kind words about my quality improvement efforts bringing Fuck (film) to WP:FA quality: "Excellent job on the "Fuck" article, BTW".

I really appreciate that a lot, thank you!

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Getting any article to FA is no easy task, but I can only imagine the kinds of SPA's and trolls that pop up on an article like that. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Rel Melissa Scott (pastor)
Thanks for your substantial work on MS, in particular most recently deleting the (unconnected?) church sale info. QUERY: If the consensus winds up being for merge to GS, do you think the broadcast info for MS should stay at the GS article? Paavo273 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly; I think it's too early to tell. There's a lot that's conspicuously absent from Gene Scott's article as well. Gene Scott was nothing if not interesting. Often called "the cussing preacher", he was well known for his fundraising telethons, where Scott swore, smoked, and showed off his bikini-clad models. Unlike other TV preachers, who engaged in scandalous activities behind closed doors while pretending to be pious, Scott made no secrets about his harem of young women, nor his fondness for profanity. On the other hand, he had an impressive knowledge of the scriptures and ancient languages. Unlike so many televangelists who seek to defraud their viewers with their "prosperity gospel" nonsense, when Scott asked his parishioners for money, he claimed that he was a teacher and they should pay him tithes based on the value of what they had been taught. He was something of a "WYSIWYG" preacher. There's a documentary about him that you can probably find on You Tube: "God's Angry Man" by Werner Herzog. I'd like to expand the article to include some of this, but it's hard. There has been so much removed from the Webnot just Wikipedia about both of the Scotts. It's almost eerie. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, & thanks for the reply. I agree.  I saw that one.
 * As for MS, I have nothing against an article about her on WP, but IMO it's not useful to have a story that says nothing. (Personally, I would rather listen to or watch MS than these self-righteous fundamentalists who post nude stills of her on their websites and then ridicule and condemn her.)
 * If MS included her past in her ministry, it would IMO and others', make her ministry more interesting. As in what has she learned?  How has she evolved?  Jesus hung out w/ & ministered to beggars, prostitutes, etc., the down and outers, people who needed a "better song to sing."  Who better to talk about Jesus than s.o. who needed redemption?  I guess her business calculus or her advisors persuaded her otherwise.  IMO the hypocritical Puritan moral culture USA was founded on and the bourgeois Jesus the middle class have created couldn't be further from what he was really all about. But I stray fr. the subject...
 * QUERY: When you decided MC2009's fate, did you guys discuss its reliability for other less controversial info ('cuz there's lots of great basic facts there, too) and decide it was altogether unworthy, not just for the porn info?
 * IMO and others', nude modelling is not that controversial in the 21st century (Look at women like Patti McGuire and Heather Kozar and probably a lot of others--most? highly respectable guys in this day and age would love to marry a woman like that.)  Even porno acting doesn't have the stigma it used to.
 * In one situation I would agree with the editor or admin? who blanked all references to porn on the MS talk page: If it were false and she sued MC, then deleting that would have been prudent.  There's no indication she did sue; 'seems like an open/shut case. If it were false. Paavo273 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=593987335 your edit] to Loud as Fuck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Loud as Fuck stylized as (Loud as F@*k) is a compilation album by the heavy metal

Articles for deletion/Shishaldin
Thanks for removing the AFD archive templates form the page, I was quite confused because I thought it was speedily deleted, however the community hasn't reached a consensus yet. Thanks! -- ///E C GT  Mobile | On the Go 04:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Add me to those confused by that mess. It shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion during an open AfD discussion, especially as the admin who nominated it noted that it qualified for A7 but felt that a discussion was the better way to go. The end-result will likely be a redirect being re-created. As it's an article about a living person being redirected to an article about a non-living entity, it's probably better that the history not be restored. In any case, it shouldn't have been this complicated. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

 * }

You dove in. However
Your edit summary here stood out within my watchlist, so I took a look.

I am not a member of the usage crowd. I am not ireful. But you're wrong. "Dove" is common. Simply googling for it is of course meaningless: you get mentions of the bird, of the little furniture biz cum church of the Koran-burning nutball, and other irrelevant stuff. Google "he dove" and you're closer, but you get a lot of the old, the poetic, etc. However, google "dove into the manual" and you get plenty of recent, prosaic examples.

Irelessly yours, Hoary (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. You find a ubiquity of sub-standard English in "recent, prosaic examples". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Joe, are you turning into an old fogey, or were you always one without my noticing? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I think it was Tom Lehrer who said: "I went from adolescence to senility, bypassing maturity". Probably the latter. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And it was Oscar Wilde who said of Max Beerbohm "the gods bestowed on Max the gift of perpetual old age". (And one, two, three.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the misattribution to Churchill. My edit summary: "something up with we shall not put" was intended as reductio ad absurdum. If someone actually used that phrase, I would reject it as ridiculous. I still feel that preposition-stranding should be avoided when practical, and reject completely the argument that Dryden's prescription is "hypercorrect". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's get physical for a moment. "He dove around to the side of the building and looked in a window. He stood for a moment, watching with bulging eyes, half drew a pistol, thought better of the notion and replaced it, and then darted back to the saloon from which he had emerged, croaking hoarsely: 'Fight! fight!" (here). "Blake's face whitened with rage and he dove desperately forward. Smashing a hard fist into Silver Mask's face, he watched the fellow's body go limp" (here). Whew, enough of that. "The Eels also tried to be friendly, and, when he dove to the bottom, called to him to stay and visit with them" (here). &para; If you reject completely the argument that Dryden's strictures were whimsy centuries ago when he wrote them and mere poppycock now, I hardly know where to start. But I do recommend a reality-based grammar book that reflects study (rather than merely recycling older supersitions). Specifically, this one: it's lucid, reasoned, compact and affordable. Meanwhile, enjoy this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you consider Dryden to be "poppycock", I wouldn't know where to start either. I find the "ignore all rules" approach to grammar to be every bit as unhelpful as the pedantic one. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, have no fear that well-informed grammar is free of rules. Quite the contrary. After all, the Student's Introduction is compact only in terms of its subject matter: rather than the eighteen hundred pages plus of what it summarizes, it has just three hundred pages. And these three hundred have to be filled with something. Rules abound. Pp. 137–139 are devoted to preposition stranding; and aside from the simple matter of style (register), the book gives three each of "syntactic factors that disfavour or exclude the [stranded/non-stranded] version". You want reasons to avoid stranding, you've got them:
 * Stranded preposition would be within subject noun phrase: *"This is the safe which the key to was stolen" (fixed: "This is the safe to which the key was stolen")
 * Preposition phrase is an adjunct (other perhaps than an adjunct of place): *"I have a lecture ending at two, which I'll be free all day after" (fixed: "I have a lecture ending at two, after which I'll be free all day")
 * Certain expressions used as adjuncts can't be divided: *"What way am I annoying you in?" (fixed: "In what way am I annoying you?")
 * As I've said, there are also three factors pointing the opposite direction; but I'll spare you as I think I've already plagiarized enough. &para; Now, I have no opinion about Dryden himself, but I do believe that Dryden's condemnation of preposition stranding as "a common fault" and "inadmissible" (see here) was wrong-headed in its day and is poppycock now. However, I also like to think that I'm open minded; so do please explain the rationale for taking it seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit overloaded lately; behind the 8-ball at work, and my father-in-law has been in-and-out of the hospital with some serious (not life-threatening) issues. I hope to compose a spirited reply when time allows. Thanks for the beer! I indeed enjoy Orval. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Joe E. Ross
I like that you're working on that paragraph. I have a concern that merging the marriage and work life sentence makes it sound like a direct argument that he ruined all of his marriages by being difficult (Maybe the women were difficult? Who can say? To tell the truth, I don't even think we have the solidest of sources for his multiple marriages, but that's beside the point). And I'd check out WP:SAY where you changed stated to complained. I would have made some of the changes myself, but I didn't want to futz with what you were writing while you were making other changes.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really have the time to delve into this right now. I know my changes are far from perfect; please feel free change anything I've done. I'll try to address this in more detail when time allows. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No harm, no hurry. Just a couple of thoughts for later. I didn't want it to look like reverting, while you were working.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP
As far as I can tell, including the birth years of a non-notable person doesn't go against WP:BLP at all. In the case of Mayim Bialik, it is beneficial for readers, particularly for those who would otherwise not know that her sons were born within her marriage to Michael Stone. Some might ask "was ____ born before they got married?" or "was _____ born after they separated?" if birth years are not included. I understand not going with full birth dates, but for the sake of readers I would include birth years. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-notable person, no; non-notable minor, yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of age, it helps to include birth year, and being a minor doesn't go against BLP in this instance. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When you usurp Jimbo's throne you can unilaterally decide Wikipedia policy. Until then you don't get to decide that something "doesn't go against BLP" when there is long-standing consensus that it does. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood. I was saying that I found nothing in WP:BLP that suggested not to include birth years, even if person is a minor. Besides, there are many FA's that list the birth year of non-notable minors (i.e. Barack Obama). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Obama case is an anomaly, and the girls' DOB's were intentionally omitted for years. In any case, I'm only one guy; take it to the BLP-noticeboard if you want to change the policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, I can't find anything in WP:BLP that says not to include birth years for non-notable minors..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

SJB
Welcome to bizarro world, where SB, wife of former PM, appointed director of Harrods is a title format used by dozens of reliable sources with nary a complaint, and SB, the wife of GB, today spoke at a meeting... regularly the first sentence of a lede for RS articles about her, but SB (wife of GB) as a title is a steaming pile of misogynistic crap, mostly to a few lads on Wikipedia who are over eager in their defense of women's rights. If you'd like to participate in brainstorming new titles you are most welcome, I just suggest that you ignore the troll.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind words. While I've never been particularly fond of that user, I can't say that I've ever thought of him as a "troll" before today; that's actually a very interesting observation. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you probably missed the part where he trolled the whole Bradley Manning discussion. Actually hurt real people's feelings, ostensibly to demonstrate bias in Wikipedia and see how much of a shit he could be. Then he apologized for the whole thing. Troll is the best description I can think of, one because he had admittedly trolled in the not-so-distant past, and second because he uses language and hurtful insults mainly to rile up a debate, not in order to advance a discussion. I checked the logs and was stunned that he reverted the first move request, which was simply to 'Sarah Brown' (an option I liked per IAR), calling it misogynistic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had composed a detailed response, but deleted it before saving; as I understand it, he's topic-banned from that subject and I felt it would be unfair to discuss him in an avenue where he isn't permitted to respond. I am familiar with it, but I'll leave it at that. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ah yes, I had forgotten about the ban. Fair enough. Anyway, I do welcome your participation and hope you will help us think of new/better ways to name this article - thanks again for your input. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, thanks Gerald Shields! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yusuf Estes
Thank you. I was mostly bothered that Skip probably wasn't a real name, but a nickname. Regards and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was on my way to your page to apologize to you; I misunderstood what you were doing. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Moratorium discussions
Per this edit, was your thought that we discuss the Genesis creation narrative moratorium at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and the validity of admins imposing moratoriums at WP:AN? I could live with having both discussions, but I doubt people will stay on topic, even if it were made very clear what the two discussions are supposed to be about. Otherwise, we should close the article one, and just encourage people to post at WP:AN. StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just opposed to an editor closing a discussion in which he was involved. You're probably right about people staying on topic though. FWIW, I too favor "Genesis creation narrative". It's the abuseno doubt completely unintentional in this case of administrative authority I oppose. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By what definition was I involved? I mentioned that it ought to be closed then I closed it. If that makes me involved then that also means that I'm from Kansas because I passed through there once. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Given your block log history of edit warring and disruptive editing is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring ( & )? Given that the best course of action when disputing closures is to take the dispute to WP:AN or discuss it in a new sub-section on the talk page and that once reverted you shouldn't make exactly the same revert (particularly on a talk page) is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to take your question seriously when you're not asking the same question of the user who performed six reverts on that page (you know, the one who actually broke WP:3RR). I assume this is just the ubiquitous admin-phallus rearing its glans to demand I show due reverence to our benevolent administrators. I also question the degree to which you've examined my block-log. I've only been blocked twice for "edit warring and disruptive editing"the other three blocks were from admins who don't like me getting even because I dared to question their infallibility. As to "reasons I shouldn't be blocked", you could start with: "it would be punitive", and "it would violate WP:INVOLVED", to name just two. Then again, you people have never let trivial things like policy get in the way of doling out blocks to those who fail to "bow our heads with great respect and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Dewey Bunnell article
I don't know how you did it, but somehow you submitted a version of the Dewey Bunnell article that wasn't redirected back to the America band wikipedia page. WOW!! I am very appreciative and grateful. A few years ago, I tried numerous times to get the article to stick. I even rewrote it and took it to arbitration and it was voted down. ( I just looked at the talk page and it looks like the old discussions I was involved in were taken down?). Maybe they were either archived, deleted, or this is a new Bunnell page. Again, thank you. It has annoyed me for years that there was such pettiness as to justify not allowing this singer and songwriter to have his own page because it didn't meet notability standards. Christian Roess (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that he clearly does meet notability standards. The editor who redirected the article was using a ridiculous interpretation of WP:BLP1E. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a small, but vocal group of editors who feel that the best way to spread "the sum of all human knowledge" is to keep as much information as possible out of the encyclopedia. As the article has stood as a standalone for several months now, it would require a clear consensus (or an administrator willing to supervote) to move it back to a redirect. It should be okay now. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you. And a big thanks for your attention to detail in your response to me here. And yes, indeed: such a ridiculous interpretation it was of BLP, a form of madness really; and when I was dealing with that small vocal group you mentioned (so self-important! Many of them wearing it on their sleeves like it was a badge of honor), it felt like I was walking in "vicious" circles, or I had weights tied around my ankles. And so all I could manage to do was shuffle around inside a fun-house hall of mirrors, and drool. Anyhow, I take my hat off to you for wading into these edit wars. My best to you.Christian Roess (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski
Hi Joe,

I am glad to hear that you are interested in developing the Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian) article further. I am not convinced that the priest of the same name is not notable enough to have his own article. If you disagree, you are welcome to start an AfD for Józef Kowalski (priest) following the process explained here. I don't see that the supercentenarian is more notable than the priest, but if you believe that the article about the supercentenarian should be located at the undisambiguated title, you are welcome to initiate a move according to the steps outlined here. In the future, if you believe a move to be uncontroversial, it is better to request the move here than to ask an individual administrator to perform the move. I hope you find the above information useful.

Neelix (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

PS - You may find it beneficial to archive your talk page so that users with slow computers will be able to communicate with you more easily. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked you ("an individual administrator") as you were the one who moved the disambiguation page. A user unilaterally and without discussion moved the original article. I should be able to follow WP:BRD, and move it back to it's long-standing title. The user who originally moved it could then file a move-request. I cannot do so because of a technical restriction. You didn't initiate a discussion before reverting the move of the disambiguation page, but I need to initiate one to get an un-discussed move undone? Administrative infallibility at its finest! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing banners indicating ongoing disputes
Stop removing the notability tag from Joaquín_Santiago. The notability of the subject is under dispute. You're free to not participate in this discussion. But don't prevent other readers to know about it. --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BZZZT. ERROR. Nice try, though. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't understand that. What did you mean? --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When someone disagrees with a tag you add to a page, you don't get to keep adding it ad infinitum just because you want it there. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI
Obviously you are unaware that socking claims are to be backed up by a report. Gather your evidence & file and until then be quiet. I would advise you that your time would be more productively employed searching for much needed sources with a microfiche and then adding them to the sorely deficient Joaquin Santiago. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like the report you filed about the creator of the article? Go troll somewhere else, IP-sock. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC in Dave Brat
As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Your father
Thank you Joefromrandb, for your support. You know, my father was not a "hoax" as the nomination started out. I really didn't pay much much attention to the article since I figured the creator of it must have known what he/she was doing, but when I re-read the article the last time I began to suspect that the creator got something wrong. Well, that's life my friend. You take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentors (band)
you keep changing the Mentors members on the Mentors Wikipedia page ended discography. I am in the band and the other members of the band are updating it with me. Do you feel that there's false information on there? If so please tell me what you think is wrong. The original three members of the Mentors had a contract together and never has anybody officially left the band until the death of El Duce.

Please let me know thank you.
 * Marc mad dog


 * Well, unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you can post the changes you wish to make at Talk:Mentors (band), preferably with references that back up these proposed changes I'm fairly sure we can work something out. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616186565 your edit] to Bill Tilden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [Category:World No. 1 tennis players]

Great Britain at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Hi Joefromrandb.

This is Raymarcbadz from WikiProject:Olympics. I just noticed that you removed the links of those who don't have existing articles yet, and you refuse to accept my tip. My question is why rowing? Isn't this unfair to the other sections and nations articles? I think you should set up a centralized discussion with the project to avoid prejudices and isolation. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I will not ask a Wikiproject for their permission to observe site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT exists primarily for WP:BLP reasons, and it most certainly trumps the preferences of any Wikiproject's members. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Old Horvitz AFD
That was only closed because the nominator was another sockpuppet/meatpuppet of David Horvitz who was trying to get the page deleted for some art installation he was doing rather than one on notability. After all the dust has settled, plenty of people are beginning to question his notability. Keep the tag on the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Derek and the Dominos. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Please provide evidence for your claim that WP:MOSQUOTE says not to use wikilinks within quotes.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  13:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please do not troll my talk page again. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619867293 your edit] to Walter Winchell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He made his radio debut over WABC in New York, a CBS affiliate, on May 12, 1930.

NPA
Don't you ever call me a meatpuppet again. WP:NPA. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't engage in meatpuppetry, and I guarantee I won't call you one. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop removing legitimate redlink to George Waters (MP) from relevant articles. BLP does NOT apply as he is long dead (as is obvious from the dates he was politically active. I note that you are not removing other redlinked individuals from the same articles, so wonder if you really are applying your own interpretation of policies and guidelines, or simply out to disrupt another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See how easy that was? Rather that continuing to troll and meatpuppet, you did something productive. Well done! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: this - it hasn't got the same tag twice! And please stop swearing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it did have the same tag for no categories twice. The tag is at the bottom of the page....William 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring report
Please see WP:AN3, which concerns a dispute at George Waters (disambiguation). You may respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2014 (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. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, you certainly violated Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but I'm over it now. No need to report yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please strike / retract your accusations of trolling and meatpuppetry (above). NE Ent 14:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page George Waters (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should: ''Hi Joefromrandb, here's some links that may help you understand the reasoning for the dab edits - including the primary topic format. Sorry to template a regular, but maybe this will help. Regards '' Widefox ; talk 00:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Be familiar with the guidelines and style
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Only add a " red link " if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references
 * As I explained to Boleyn, the desires of your Wikiproject do not trump site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT supersedes any preferences you people folks may have as to which red links you do or don't want on your pages. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry late reply. We just mirror the articles, so how's that out of line with REDNOT? Widefox ; talk 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider your opposing towards "Wonder Pets!" renaming
Why should shows like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, Go, Diego, Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba!, etc. have the exclamation mark when Wonder Pets! strangely does not include the mark in its page title? It doesn't make sense for the page not to have it if it actually has it in the title. Momsandy (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy. 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) 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet
Hi Joe. You and I have had a sort of feud for several years now. You've politely and maturely stayed away from me and I've tried to do the same for you. Our edits have rarely ever overlapped. I think it's time we bury the hatchet. What do you think?--v/r - TP 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these kind words; you're clearly "being the bigger man" here, something I've rarely been able to do. I have to admit that I remain troubled by your block of me long agoI feel it violated WP:INVOLVED, among other things. I feel your mantra of, "if you've come here to change my mind, be prepared to change yours as well" is quite perspicacious. Although it may not have seemed that way, I've been (and remain) prepared to change my mind about the validity of that block. I've rethought it many times over the years, and I remain of the mindset that it wasn't kosher. As you've always struck me as a highly principled individual, it both perplexed and frustrated me that you've always stood behind it. While we'll likely have to agree to disagree as far as that's concerned, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my conduct after the block, which was so over the top it was outrageous. Again, thanks. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again and again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> Grognard Mirabilaire

Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a and an, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 284th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, - repeating also: yes, it's still on this page, but so far up, no prize for archiving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Gerda. It's even sweeter the third time around! Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank those who changed the font (I thought it was an April Fool thing), making the image unaligned, - I had planned to repeat only once, but you would deserve more, for going after the lost who don't want to be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

 * No need to apologize. It's original research, not bad-faith editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason.
Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason. If you want your vote to be counted, can you please provide a reason here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Everest without oxygen
Hello,

According to National Geographic, 95% of all climbers who have reached the summit of Everest have used supplemental oxygen, according to this article on oxygen use. Do you have a source that says something different? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your figures are correct. You consider that to be an "overwhelming majority"? I suppose that's debatable.   Serious climbers not only eschew oxygen, but most consider it's use to be "cheating"; in fact, many of them want non-emergency oxygen banned. While I suppose 95% could be considered an "overwhelming majority", it's misleading. Something should explain to the reader that the numbers are inflated by the thousands of hacks who have been ushered to Everest's summit. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you consider Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay and a large majority of professional Sherpa guides "hacks" then? Please name the Everest climbers who advocate banning supplemental oxygen for routine use. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. By "thousands of hacks" I couldn't have meant people like Dick Bass, et. al. I was obviously referring to Hillary and Norgay. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And the vast majority of contemporary high-altitude Sherpas, the people who.know the mountain best. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the ones who worship it as a god? The ones who believe storms and avalanches result when people invoke Sagarmatha's ire by fornicating on the mountain? Thanks for stopping by. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert Romano
Having previously edited an ER article, you may be interested in the above discussion. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger Waters/anti-semitism accusations
With all due respect, I don't see any prior discussion about this on Waters' talk page. Please start the discussion there before reverting my edit to the article.--Scaleshombre (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look again. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing disambiguation links is a WP goal, not personal
Just to let you know, fixing links to disambiguation pages from articles is a guideline, not a personal goal. To quote the disambiguation guideline Disambiguation:
 * With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

and the exceptions are listed in WP:FURTHERDAB:
 * The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are:
 * Disambiguation hatnotes: Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, which carries a hatnote linking to Watergate (disambiguation) for other uses.
 * Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation.
 * Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to Laing (disambiguation).
 * Exceptionally, in a "See also" list of interesting internal links where several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page.
 * In a redirect page (below)

So, the links on Mount Everest should be red, not link to the dab page. If you find the red links offensive (which certainly should not be the case in general, see WP:RED), you can always remove them.

Shall I restore the links? —hike395 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red links are fine, but not red-linking personal names. Personal names shouldn't be red-linked anywhere in article-space; this is primarily due to potential WP:BLP-issuessee WP:REDNOT for more information about this. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. I hadn't carefully read through WP:RED for a number of years: this guideline was put in place in 2011. I guess there's always new stuff to learn. I'll see if I can find some info about this fellow (who should be notable), and make a quick stub. —hike395 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Janov
Joefromrandb, if you would read the article Sexual orientation change efforts, you would see that Arthur Janov is discussed there. Hence, the link to Sexual orientation change efforts is relevant, and you should not be removing it. Also, it might help to read WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you have removed the link again, this time on the grounds that it is a BLP violation. If you believe that the link is a BLP violation, then feel free to take up the issue at the BLP noticeboard, or even ANI if you wish. As far as I am concerned, the link is not a BLP violation in any way. I have every intention of restoring it. I note again that you cannot continue to endlessly make reverts at that article without seeking dispute resolution or discussing the matter on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now started a thread about this at WP:BLPN. It would be appropriate for you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Your recent editing history at Sexual orientation change efforts 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. Closedmouth (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you, an administrator. Although I cower in the presence of your most awesome infallibility, stamping generic templates on my talk page is far from ideal. This is a BLP-situation, and as such, my reverts DO NOT constitute edit-warring. I won't insult your intelligence by blue-linking to 3RRNO; I assume you know it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If Closedmouth is warning you for edit warring, maybe that's because he doesn't agree with your view that you are removing BLP-violating material? He is free to explain his position on that issue, if he has one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to resolve a content dispute, I simply wanted you guys to stop edit-warring before you both ended up blocked. Have a discussion on the talk page. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to resolve anything, Closedmouth - only noting that some kind of comment (any kind of comment) on the content issue would have been welcome. As you can see, I have certainly tried to discuss matters on the talk page, but Joefromrandb has consistently refused to do this, despite being told repeatedly that this is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Pai gow poker
Hi, I've restored the article's infobox with sources. You were correct there was some incorrect information and OR, but that could be corrected with sources. Please let me know if there are any issues. Valoem  talk   contrib  21:25, 16 November 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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anaconda
I changed the category of Anaconda (poker) from Category:stud poker to Category:draw poker to match the lede, which referred to it as a form of draw poker. Disagree if you like (frankly, either category is an awkward fit), but was it really necessary to call me a clown in the edit summary of your revert? Is there a reason you thought my edit was not in good faith? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling you a "clown". I was reverting an anon's (said clown) change of the word "fuck" to "f**k". I made a separate edit changing "draw" to "stud", and left a non-offensive summary. Not sure why you thought I was referring to you, but sorry for the confusion. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, "stud" seems fairly clear to me. While discards are indeed passed, these are chosen by the player discarding (hence the nickname "fuck your neighbor"). It lacks the randomness of the recipient drawing from a shuffled deck. YMMVlet me know if you have a different take on it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

erasing sourced info using uncivil language
erasing sourced info on Coughlin from major media using uncivil language is against Wiki policy. If you actually have a position you need to state it here on talk page. TIME's Person of year cover story for example is one of the most important news articles of the year. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Hello, Joe, could you please look at the guidelines at CIVIL? From your messages to me and others here you are repeatedly swearing and insulting. There really isn't any need for it - we're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about Wikipedia's "civility" guidelines, but I do understand your point. What I mean to say is that as a grown man, it shouldn't take a Wikipedia guideline for me to know I shouldn't be an asshole to people. I'm sorry. My wife isn't around to keep me in check anymore. I was enough of an asshole when she was alive, but knowing that it hurt her when I was disrespectful to others made me make an effort not to engage in such behaviors. Since her death, I can't say that I've done that. That's unacceptable, and I'm dishonoring her memory when I act like that. It won't happen overnight, but I will make it a point to keep this in mind going forward. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullfighting
Hi there, another editor has reverted an edit you recently made at Bullfighting. Looks like it had to do with a conclusion being drawn about the practice not being considered a sport because it lacks elements of competition. If this is something you feel strongly about, may I please encourage you to consider opening a discussion on the article's talk page? I'm trying to get them to do the same thing, since their initial reversion was not properly explained. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're making my job needlessly difficult at Bullfighting. Your opponent feels there is nothing to discuss, you apparently feel there's nothing to discuss, but revert warring ain't how we resolve disputes, so please, either discuss, or drop the stick. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2017 (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. jps (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

3RR Block
Hi. You've been blocked from editing for one week due to a 3 revert rule violation. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 02:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No thanks. In the future, I'll continue to observe our WP:BLP policy. If you or one of your fellow infallibles decides to block me in violation of policy as you have just done, so be it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:El C: could you please tell me why the other editor is not blocked as well? (You know, the one who actually broke 3RR?) Please don't give me any "notthem" bullshit either. I'm not asking to be unblocked (I would never give you that satisfaction). Also, please read WP:3RRNO. Your bullying won't deter me a whit, but blocking for reverting WP:BLP violations is contrary to policy, and may have a chilling effect on users who are otherwise devoted members of your claque of sycophants. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Repeating that it amounts to BLP breach does not make it so. I can only go by the report that's filed. You may file a report here (if you do, please follow the format as best you can), on your own talk page, and I will treat it like any other AN3 report. Sorry you consider this, the enforcement of your 2nd 3RR violation, to be bullying (that is false), but I fail to see how I in any way acted inappropriately towards you. None of this gives me any satisfaction. El_C 03:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you acted inappropriately. I said you blocked me in violation of policy. You have administrative infallibility. You cannot act inappropriately. When the complainant actually said there's nothing in the rules that requires him to report all parties in an edit war, I figured that would speak volumes to the reviewing admin. I would never compile a complaint here. I don't engage in such puerile nonsense. Ever. It just beggars belief that you apparently believe my counterpart in this edit war was an apparition. It's all good, friend. A block every once in a while reminds me I'm doing something right. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very much fallible, which is why I offered that you present your claims here (yes, with evidence). Because, the burden of proof is on you, to argue your case, or compile a report. No one is going to do that for you. El_C 04:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you should have looked into that before blocking me. Not blocking (or, by your own admission, even investigating) the other party only compounds the felony, and further undermines the legitimacy of this block. It's all good though. Seriously. Bullshit blocks are a badge of honor to me.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I examined a report. The onus is on you, to provide evidence therein, as others have. I caution you that future blocks are likely to become much more lengthy. El_C 05:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:El C: Please do not misquote me. I never said "blocks are a badge of honor", I said "bullshit blocks are a badge of honor" (emphasis not in original). If the profanity troubles you, feel free to use a euphemism, but please don't lie by omission. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I was so wrapped up with my concerns about being blocked in in violation of policy and the fact that you took no action (or notice, for that matter) concerning Jytdog, that I didn't realize until now that you blocked me after the page had been full-protected. What happened to "not punitive"? I was of course, following the WP:BLP policy, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was actually edit-warring, how could I possibly cause further disruption at a page I can't edit? There's no ambiguity here (not that there's any real ambiguity with the BLP issue other than "you're an admin & I'm not, so you're right by default"). You've got balls, I'll give you that. Now we all know that "not punitive" is just as much BS as "adminship is no big deal"; all blocks are punitive, and also meant to have a chilling effect on other commoners, but most admins generally pretend to go along with it. Your "justification" for blocking me in violation of WP:3RRNO was "I'm right and you're wrong". What is your justification for placing a clearly punitive block? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to have another admin review this block. Violation of 3RR (2nd offense), I feel, deserve a block. If anything, your block should have been more lengthy in light of your block history. I take exception to your claim of "bullying," "claque of sycophants," and other instances of borderline incivility. El_C 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:El C: I've another question to ask of you as well, but I don't have time to compose it right now. I just wanted to post this here before you responded to the above question, as I don't want it to seem as though I'm being a deliberate nuisance, pinging you with question upon question. Of course, feel free to respond in the meantime if you'd like; I just wanted to make it clear it's not my objective to be a pain in the ass. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask away, but be cool. I do have regrets, in this instance, actually, but not the way you think. Looking at your block history more closely, I realize I made a mistake: I should have blocked for three months (minimum) and taken into account edit warring overall, not just 3RR violations. That's on me. I try to err on the side of leniency. I challenge you to ask any other admin how long they would have blocked you for for this 3RR breach. Any admin that's not me. El_C 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I continue to maintain that I did not, in fact, breech WP:3RR. My last block (one that was undone, not by my request, but by consensus at ANI) was 3 years ago. You're obviously quite free to lengthen the block if that's what you feel is best. I, on the other hand, would counter that giving more weight to old blocks (as well as including a block that a consensus of usersincluding many that are far, far from "Wikifriends"agreed was wrong) than a clean block-log for 3 years, is every bit as punitive, if not more, than blocking me after the article had already been protected. I also feel you were as remiss in reviewing the actual situation as you feel you were in reviewing my block-history. Which brings me to my question: Why was it not a BLP violation? You've said: "repeating it doesn't make it so". That's very true, but I've done more than repeat it. I gave detailed responses on the talk page as to exactly how and why it violated WP:BLP. As you have chosen to deny me an exception that's clearly written into policy, I don't feel I'm at all out of line in requesting an explanation. You know why I think it was? Because it's an article about a pseudoscientist who espouses geocentrism, choosing to ignore scientific proof to the contrary. I'm not saying it was intentional malice on your part. It was more likely natural human prejudice. It's easy to interpret the policy much more loosely when the subject of an article holds views with which any reasonable person would disagree. That doesn't make it right to do so. I did make one mistake: when performing a 4th revert or beyond on a BLP, I make it a point to cite WP:3RRNO, both in edit-summary and on the talk page, and make it clear that I'm claiming an exemption. I didn't do that in this case, and while it was an error in judgement, it doesn't make me wrong. The worst part is that I agreed with the overwhelming majority of what was in the article. I agreed that he's a pseudoscientist; I said I had no objection to calling him a young-Earth creationist. The only thing I had a problem with was using Wikipedia's voice to say that geocentrism is related to creationism and intelligent design. I had no objection to mentioning that they have been compared, but using Wikipedia's voice to state this as fact is a clear violation of multiple policies, chiefly WP:BLP. Creationism runs the gamut from biblical literalists to theistic evolutionists, and intelligent design is an extremely broad topic, for which the threshold is belief that there's a possibility that the Universe had a designer. Yes, both are pseudoscience, but they are light years away from geocentrism. Using Wikipedia's voice to declare as fact that all are related clearly violates WP:BLP, not only for Sungenis, but for literally hundreds of people. Finally, would you seriously insist I file a formal report (on my talk page, no less) concerning Jytdog's edit-warring when a quick perusal of the article's history shows he reverted (added, in this case) the same material 8 times in a 24-hour period? This seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTBURO. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The point about the blocks being three years old—fair enough. Maybe blocking you only for a week wasn't such a mistake on my part. No, I don't think it rises to a BLP breach, still. It might be bad editing, to intimate such a tendency. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it's injurious to a person. The point is, you could have posted it on BLPN rather than risk an exemption you were unsure of. Yes, I suggested you file a report on your talk page, since you're blocked. Why? Because I'm not inclined to do the work for you. I do insist: if you say you have proof of something, you prove it. Don't expect me to prove it for you. El_C 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It was a rhetorical question. I was just noting that you obviously didn't look at the situation with the slightest bit of objectivity or detail if you couldn't be bothered to click the "history" button at the article. Again, rhetorical, as I was simply pointing out the unfairness of the situation. I don't want him blocked. The article is full-protected now. Blocking him would be every bit as punitive and unfair as my block is. I just find it troubling that you cannot or will not see that. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh, indeed. Seems like classic projection to me. From my standpoint, it is you who could not be bothered to prove it, yet you mention it repeatedly. El_C 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Projection? You almost had me there. I actually started compiling diffs, so congratulations. Few people prove able to reach my endodermis and you're now in some elite company. Your time under my skin was short-lived, however, as I quickly realized the futility of such an endeavor. The article history speaks for itself, and barring some bizarre massive rev-del will remain there for all to see for Wikiternity. I've nothing to prove. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The point I keep repeating is that, here, on Wikipedia, the one who alleges is the one who carries the burden of proof. Were you to finish compiling those diffs, I'd have examined them. Why not seek an if you deem the block unfair? El_C 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's exceedingly rare for blocks to be undone simply because they're unfair. In unblocking me, an administrator would be acknowledging your mistake, and therefore risk the possibility of having his or her own infallibility questioned in the future. If I were to request unblocking on the grounds that it was punitive, violates WP:3RRNO, and no action was taken against a fellow user who made 8 reverts, the reviewing admin would have a hearty laugh at my expense, while quickly denying the request. The only way to file a successful unblock request is to prostrate oneself before our benevolent admin corps, apologize profusely, & beg for forgiveness, while swearing to never, ever do it again. I will do no such thing. While I certainly believe in Wikipedia's purpose enough to donate many hours of my time, as well as (rather) small amounts of my money, I don't find it to be worth surrendering my dignity. I got unnecessarily dramatic with my complaints; I'm embarrassed and I apologize for that. I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me, as I continue to believe I was justified by both the letter and the spirit of policy. Obviously I'd rather be editing than blocked; if you'd like to unblock me, I'd love that, but I'm not about to beg for it. Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I probably wouldn't unblock me. I find it very hard to put myself in your shoes, as I find this block so egregiously out of process. Forcing myself to AGF, if you truly believe the block to be valid, I guess I would require a promise from me not to engage in such behaviour going forward. I'm unwilling to make that promise. Not because I want to edit-war or be disruptive, but because I believe WP:BLP to be of the utmost importance, and fear the potential damage that would result from allowing leeway for biographies of those who are obviously bat shit crazy. It's a slippery slope, and it's all too real. Above, you wrote how future blocks are likely to be lengthier. I responded: "good". That's dreadfully embarrassing; my 4-year-old daughter wouldn't say something so childish. If I wind up blocked for 3 months, 6 months, a year - there will be nothing "good" about it. While I certainly hope it never comes to that, if that's the price I pay for doing what I honestly feel is right by WP:BLP, then that will just be something with which I have to live. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. No need to feel embarrassed, I understand that it's stressful being under a block. Still, I don't think we admins are that insular. In fact, I genuinely don't know what another admin would say. As mentioned, the page was protected around the same time—which I actually was unaware, but still would have probably blocked nonetheless. Not punitively, but as a deterrent, since, as you yourself admit, the same scenario is not unlikely to repeat... Again, my advise to you is not to risk it: take it to BLPN for confirmation. El_C 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how it's a "deterrent" if - actually this conversation is really going nowhere. It's obvious no amount of contrition on my part is going to get you to admit you made the slightest mistake. The article was protected in a BLP-compliant version, which is the important thing. Guess I'll just have to take one for the team here. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a deterrent in that next time, you are more likely to take to BLPN for confirmation it does constitute a genuine BLP issue, rather than risk being blocked for months. You already made it quite clear that you express zero contrition because you are certain that it was a BLP violation. An opinion we obviously do not share. El_C 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't bet on it. If what you've taken away from the above conversation is that I "express zero contrition", I really don't know what to say. As I noted above, it has little to do with opinion, as I'm currently blocked for not sharing your "opinion". As in: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't bet. But I hope for it. You said it yourself "I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me." I asked the protecting admin whether s/he feels this amounts to a genuine BLP issue. El_C 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You needn't have wasted time to ask Bbb23 anything about me. Even without our personal history, he is as firm a believer in administrative infallibility as I've come across and will never, and I mean never say that a fellow admin made any mistake at all. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really wish you would assume better faith. Is there anyone you deem neutral that you would like brought in? El_C 08:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be foolish of me. I told you, he and I have a history, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he's changed. Incidentally, Bbb23 is someone whom I respected as an editor. I actually supported his RfA. At that time I had every reason to assume good faith, which I did. Since then, the admin bit has gone to his head in a way I don't think I've ever seen. No admin is going to disagree with you; even the few whom I respect. It simply isn't done. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really did mean anyone—dosen't need to be an admin. El_C 09:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd trust myself to pick someone neutral, because to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't want someone neutral. I'm in a situation where I'm blocked because one person disagrees with me about a BLP issue. If I were to pick someone to review it, I would naturally go with someone whom I consider likely to take my side, simply to attempt to balance the ridiculous unevenness of the situation. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for someone even-handed, if you have any top picks. El_C 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the response that Bbb23 gave, this is just becoming more and more farcical, and honestly, it's causing me far more stress than the article did (not that I think that was your intent). There's really no need to bring anyone else into this. I know it was a bad block, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was curious why Joe's talk page was on my too-large watchlist, and it turns out I was one of the admins to block him a few years ago. So I don't know if I count as neutral to either of you, but FWIW, I think the following: HTH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a BLP issue. At least, on the spectrum of BLP issues, it is not serious. It's much more an undue weight or coatrack issue than a BLP issue.
 * I think it is not unreasonable to think it a BLP issue; and therefore (mistakenly IMHO) think 3RRNO applied. I'm curious what would have happened if El C had said "I've reviewed the 3RR report, don't think this is a BLP issue, and suggest you go to BLP noticeboard if you're convinced. But any more reverts and I'll block because I'm currently confident it is not a BLP issue."
 * I agree the page being protected doesn't mean the block was obviously out of order; there is in theory a deterent effect. In this particular case, I'm not sure that's the right approach with someone who's been around for a long time editing in good faith and who clearly thought BLP applied. Joe might be wrong, but he's not playing games with BLP to win an argument; I'm sure he really believes what he's saying.  Blocks aren't great in this situation.
 * I've seen good work from El C, and for a long time, so this is NOT an "El C sucks" comment. But in this case I'm not really... not sure how to word this... I don't support refusing to look into a situation in more detail unless Joe provides 4 diffs and makes a separate ANEW report.  Part of dealing with ANEW is looking into the whole situation.  There was another editor clearly edit warring, obvious from looking at the page history, who was not claiming any exemption. I don't understand why they didn't just leave it out until there was consensus to include it. If I had blocked in El C's position, I would have blocked the other party too.  Note I am not saying a block is a good idea at this stage.
 * If I was God Emperor, I'd probably unblock, with a notation along the lines of "claimed a good-faith (but incorrect) BLP exemption", but comment that when another clearly good faith editor honestly believes there is no BLP violation, at least acknowledging you might be wrong, and going to the BLP noticeboard is probably a better move.


 * Okay, thanks for the second opinion. But I don't agree: I still (strongly) feel that the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation, and on them alone—if they can't be bothered, maybe it's not that important to them. About unblocking: My concern is that the user clearly states he will continue to invoke 3RRNO on Robert Sungenis, reverting what he sees as a BLP violation. I can't simply unblock and send him to BLPN if he intends on doing that. I realize the page is protected for four more days, but that still remains a problematic position. El_C 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're honestly pissing me off at this point. I don't mind being blocked, but playing these kinds of games is really unacceptable. Don't come here pretending to seek outside opinions, when all you're clearly after are opinions that support your position. I tried to engage with you in good faith; it's clear to me at this point you're not acting in good faith. Not only is it "not that important to me"; I told you I don't want him blocked at all. All I wanted was for you to admit you fucked up handling the AN3 report. If you're going to clerk the noticeboard, then it's your job to investigate the reports. You were wrong to block me, you were wrong to take no action against the other user, and you're 10 times as wrong for continuing to insist you were right. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Known for my seemingly unrelated comments, here's an image for the trial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, you and only you could make me smile in the middle of all this nonsense. You're the best! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, blushing - again. If you look around on the page find the other image with the best advice I ever received on Wikipedia, and I don't have to tell you that life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * liked to read again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. Your points are well taken. My wife was by so many magnitudes of order a better person than I. How she put up with me for all that time (or what she saw in a no-good-son-of-a-bitch like me in the first place) is beyond my comprehension. She deserved so much better. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Joe. I stick to a voluntary 1RR, and bet you could do the same. If there are BLP problems, I understand there's a noticeboard. You could contact also El_C, for example. Trust us around you, you don't have to do things alone. - I just made friends with an IP whom I can't thank you per click, - it's actually nicer in words ;) - see Floq's unforgettable one.
 * @User:Floquenbeam: Saw your post & went to quickly hit the "thank" button, only to realize I apparently don't have one. Apparently the potential disruption that could ensue were I left with the ability to say "thank you" is so great it must be removed as a non-punitive prophylactic measure. So, thank you. (Note to admins: this is not an attempt to game the system by circumventing the removal of my "thank" option and manually typing out the words "thank you".) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As I recall, some vandalism-only accounts quickly discovered they could harass people with multiple clicks of the "thanks" button when it was first introduced, even when indef blocked, and there was nothing admins could do to shut it off.  So instead of making that yet another thing that admins could remove if necessary, they just took away the ability to "thank" while blocked for everyone. So it wasn't a specific choice El C made.  Anyway, glad to see everything is more or less sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock
I've reconsidered and decided to unblock you. I still have concerns, so please don't let me down. El_C 03:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not 82.20.97.197. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I hope you go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As requested....
...Here I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like I might have taken too long. Probably just as well, headed to bed now I think.  I'll pop by tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry. I got sidetracked with a phone call of my own. Anyway, this has gotten to the point where something needs to be done about it. I'm talking, of course, about a certain user that's been hounding, stalking, and yes, trolling me for some time now. I used to find him amusing, but not so much anymore. In practice, a 2-way interaction ban would work just fine. I completely avoid that user, ignore any conversations where he mentions me, and revert his edits to my user-space without response. These are largely the same reasons that I have some slight reservations about that solution in theorythe whole "pox on both houses" concept. I'm no angel on- or off-Wiki, but this is one situation where I can truly say I'm blameless. I take egregious pains to avoid that user completely, while his behavior is exactly the opposite. Is such a solution (or any other) within your remit as an administrator to impose? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't had the time to look at this thoroughly yet, so this response assumes for the sake of argument that you've described the situation accurately. Don't interpret it as something I'm actually willing to do until I've had a chance to make sure you haven't been doing your fair share.


 * I do see the recent interaction not initiated by you at your talk page, his ping and comment about it at his talk page, and his following you to the page you were all 3 reverting on that User:El C is involved in. If that's all there is, it probably isn't enough. If it's part of a longer-term pattern, then it probably is.


 * If you're both sniping at each other, and both at fault, then I wouldn't really care about how miserable you two are making each other, but an IBAN might help the community not have to deal with the fighting. That would probably require  a trip to AN/ANI.  If I tried to do it unilaterally, whichever one of you didn't like it would just appeal there anyway.


 * If it really is one-sided, then I can tell the other user that they are harassing you, and if they initiate unwanted contact again, they'll be blocked for it. By definition this would mean you couldn't really initiate anything yourself.  So it would have the same effect as a mutual IBAN, but wouldn't be logged anywhere, and wouldn't need some kind of community discussion first; admins unilaterally warn editors not to harass other editors all the time.


 * Save me some time: if I look into this, am I going to find recent cases where you picked the fight? If so, I'd suggest going straight to AN/ANI with an IBAN request. If not (if it never happened, fine; if it last happened a while ago, about when was that?), then I'll look into it further and act accordingly.  Might be some delay before I can do that. In the mean time, using the "troll" word needlessly complicated matters, even if done as a reaction rather than an initiation.  You should stop that.  A simple rollback achieves the same thing. Except for the warm feeling of righteous revenge it gives you, which is probably not healthy...


 * I guess I'm doomed to handle this in two places now, here and on my talk page. A bit of a bother, but better than you two interacting, so let's keep it this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you will not find any recent instances where I "picked the fight". I don't pick fights at all. I'm a counter-puncher, something I've admittedly taken to hideous extremes in the past (e.g. Floquenbeam, TParis). That's what makes this situation all the more egregiousI haven't counter-punched; I've ignored. The whole two-pages problem is due to my own stupidity, and I'm sorry if it's causing you additional stress. I should have just pinged you from this page instead of going to your page and asking you to come here. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rereading my post, I could easily see my exempli gratia being interpreted as some kind of J'accuse! against you & Tomit was meant, rather, as contrition as the product of self-study. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.

Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL earlier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.

I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.

I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initiates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.

This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.

In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add one more thing: I really, really think you should consider Gerda's personal 1RR limitation. 90 times out of 100, that's what's getting you in trouble. If you did that, and just banished the word "troll" from your keyboard, you'd be in pretty good shape. After El C's unblock, future edit warring is going to be problematic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Floq. The end result of your work may look short-and-sweet, but I know I sent you into the trenches of Ypres. My apologies for any stress that has caused you, and my thanks for taking the time to sort through all of this (not to mention being more-or-less forced to carry on largely the same discussion across three separate pages). I will indeed consider your suggestion. I'll consider it seriously. At the same time, I'll refrain from promising to honor itnot because it isn't an excellent suggestion, but because I'd be setting myself up for failure. As this page, and others will show, I've told numerous people here that I would make an effort to dial back personal invectives and use less profanity. Similarly, I've been careful to avoid any pledges of complete abstention (I think it was Neil Dellacroce who said: "I can't curse, I can't talk"). If you look at the time since El C reversed his block, you'll see that while I haven't restricted myself to 1RR, I have removed myself from situations where previously I would have almost certainly continued, as well as escalated. Far from perfect, but a start. Baby steps. Thanks again. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Floquenbeam Christ, I'm sorry. I should have just pinged you on this fucking page in the first place. I honestly didn't see that coming. I'm sure I should have, but whatver. I obviously will not be making any further posts at the thread I began on your page. Sorry for yet more two-page bullshit. A simple "da" or "nyet" from you here will be just fine, after which time I will either make my post or not, speaking no more of it in either case. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Floquenbeam Fuck it. I just went ahead and did it. Alea iacta est, I suppose. I realized that my attempt to err on the side of caution was only going to exacerbate things, and I just wanted to be done with it. If I'm in violation, I'll accept whatever action you take without complaint. If I'm good to go, then you needn't even respond (although you're certainly welcome to do so). My thanks, my apologies, and all that happy horseshit. What a fucking ordeal! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Floquenbeam: Thank you. FWIW, yes, it was covered, you're right. I decided to err on the side of caution as a show of respect. In a situation where no one would have found fault had you broken out the flamethrower, you used the mop. I've no doubt the latter took an inordinate amount of time longer than the former, and wanted you to know that I appreciated it; took it sincerely. Concerned that it might appear to the community that I was testing boundaries, I didn't stop to think that it may have appeared the very same way to you. I also neglected, aaaaaaaa-gain, to realize that by posting at your page I lost the ability to lock the door behind me, and... ... ... The mess I created at your talk page must have been a lovely greeting after a peaceful weekend; I left you knee-deep in the very Wiki-shit you were attempting to avoid and I'm sorry. I'll shut up now, & I'm sorry to have gone on for so long. If going out of my way to be nice is going to leave me looking like an asshole, then I may as well just be an asshole. It's a hell of a lot easier. Maybe I just suck that much at being nice. I hope all is well with you and yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It kind of sounds like you think I'm annoyed you asked. I'm not. I'm not annoyed you or PBP requested clarification, just a little surprised because I thought it was clear. But that can probably be chalked up to my having a clearer picture in my mind of what I'm trying to say than I can explain in writing. Now, if this had turned into back-and-forth bickering on my talk page, then I would have been annoyed, but that's why I preemptively archived it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Scaphism. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely was his intention, and you know it. Why are you using a template instead of speaking plainly? El_C 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason he made a passive-agressive accusation of sock-puppetry, telling me he "hoped" I wasn't that 80-something IP. He's using circuitous language so he can feign disbelief and accuse me of "personal attacks" when I tell him to stop trolling my talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yes (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Kaye. 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) 10:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Founding/founder member
Hi. I've just learned that founding member is an American expression, while the British equivalent is founder member. So you were just keeping with the BE style in your edition to the Camel article, which I reverted. My apologies for the reversion, then.--Gorpik (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. As an American who regularly follows several British media, I too, was unfamiliar with "founder member" for quite some time. I actually challenged it when it was introduced at Roger Waters, but several users showed me I was wrong. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy Mother's Day
I'd like to wish a very happy Mother's Day to everyone everywhere, to those of you who are mothers, and the women in your lives who are mothers. I send this wish in memory of my beautiful wife, a devoted mother, spouse, and friend. It was the greatest privilege I have ever known to have been her husband. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Everest 2017

 * Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts
Regarding your Thomas Kinkade reverts....

In my first edit, I pointed out in the edit summary that the source said "the artist ... used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest".

In your first reversion of me, you say:
 * That's a summary; the sourced quotes use "they"

You're claiming that the source is saying that the company is what used its Christian faith as a tool, and where it says that Kinkade did it, that's an incorrect "summary" which can just be ignored? That doesn't make any sense.

So I included an additional source which, like the one already in the article, definitively makes it exceedingly clear that it was, indeed, Kinkade:
 * A 2003 lawsuit -- it mirrored others brought by failed Kinkade dealers -- alleged the artist used his Christian faith as a tool to fraudulently induce them to invest in a Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery.

You a.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Kinkade&diff=782534379&oldid=782509039 reverted me again, not only restoring your theory, but also removing the source which I had added. You selectively restored another user's edit which had been wiped out by your revert, but you did not restore my ref. It is extremely poor form to remove a relevant source which contradicts your personal interpretation of events. Your edit summary:
 * There's nothing "unambiguous" about "they"; it's plural, not singular - it refers to the company, not the individual, against whom charges were not filed.

Well, I agree with you that there's nothing unambiguous about "they" (in other words, "they" is ambiguous). Here's what the original source says:
 * The criminal probe focuses on the same issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners. Those ex-owners alleged, among other things, that the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which must sell Kinkade's work exclusively.


 * "They really knew how to bait the hook," said one ex-dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They certainly used the Christian hook."

Nowhere does it say who "they" refers to. Maybe Kinkade did it with his wife, or a friend, or a clergyman, or it could have been anybody else. They also could have been using the singular they to refer to Kinkade. It probably means Kinkade and one or more representatives from his company. But, without contacting the reporter, there's no way to know. You have assumed that "they" means Kinkade's company, and apparently that Kinkade was not involved at all. You've then presented your theory as fact. (See WP:OR.)

But it is completely irrelevant who "they" are. Even if that one anonymous person who is quoted really intended "they" to mean the company, excluding Kinkade (which I think is very, very unlikely), that does not make the rest of the source false. The source discusses litigation brought by at least six people, and regardless of how one of them used "they", the source incontrovertibly states that the allegation of the group is that Kinkade used his Christian faith as a tool. The source which I supplied also unequivocally reports on the allegations against Kinkade.

Please revert yourself. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  01:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "They" clearly refers to Media Arts Group. You can call this "my personal interpretation of events" if you like, but I'm just following what the references say. I had meant to say there's nothing "ambiguous" about "they"; thank you for pointing out my error. At least we were able to agree about something. The six lawsuits were brought against Media Arts Group, not Kincade. The headline summary in your source indicts Kincade; this is the author's summary of his or her article. The actual material in the article cites lawsuits against Media Arts Group, and anonymous quotes alleging "they" did this or that. That "they" is obviously Media Arts Group, i.e. Kincade, et al. Thomas Kincade is to "artist" what Kent Hovind is to "doctor". Here, on my talk page, I have no problem calling him a fraud. The article is a different story. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrupt bargain
Move for capitalization done. LMK if you have any problems or need further tweaks. Best jengod (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Handicap (horse racing) Edit
In here, you said `this whole section is nonsense`.

Is there a reason why you say that? Do you have a more informational list of features that could be potentially useful in making a computer horse racing handicapping system (preferably in published paper/books)?

Cheers Ryantam626 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By "nonsense", I just meant that it's nonsense for an encyclopedia entry. It wasn't a comment about the material itself, which may very well be useful elsewhere. Wikipedia, as a rule, cannot give advice, and offering gambling advice presents an even bigger potential problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia giving advice (or rule of thumb rather), this for example; with that said, I do agree with what you said about gambling advice, and I thank you for making that edit. Ryantam626 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for incivility and continued battleground conduct.. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks! That'll teach me to talk back to one of the infallibles, huh? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Telling other editors to "fuck off" and calling them trolls seems like a constant thing with you. Please change the tone of your responses. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Unfortunately, dealing with trolls is a constant for me as well. I treat people the way they treat me; always have, always will.Joefromrandb (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Other editors are calling you a troll and telling you to fuck off? Diffs? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all there in the history. I'm no snitch. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, being called a troll is there in the history. The right to say "fuck off" is reserved for you infallibles. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:El C: Not sure it was gravedancing, given the context & circumstances. I appreciate the gesture in any case. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your block only applies to the regular English Wikipedia. You are free to edit on other Wikipedias, including Simple English. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. My wiki-sins are as scarlet, and I'm not at all worthy of such magnificent largess. I humbly prostrate myself, and thank Thee for suffering me leave. I will be in Thy debt for all wiki-ternity, dear Adm-nistrator! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam,@ User:Drmies
Re: My message at your talk page; see also, User talk:Grayfell, as I'm certain that is not at all in compliance with what you said may be permissible. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the ANEW "report" contains the blatant lie that I was blocked for edit-warring at the article in question. A quick look at my talk page and/or block log easily confirms this. Also, note the wink & a nod to Grayfell (i.e. "I had to list your name, but I don't want you to get in any trouble"). Regardless of whether or not this complies with the letter of what you said would be permissible, this is obviously an attempt to fuck with me, rather than any genuine concern about edit-warring. I honestly don't care whether or not you actually block him. I just want it nipped in the bud that this kind of horseshit is not acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait...
You've been here for a span long enough to be aware that an AFD closure can't be changed/altered at your will.And neither you are a sysop ( is far away!) to unilateraly undo a NAC.So, either approach deletion review or revert-warring.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric  16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop revert warring? That's asking an awful lot, but I tell you what: I'm willing to stop revert-warring if you stop beating your wife. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that you have already understood and stopped in your tracks, I find little reason about why I wouldn't:) Winged Blades Godric  03:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) I now realize that you posted this before the drama-fest began. I actually wasn't revert-warring, but following the suggestion by the user who reverted me that I reopen the AfD. I never had any intention of performing multiple reverts. The user who actually did begin a revert-war is the same one who started the ridiculous drama-fest at ANI. He currently seems to be picking boomerang out of his teeth, so I suppose all is well. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading trough the text below, I am sorry for your loss, and symapthesise with you--at tough times!But what I want to add is that it may be a little difficult but prob. wouldn't hurt if you would agree to a more nuanced approach as to any issue. If you ever feel a NAC was incorrect straight off veer to WP:AN and/or WP:DRV(unless and until it's pure vandalism etc. where unilateral reversion is perfectly OK!); it's less drama (I have rarely seen an DRV however good or bad culminating in non-sense proposals to indef any contributor) and more work. Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 03:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep!And I clarified in this edit about how I landed up in the issue! Winged Blades Godric 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus that noone can undo a NAC? Even a bad one, that violates the part of WP:BADNAC that says "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." which was done here? I suggest you step very lightly in the future. The above statements and actions of yours smell like an attempt to bully Joe....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --Thank you for your gracious comments!You may wish to participate at WP:AN.Also, there's hardly little point in re-starting this drama given that it's well-settled (even between us).And I certainly don't need any advice from you about my steps.As a side-note your reversion was sincerely good! That's got to do with small fonts  ..... Cheers:) Winged Blades Godric  13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Joefromrandb:--Well, I didn't know I have been bullying you! Winged Blades Godric 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI
Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Capitals00 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I like you Joefromrandb! Ethanbas (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you, Ethanbas! I like you too! (I like you. Do you like me? :)) Joefromrandb (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My concerns
Thinking back about your comments from 2012, I often thought of you as concerned by somewhat helpful. Well, before then... I was somewhat reckless. Years later to now, I looked at your block log and realized that you've gotten yourself in trouble. Right now, I saw your report at ANI. I don't know what changed you, but I hate to see you gone because of this. Feel free to contact me if you can, but I'm unsure whether you want to respond. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, George! Nothing's changed with me, I'm the same no-good-son-of-a-bitch I've always been. No, all kidding aside, George, I think the times we've collaborated in the past are an excellent illustration of my attitude towards others, both on-Wiki and off. I treat people the way they treat me, although it's probably fair to say that I may go to extremes in either direction. As I think you'll agree, when someone comes to me with a request for help, I'm quite happy to do what I can for them. I respond to politeness with politeness, and nastiness with nastiness. My wife died last September.There's no doubt I've had a much shorter fuse since then, and I'm sure I've gotten carried away from time to time. I don't suffer fools gladly in the first place, and I've never really been one to turn the other cheek. It is what it is. At the end of the day, if I've responded to anyone with snark and attitude, it's been in response to snark and attitude. What I truly can't stand is passive-aggressive hostility disguised as civility; the ones that poke the bear with the intention of being bitten so they can run off crying that the big bear is mean and dangerous, and has to be gotten rid of at any cost. I've always been more than happy to accommodate these folks with the desired response. My two youngest children fight like cats and dogs. Several months ago, my 5-year-old son was being incredibly nice to his 4-year-old sister. They were playing together quite agreeably. I was ecstatic about this new development, but kept an eye on the situation, with the regrettable suspicion that he was up to something. Sure enough, he came to me wailing and sobbing because his sister had hit him. When I asked him why she had hit him, he responded, "because I told her 'I love you". Turns out he asked her to hit him, convincing her it was a part of the game they were playing. His actual motive, of course, was to try to land his sister in time-out for an offense he committed. I let my son know that he was trying to bullshit a bullshitter (using different words) & gently explained to my confused daughter that it's never OK to hit anyone for any reason other than self-defense. I see this very same foolishness here on a daily basis. There's literally no difference between my son's behavior and the puerile baiting tactics of our ubiquitous civility crusaders. (Actually, there is one: these users don't have the excuse of being a 5-year-old-child trying to cope with the loss of his mother.) I've been chided here for being too easily baited; I've been told that I "walked right into it", or that I let myself get "played like a fiddle". Guess what, George? That's not the case. It isn't that I'm unaware of these things; I just refuse to tolerate it. If I am, in fact, "giving them exactly what they want", then so be it. There are plenty of users here, some of whom are certainly not "Wiki-friends", who see straight through this kind of nonsense. Thanks for your message, George. You're always welcome at my talk page. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need my assistance again at any time in the future! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for responding. Umm.... I think I might be fine without your assistance, but thanks. I have a lot in my mind, and a lot of things to take of, and lately I barely spend time editing articles. I might ask your help if I want to, but I think I'm good. :) Furthermore, after reading all of your response, maybe family matters more, especially since... oh my, I am so sorry for your loss, and I must give you my sympathies. My suggestion: I think you're better off spending more time with your kids and take some wikibreaks until things are more stable at home. This isn't to offend your good hard-working efforts. However, how about organizing your schedule and doing more time management (I don't mean an article ;)&thinsp;)? Hmm... I am unsure whether you can take my advice seriously. I don't have children, and I am not widowed. However, I can express my sympathies about your situation. Another suggestion: if you want, you might want to email the WP:ARBCOM, tell your situation in full and provide diffs via email, and request a motion to encourage the community to do something. If motion to encourage the community to do something is passed, then you may take some breaks and cool off. Also, kids need a good parent/role model who can cope with and come to terms with their loss. Thoughts about my suggestion? Again, I'm not trying to offend you. I was saying that out of my concerns. Well, I hope you and your kids will do fine as well, so good luck. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, George. I'm not offended at all; I appreciate your sympathies more than I can explain. I did actually take a Wiki-break after she died. I began to make the odd edit here and there after a few monts; I've continue to edit as time permits to help me retain my sanity. It helps me to keep busy, and unlike a self-indulgent hobby, it's volunteer work that helps spread knowledge. I've long enjoyed donating both time and money to worthy causes, but volunteering has taken on a special significance to me as a widower. I didn't mean to insinuate that I have problem-children, but rather offered that example to illustrate the problems that arise from childish editors, who don't have the excuse of actually being children. My kids have all been receiving professional counseling on a regular basis since their mother died, and I continue to work closely with their therapist and implement her suggestions. My family will always come first, and although Wikipedia is very important to me, it's truly not even a blip on the radar, when put next to my family. Luckily, my children seem to have inherited my wife's intelligence, as well as her comeliness, since I have very little of the former, and absolutely none of the latter. Thanks again, George. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just read this thread. Hang in there, and please accept my sincere wishes that things get better for you and your children. regards Dom Domdeparis (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

AFD closure review
Hi there. Just letting you know I have self-requested my AFD closure be reviewed - at AN. Cheers. Steven  Crossin  02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll comment there, and once I have a bit more time, I'll return to the thread I started on your talk page to complete my thoughts on the matter. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a worry. I'm in no rush. Steven   Crossin  03:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Harry Waters
I'll admit that there's no direct reference to him no longer being in his father's band, but he's not in the current band. It's also been said that Nigel Godrich (who produced Roger's new album) had a hand in choosing the musicians for the tour. He apparently also wanted to have Roger work with new/Nigel's preferred musicians. Harry could always rejoin, I suppose, but for this current tour, it's not likely. Current line up is listed on the tour's Wikipedia page.

Cheers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_%2B_Them_Tour

Edit: additionally, a tenure of 2001-2016 is listed here in regards to Harry's participation in his father's tours. http://harrywaters.co.uk

Lau Kar-Yung (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was the "2017" that threw me. A man who's obsession with perfection renders him capable of sacking his own son!? Hard to decide whether that rates kudos or censure. G. Roger Waters is an awe-inspiring anomaly! Thanks for the info. Feel free to restore your changes to the article. Regards, Joefromrandb (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CIR issues with User:Tonton Bernardo. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

End of Genesis (band)
Hi. Would you mind pointing out the 2012 article in which Tony Banks states "Genesis have come to an end" ? I agree that the band is no more and see no reason to leave the active years as "2006 --", but we need reliable sources to change that information, and you didn't add them in your last edit. Clausgroi (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't add them because the statement from Banks (with a reference) is already in the article's prose. I didn't change the opening sentence, as there seems to be some valid ambiguity and nuance as far as whether Genesis "were" or "are". My preference is certainly for the former, but users have long argued that Gabriel's allowance of the minuscule chance of a reunion at some point is sufficient cause for the present tense. My position is that even if such a reunion were to be announced tomorrow, they were still completely inactive going forward from 2012. Banks' statement would seem to me to shore up my argument for this position; YMMV. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't found this quote by Banks in the article. Would you care to show me where it is ? Clausgroi (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll find it. Bear with me a bit please. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and I can't find it either. I definitely saw it, but it may be a day or 2 before I can track it down. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked some more and even did a Google search, and I'll be a son of a bitch if I can find it. I'll find it sooner or later, but if you want to change it back for the time being, go ahead. I still feel it's unnecessary. Whether Genesis "are" or "were" is debatable, but there's no argument as to whether or not they've been active. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in my best interest to leave the "active period" as 1967-2007 (with a hiatus between 1999 and 2005) because I agree with it (there has been no actual activity in the band since the end of the "reunion tour"). However, as you know, our interests must not affect the impartiality of the article. Let's look for a reliable source one more time. If we can't find it, then we'll have to revert back to "2006 --". Clausgroi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The mystery's apparently been solved, as it seems an anon removed it from the lede. In any case, we seem to currently have a talk-page consensus regarding both their current inactivity and their "years active" status. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

De Havilland
Hello Joefromrandb - I'm stopping by here to rephrase my edit summary upon which you commented, courteously and without re-reverting. My use of the phrase "completely rejected" was, as you say, misleading. I meant to refer to the fact that the people who entered a vote in the formal discussion and explained their vote were unanimous in saying no to the revision. Further, the consensus box from March 26th lays out the pros and cons of adding "British" to the lede pretty clearly, IMO. My bluntness in the edit summary was the second half of it - the first half emphasizing the need for collaboration and suggesting that such collaboration on the Talk page led to a consensus of "no" to a change. Now, I don't have a particularly passionate position on the issue, though clearly I agree with "American." I would, however, be entirely amenable to reopening the discussion with new and added info, as you have already done, and making a formal proposal again and see where it leads. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. I have no desire to reopen the discussion, and I figured a quick null edit would suffice for my 2 cents. I actually agree with "American", although there are valid pros and cons to several options (and hitchhiking). Joefromrandb (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3


Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You appear to have broken 3RR. You should consider agreeing to take a break from this article, because WP:BLP doesn't seem to prevent addition of correct and properly-referenced material. Arguments from WP:UNDUE wouldn't be enough to let you break WP:3RR. It is a matter for editor consensus as to what is undue weight; reverting potentially-undue material counts against the 3RR limit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ While I disagree vehemently, I respect the fact that you came here to drop a note rather than rushing to block me. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Olivia De Havilland nationality reverse
I need a reasonable explanation in order to justify your reverse in my edit on De Havilland's dual citizenship. She is not just American, she is both British and American, there's no reason to avoid one of them. Please offer me an explanation, my edit was 100/100 accurate, there is no reason to forgive it, no reason to reflect about its inclusion; she is both nationalities, end of the talk. Does the word "British" cost cents with its inclusion or what? It's absurd to discuss something so clever. Alvite (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See the talk page, where this issue has been discussed at length. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your criteria. Sorry, I will continue editing her nationality over and over again, because you're not correct on your appreciations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my "criteria", it's the collective decision of the editors who are active at the article. You don't have to agree with it, but you will need to convince your fellow editors that your version is superior if you want it to stay in the article. "Editing it over and over again" is one of the best ways to ensure that your desired version will not be accepted, & it will also render you not only unable to edit the article, but unable to propose edits on the talk page as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please explain this
I'm mystified by most of your reverts at Kim Davis, but this one, with it's unhelpful edit summary, is particularly vexing. The sentence is almost verbatim from the source. You seem more interested in winning an edit war and berating other editors, than actually improving the content.- MrX 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Kim Davis
On Kim Davis:


 * 1) Please promptly revert your latest edit. You are over the 3RR limit. (I
 * 2) Please don't repeatedly curse in edit summaries. It's not helpful and is not civil.
 * 3) As for the sentence at issue, the text of the article said "release" but clearly meant "removal" (as supported by the source: "The governor added that he hYas no power to remove Davis from office.") - you could and should have fixed the typo rather than messing up the sentence and leaving cryptic edit summaries.

--Neutralitytalk 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR limit. My edits have been to correct clear and obvious BLP violations, exempt, per WP:3RRNO. (Don't forget the perfunctory blue link to WP:CRYBLP when you respond with some nonsense about the article being WP:BLP-compliant.) Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what relevance BLP has here. This dispute, as far as I can tell, is literally about a typo ("removal" vs "release") and your over-the-top response to it (when most people would have fixed the typo). Let me focus on the article. Do you object to the following sentence:
 * "Beshear added that he lacked the legal authority to either remove Davis from office or to relieve Davis of her statutory duties."
 * Cited to this new CNN source ("The governor has no legal authority to remove Davis and cannot use an executive order to relieve her of statutory duties, he said."). Pinging as well. Neutralitytalk 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. I'm not buying for a second that it was a typo, though. Had it been, Mr. X would have corrected it, rather than returning it verbatim. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it was. I though I had copy pasted the exact quoted text from the article. You could have easily copyedited it rather than punch the revert button. Or you could have pointed out the error and I would have gladly fixed it.- MrX 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did point out the error, again and again. You did not "gladly fix it", but rather suggested I "continue to reread the source until (I) understand". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are now edit warring over the infobox image. You're past 3RR. Please stop.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm editing it in accordance with policy, much to the chagrin of a handful of editors who have used the article as their personal soapbox for a long time. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (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. - MrX 20:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Undid your Twinkle revert (without the use of the Edit Summary) of my Good Faith Edit
Twinkle page Twinkle states,
 * "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

You gave no explanation for your revert.

Note, that I had written in my Edit Summary that the WP page is the same name as my change, not the redirected Chinese name used prior to my "Good Faith" edit. The original Tibetan name for this ancient and famous location is certainly a 500+ years old and perhaps 1,000 or more years old. The relatively new name (after 1959) is a Chinese transliteration of the current Tibetan name as well as ancient Tibetan name of this location.A ri gi bod (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A second revert using Twinkle without using "Edit Summary"A ri gi bod (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite the Catch-22, isn't it? Trying to be an expert wiki-lawyer, while still needing to portray yourself as the poor, clueless noob who was just trying to be helpful. You seem to know how things work here well enough to easily understand why your edit wasn't appropriate, which, in turn, renders your feigned surprise at not getting any AGF rather moot. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Glossary discussion
Joe, I have opened up a discussion at Talk:Glossary of North American horse racing. In case you haven't seen it, I urge you once again to please stop removing cited content -- if there are problem entries, please use tags so they can be fixed, not deletion. It does appear that one web site has changed the content of their page or else things were aded but mis-cited, but that's a fixable problem by seeking content elsewhere. I spent a considerable amount time reviewing your last set of edits and would value you engaging in talkpage discussion. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "cited content" that I removed was copyvios. Obviously, feel free to seek content elsewhere, but that doesn't mean copyvios stay in place in the meanwhile. They have to come out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not your original set of arguments, and it also is not an accurate statement for all the content you removed. That said, I ran earwig and found that one page that flags is a wikipedia mirror and I did an extensive review of the remaining pages flagged, rewriting several entries that had been inserted verbatim.  Once again, please fix these problems, and stop blanking the entries altogether (in the above example, you could have removed the phrasing but kept the word itself if your concerns were not mere pretext.)  From here forward, let's please continue the discussion at the article talk so others may weigh in.   Montanabw (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Joefromrandb: You are engaged in revert warring. If you revert Ricky Rodriguez one more time, you will be in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. Please use the article's talk page to discuss why you think that paragraph is no well-sourced instead of reverting. Thank you. --Thorwald (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Olivia de Havillad
Could you please show me what's being overlinked? Why do you keep removing linking in an appropriate location for linking? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I already showed you what's being overlinked (as did another user). There's no reason to link everyday terms like countries and large, well-known cities (allowing for exceptions, of course, where it would be reasonable to expect that a link would be helpful to a reader wishing to get a more-comprehensive understanding of the topic). For instance, Tokyo could reasonably be linked from the Japan article, and Japan could reasonably be linked from the Asia article. There is no reason whatsoever for these links to be in de Havilland's article, info-box or elsewhere. If you feel there's an egregious reason that ignoring guidelines would improve the article, that's fine, but it's on you to make your case and build a consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Im finding your response a bit rude towards the end as when one normally cites overlinking I take it to mean it's been linked over and over in the article already. Quite frankly that argument is a tad silly IMO, but to avoid edit warring I won't revert back. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what's meant by "overlinking"; see WP:OVERLINK. Obviously, repetitive linking should be avoided as well, but "overlinking" refers to cluttering the text with low-value links that have little, if any, direct relation to the article. I believe User:Tony1 has, amongst his excellent tutorials, a page (or at least a section of a page) detailing the concept of "smart linking". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rusted AutoParts, it was recognised long ago on en.WP that linking carries a cost as well as a benefit. To briefly summarise the costs: dilution of the linking system in listeners' minds; lack of specificity in link target ; the sea of blue, which makes the text less easy to read, and brings a messy aesthetic to the page; failure to take the opportunity to use editorial skill and knowledge to ration the links for whatever we assume is the typical reader of an article (maximised utility, minimised linking); the forgetting of the fact that readers can type into the search box. Tony   (talk)  06:41, 20 August 2017 (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. - MrX 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Oshwah:That's some pussy shit there. Are you trying to fuck with me? A month! Make this fucking block for a month. Otherwise, this shit will just start all over in 2 weeks. I'm fucking serious. Please change this block to match the duration of whatever horseshit restriction has been imposed on me & don't make me cause any more needless disruption 2 weeks from now. It's almost like the "2 weeks" thing was on purpose, just to fuck with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:slakr If Oshwah doesn't have the balls to do it, maybe you'll have the decency, since you caused this entire fucking mess in the first place. Once again, I absolutely refuse to honor the restrictions you have imposed, and request I be blocked for the duration. Are you seriously going to make me make more meaningless edits to BLP articles in 2 weeks, as I just did? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the 2 weeks was only to reflect the previous block, which was 1 week. I don't think there were any bad faith involved. Do you want one month just to make a point? Alex ShihTalk 06:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To an extent, yes. What I'm saying is that I absolutely refuse to abide by the edict set down by slakr. I said from the beginning, you may as well block me, because I promise you I will disobey the edict. It's not exactly "to make a point", unless the "point" is "I'd rather be blocked than obey an unjust edict". I will resume reverting any and all BLP violations once this 2-week block has expired, and I don't give a shit that I'm not "allowed" to. I'm asking for one month now to prevent the inevitable drama in 2 weeks, which will certainly lead to me being blocked again, possibly for longer than 2 weeks. Why is that necessary? Just block me for a month now and be done with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though this would be against the principles of WP:COMPULSORY, I have extended the block to one month as I hope this would be better for the place. Hopefully we can re-visit the issue to reach a resolution at some point after one month. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 07:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That took balls (the good kind)! There will be nothing that needs to be revisited in a month. The "restriction" unjustly imposed will be over, and I will be free to resume editing. Again, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:slakr: I'll AGF that you still haven't noticed, but as I have chosen to be blocked for a month as a prophylactic measure in light of your baseless and unjust edict, will you please have the decency to revert your annotation to whatever page that was. As I can't edit anything other than my talk page for the month, it goes without saying that I can't revert WP:BLP violations. You've won; you succeeded in showing me who's boss around here, & your ex cathedra fiat will be obeyed by default. There's really no call to add insult to injury. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No; the WP:ACDS sanction (1RR) stands regardless of the current block for disruptive editing and incivility, as the current block, which likely resulted due to your ensuing behavior, wasn't recorded as an arbitration-enforcement action. You can therefore appeal your current block through the normal unblock process. If you feel I was in error with the 1RR sanction or that it was otherwise unwarranted, you can appeal the sanction, usually via arbitration enforcement. -- slakr  \ talk / 01:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:slakr:Why would I want to appeal the block? I requested it. That was the entire pointI said I'd rather be blocked than edit under the ridiculous, egregiously unjust restriction of being forbidden to revert WP:BLP violations. I would have continued to revert them on sight, and with extreme prejudice, on a daily basis. (I know, what a malicious prick I am!) With escalating blocks for each "violation", I'd have likely wound up blocked for 2 years by the time a month was up. I asked you to simply block me. When this fell upon deaf ears, I set to making multiple null-edits, followed by reverting, to various BLP articles. I was openly defying your ridiculous punishment, yet you did nothing. User:Oshwah tagged in at this point; can't have one of us commoners publicly thumbing his nose at one of the infallibles. That shit's bad for business! Of course, the 2-week block was a second try at the setup, done no doubt with the knowledge that I would resume once the block had expired, earning me a new block, almost certainly longer than 2 weeks in length. Thankfully, User:Alex Shih had the decency and the balls to honor my original request, which first you, and then Oswah should have done originally. Please don't pretend I was blocked for my "ensuing behavior", as though I committed an infraction that merited a block. That sounds like: "You dont decide whether you get blocked or not; you're blocked, but because We say you deserve to be blocked, not because it's what you wanted". This whole thing is so fucking ridiculous. "The restriction stands regardless of the block"? Are you kidding me? That's like the proverbial jail-sentence of "life plus ten days". The "restriction" was rendered completely moot upon the block. I'm not permitted to edit Wikipedia for a month, and furthermore, during that same month, I'm forbidden to revert any WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours. Have you by chance served on the Arbcom at some point? Because that non-sequitor sounds like it was ripped straight from one of their "findings-of-fact". Again, I will not be appealing this block, as I'm the one who requested it (not that I've ever appealed any block). Therefore, the "restriction" of not being permitted to revert WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours does not exist, in practice or in theory. On the contrary, I'm not permitted to revert them at all. It beggars belief that you would insist on retaining something so patently absurd with no rationale other than "I Am the Law". Your "restriction" is far more than unnecessary at this point. It does not exist. It has been superseded by a more-restrictive set of parameters, albeit one of my own choosing. Is being "right" truly that much of an issue to you? I'm again asking you to revert these phantom "restrictions". They have no point, no value, and no effect whatsoever on any editing taking place here, good, bad, or indifferent. --Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Joe, how do we get out of this? I happen to think you were right in the Waters article (and 's edit solved the entire problem in what I think is a proper way), but you were blocked of course for incivility. You don't want to ask for an unblock, that's cool, and you don't agree with slakr's edict, which I assume is the 1R restriction. Well, that restriction is only for a month, so that's not that much of a leash, and you could of course also disagree with it while not violating it. Or you could argue your case at AE--but I think, judging from experience, that the whole fuck fuck fuck thing will weight against you, even setting aside the edit warring (I know, you'll claim the exception, and that is understandable). I don't know; I suppose the ball is in your court and (I think I've said this before) I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here--but I'd rather have you editing than not editing. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I'll post a proper response at some point today, as time permits. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Ping me if you can there's anything useful I can do (that might be a first...). Drmies (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Drmies:Just wanted to take a minute to let you know I haven't forgotten. I have some family issues with which I'm dealing, but I still intend to respond to your message. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, you don't owe me a thing, but thanks for the note. Good luck with those issues; they matter more than "something's wrong on the internet"--this is advice I need to take myself too. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? No, I can't. I'm currently blocked, as I've chosen not editing at all over genuflecting before a corrupt administrator & promising to obey. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have to stand up for slakr here: you don't know s/he's corrupt, so I could cite you for a BLP violation. :) Drmies (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas
You made a pretty darn weak argument when you reverted my edit the last time. You do NOT own the Kirk Douglas article! I was trying to IMPROVE the article so it made better sense. If you are not a dope, Marvin Gaye was a British singer, and he was born in London. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's about this., since the claim is supported in the #Style and philosophy of acting section, citation should't really be needed per MOS:LEADCITE. But I'll add it since it has been contested. Next time would you please provide wikilinks and/or diffs if you are going to talk about something that happened one or two months ago? Alex ShihTalk 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. Indeed, statements in the lede do not need refs, provided they're properly referenced within the body. The edit also changed Democratic Party "member" to "supporter", which is not at all the same thing. Alex Shih, you have far more patience than I. That you managed to deduce that from a cryptic mention of Marvin Gaye is quite impressive! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm X
Despite your assertions to the contrary, there was discussion about the changes and consensus was achieved. You have now made four reverts in less than 24 hours. Please self-revert your last edit or I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had already self-reverted, but seeing these puerile threats makes me seriously consider reverting my self-revert. I really expected better from you, Malik. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry that you think it's appropriate to make three reverts in 10 minutes, but that my concern about your out-of-control edit-warring on a featured article is a "puerile threat". If I thought it would do any good, I would recommend that you read WP:BRD, but I have a feeling that it would be a waste of both of our time. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Malcolm X
Thanks for your attempted corrections. You're in the right—most experienced editors can see that. Unfortunately you are up against a small group of individuals who nonetheless control the article. They insist on enforcing an usual set of standards that are unlike most other Wikipedia biographies. It's all very strange; it's been discussed previously. Best to quit now before you're accused of edit warring! --Hazhk (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, or the patience to deal with it right now,but this tiny group doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as guidelines go, and I will return to it eventually. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If taken to a community notice-board, with site-wide participation, this "local consensus" has zero chance of holding up. Nonetheless, I'm very hesitant to get involved with such things. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dylan as Nobel laureate (rather than winner)
Hi Joefromrandb, I saw that you reverted this edit by Skymandr. I have taken a great interest in the Bob Dylan page and tried to keep it up to date and readable. I thought that in this instance, Skymandr was right. Winners of Nobel prizes are usually described as "laureates". I thought I would check with you, rather than revert, as was my initial impulse. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something? Best, Mick gold (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Nobel prize winner" is a common phrase. Multiple sources refer to Dylan as such. I'm sure that plenty use "laureate" as well. It's not a big deal to me either way. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK
You can't just pick and choose which part of a guideline you want. The very same guideline that you cite to justify your edit also contains the explicit guidance If you want to change WP:MOSLINK and WP:MOSDAB, please establish some consensus before making accusations of arrogance. older ≠ wiser 00:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Please fuck off and go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2017 (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. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Joefromrandb, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As you wish. See WP:ANI.   Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, as much as time sink it may be to let this drag on, an indefinite block 4 minutes after the AN/I report was filed, it is quite possibly an overkill here for an editor that has been around for nearly 7 years with 20k+ edits. This is going to generate a lot of negative response. Alex ShihTalk 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, and with all due respect, Joefromrandb can use the unblock requests to detail how they'd continue to contribute without the gross incivility. There's plenty of talented content contributors who manage, so I'm sure they can too -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There'sNoTime, I agree with Alex Shih. Toddst's silly NPA warning looks like pure provocation to me, designed to get more ANI fodder. I'm composing a note to that effect for the ANI thread, but I expect it'll be closed before I get there — it's often the way. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Happy Mother's Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda, as always! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can make you smile once more: look at the top of my user page. In case you look in a few days only: it's this title of which I said but forgot where that it's a perfect description of much we do here. I have my most recent DYK in the position, and after several days of changing every day, that title seems there to stay ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed! Sadly, there's more of them than there are of us, but as long as there's some of us left, it's still worth being here. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are in the same boat as TRM, did you know? I couldn't help mentioning the opera on the talk of the blocking admin. Missing Hillbilly on holiday also, - you are in good company ;) - In the future, please stick to 1RR and find another expression to reject being baited. Sorry, no new and better ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, I won't be intimidated. I'll continue to use "fuck off" when it's appropriate (as it absolutely was in this case). Joefromrandb (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joefromrandb, I have changed your block duration from indefinite to three months per this discussion. I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, when "fuck off" becomes indef-block worthy, then they have really won. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Doctor. You're a plain-spoken man. We don't always agree, but I always appreciate your input and the perspicacity that invariably accompanies your opinion, whether defending or rebuking me. Your conduct as an administrator has always been (IMHO) beyond reproach, something that's as laudable as it is rare. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. That may be my highest honor yet; I'm in some very good company there. Meanwhile, the ANI has run for over a week; there's clearly no consensus for the block, yet no one has unblocked me. All the while, the appropriately named There's No Time laments as "surreal" the experience of being held accountable for his bad block. Only on Wikipedia (where "infallible" means INFALLIBLE!)! Joefromrandb (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good company, indeed. I thought 3 was a good number, or could have added Eric and Coffee. Alakzi gave up after a series of unbelievable blocks, - I miss him. - I understand that you unblocked now: that's good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. You've been a source of strength to me during myriad nonsensical blocks over the years, as well as a level-headed voice of reason, somehow managing to stay afloat in a sea of ubiquitous insanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * blushing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The easy way to stay afloat is: avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! Did you hear that, Toddst1? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of that Amen, I wrote a new article, Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, at least a start. The rest of the day, I'll be at the opera pictured on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Look again, improved, - can you help to make it more English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try & have a look later tonight or tomorrow morning, but make no mistake, Gerda: your English is quite good. It's actually better than what I see from many native Anglophones. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! You must be very proud of yourself. Meanwhile, Todd's trolling goes completely unpunished. Double fucking standard indeed! (Does the block extend by a month, now that I've said "fuck"?) As for your offer to "unblock immediately" if I "throw my hands up" (read: prostrate myself before you and beg to be forgiven), that will take place on the day of Mahmoud Abbas' bar mitzvah. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly" and "the only thing I regret in this block is backing down from the indef. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)" are logically consistent? More evidence this new admin is really messed up. --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IHTS, both for sticking up for me an ANI, as well as having the balls to call them as you see them. The most toxic presence at that board is the claque of "this user is not an administrator, but might like to be one someday" folks, sowing seeds for their future RfA's by defending the indefensible. It was a stressful experience for me, but watching you tell it like it is to Snow Rise & AutomaticStrikeout brought me some much-needed relief. Be well. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I made it a point to never reply to Snow Rise in that ANI, nor would I. (I recognize that sickly sweet sophistry, it gives me a headache, it's shallow & like a bucket of water filled w/ 1000 holes. Not worth it. Frankly nearly every sentence he writes is hard for me to read w/o getting nauceous. The implied condescension, probably unintentional but unmistakably there, e.g. referring to you in third person constantly instead of by username, as though he thinks he is a clinical psychologist in white lab coat, vetting you as if you were some sort of animal or candidate pet for family adoption. "They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection." All this para-psychology on the ANI cesspool board, why do some people feel they can do that? They feel there must be "anger" behind a bad word, how shallow is that? Who the H does he think he is? Let's see you've been editor at least 7 years, and Snow Rise writes: "this user [...] may indeed just not have the temperament to participate in a project of this sort." And saying you have an "inability to internalize" ... "baseline conduct standards of this project". Always so superior, and always black & white. Sounds like a computer w/o the concision & w/ a screw loose. Really no one could pay me to have any discourse w/ Snow, the combination of mock argument & superior tone is just too creepy for me. For sure he'll be at RfA in a year. He said he thinks himself a "shoo-in". Oh nooooooo!) ¶ AutomaticStrikeout I'll also have nothing to do w/. He badgers my posts at RfA & now ANI, even I'm seldom on public boards. (He apologized once to me at my Talk; seems to have forgotten that. I was nice to him then, but he turns tail again. So I just give him smack back, he fabricates arguments to try & engage; I'm not that stupid.) ¶ As much as I think ANI is a disgraceful form of pseudo jurisprudence, one for the anthropological record books, I have to say, there were several experienced users & admins there who were great w/  observations & perspectives. Including Drmies. They were great, concise, all policy & experience talking. The parade of extremist civility warriors, I presume, get little weight from any closing admin. So I learned a little respect there for the process, even the format is a swamp, the thing is, there's no guarantee any of those experienced voices are not on a month-long vacation in Bali. And what then? (That's the point. The "community" is then the caste of warriors.) ¶ Good luck, me thinks you have multiple buddy-admins' eyes aims locked on. --IHTS (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, there's no need to get personal., is it possible to ask for voluntary 1RR? I think it's better to turn off the revert notification; the system design was flawed to begin with. Alex ShihTalk 06:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hello Joefromrandb,

I just noticed on my watchlist that the block against you has been lifted. I just wanted to welcome you back to editing, and wish you the very best. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your ANI Thread
I've closed your ani thread with no consensus for a indef ban at this time, however your rough-around-the-edges commentary needs to be reigned in some. To that end, then, you're now subject to an editing restriction: incivility added outside of your own talk userpages during the next 6 months will invite an ANI thread on whether or not to move forward with the indef block. In an attempt to be fair, until that discussion occurs, you are not supposed to be indef blocked, and if that consensus is reached it has to be implemented by an uninvolved admin. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 13:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What a dirty fucking trick! So much for AGF! When you wished me "good luck" above, I was foolish enough to believe it meant "good luck". Apparently it meant "good luck; wait until you see the shit-storm I've got cooked up for you, ha ha ha ha ha ha!!". Joefromrandb (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
It is with great pleasure that I remember how I met you five years ago, missing the same great editor. We sit in the same boat, labelled for battleground. My voluntary ways to overcome it (although I realize that it will always stick): 1RR, no more than 2 comments per discussion, and ignore ignore ignore (or even more than 3 times, see?), the best advice from a dead friend. Some edits don't deserve the effort of an edit summary. We still look for a good cat image to illustrate ignoring. - I decorated my talk with a song of praise today. The Magnificat is a good text to reflect, any time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :)

 * I have not, to tell the truth. On the other hand, I have been in a cockpit, & I've seen a grown man naked. Realize that by opening the interrogative statement used to test knowledge with "Joey", you've ruined the chance for me to demand that you stop calling me "Surley"! Cosi e vita.


 * Hey, I laughed so hard there I forgot to sign my post! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI
...you've been mentioned on the ARBCOM page in the section Arbitration/Requests/Case, however the filing party apparently didn't bother to notify the people in the statement section, hence the message. If you'd like you are welcome to leave your two cents on the page, otherwise feel free to disregard this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Reading & responding at that page was causing me an inordinate amount of stress. I decided to just get back to improving articles, & not even look at that page until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For what it's worth (and I betting its not worth much), the arbcom folks look ready to punt your case, which means it'll go back to the community...which can't decide what to do with you, so that in turns means the community will answer to me with regards to blocking you until April, and after that it looks like you'll be free to edit with everything you've got for good long while. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the community will (or has to answer) to you at all, in this case. You chose a lengthy bureaucratic procedure. Your reasoning (among other) was "As much as it pains me to admit, this is beyond my ability to adequately deal with, and due to the long time over which this has played out it its probably beyond the community's ability to adequately deal with as well. At this point it is my professional opinion that this matter should be referred to the arbitration committee for a thorough, independent, and formal investigation into all aspects of this matter and to better balance the needs of the community against the allegations of the editor." The committee looks like it's going to decline. I think Joe is free to edit with everything he's got as soon as that happens (though, in the encyclopedia's interest of keeping you unblocked, I, of course, don't hope you really will use all you've got, Joe :-). ---Sluzzelin talk  23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb arbitration case request archived
Hi Joefromrandb. The Joefromrandb arbitration case request has been declined by the Arbitration Committee and has accordingly been archived. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect timing: the wake-up call for justice in our time (mentioned a bit above) is on the Main page right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Moar music
More music, - it's unbelievable how it doesn't leave my mind almost a week later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's amazing how much beautiful choral music I've discovered as a result of your many DYK's. Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For this one, there's even a YouTube of the first movement (last years version), bottom of the article ;) - If you want more ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Today, we sang a good piece by the composer with "us" in one boat. DYK: only one question this year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I love it!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your good wishes, happy thanksgiving to you and yours! This year I have only music to offer, but there were more delicious variations before ;) - I planned to expand today the song pictured but meeting people was more important. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

For a Few Dollars More
Your recent revert at For a Few Dollars More. Please visit the talk page. Thank you. Hull16 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Hull16 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Stopping Genesis (band) edits
Hi joefromrandb, you recently reverted an user's edit on Genesis (band) with the change comment Knock it the fuck off. I think your revert was completely right so thanks for doing that. However, please can you keep the change comments WP:5P4 and "respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree". At worst, it can provoke time-consuming behaviour from aggrieved users. I know the Talk-discussed history behind the 'is'/'were' thing in Genesis (band) and understand that it's very annoying to have to deal with it twice from that user. On that, I'm right behind you and thank you for your edits to fix Genesis (band). All the best. ToaneeM (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Had I said, "knock it the fuck off" the first time, I would understand your point. When I explained it thoroughly and politely, only to be reverted without comment, I don't see the need to be so obsequious. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, my POV here is only that WP:5P4 applies all the time, no matter how many reverts. Without that, we all know that discussions between a huge number of people on so many controversial subjects get quickly out of hand. Politeness isn't obsequiousness and it doesn't seem much to ask of us all. I hope that you'll see what WP:5P4 is about, makes life cooler. Again, I appreciate your work there, I'll leave you in peace and best regards.ToaneeM (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to cut Joe some slack here - although he's used the "dreaded 'F' word" it doesn't seem to be any less WP:CIVIL than this edit, so for me to criticise him would be a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have the article watchlisted after I took it to GA and there are a number of perennial things that people squabble over. This is unfortunate as there are probably bits of prose that could be tightened up, and some of the sourcing improved in places, but people tend to focus on the easy pickings which really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

“Example creep”
What does “example creep” mean? Linguist un Eins uno 19:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's wot Judge Dredd sez when he wants an example... &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed! There's also WP:CREEP, but it seems rather pedestrian next to fortuna's example. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
I got sidetracked while in the midst of sending some of you holiday wishes; to those of you I wasn't able to address personally, I wish you & yours a very happy holiday! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Time to say thanks for another year, Reformation and reformation, and best wishes for the next, pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. Einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited QQ (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chery QQ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/QQ_%28disambiguation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/QQ_%28disambiguation%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that one was intentional. Joe: 1Robot: 0. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi
Hi. Please see WP:REDYES - all these actors have 50+ film credits, so could easily have articles. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They sure could. They don't. WP:REDYES does not apply to red-linking personal names. This is because of potential WP:BLP issues. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you are edit-warring. Please discuss any further changes on the article's talkpage. And none of them are BLPs, as they're all dead. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

3RR
I think you might need to review WP:3RR - please disengage in edit warring and enter sensible discussion. violet/riga [talk] 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe, perhaps I am overstepping, but would you please consider accepting voluntary 1RR? Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See, this is the kind of horseshit that drives me round the fucking bend. A user who has made four reverts to the page in the last 24 hours comes to my page with bullshit about 3RR, yet here you are rebuking me. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, by "horseshit", I was referring to the above user's disingenuous behavior, and not your good-faith inquiry. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're an admin and should behave 'better' than us mere users. You have broken 3RR and I have not. violet/riga [talk] 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have fairly thick skin. Calling me just about any name is water off a duck's back, but I refuse to abide being called an admin. The audacity! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I thought I saw that you were. violet/riga [talk] 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think is closer than most to nearly being an admin  ;)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. violet/riga [talk] 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil discussion
I put it to you that "second album" is more universally understood than "sophomore album". I don't really see that it's particularly debatable and, moreover, I don't really see why someone would be so adamant about same that they engage in an edit war to enforce their view without anything more than "No, it isn't". Our own sophomore article starts "In the United States..." while Wiktionary gives only (US) definitions. violet/riga [talk] 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "civil discussion" when you start with nonsense about "edit warring". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to list for you how many Wikipedia articles use the term "sophmore album", or "sophomore effort", but I stopped counting after the second page. As for it being a "U.S. term", fine; the article is written in American English. We don't change semantic plurals in British English articles; we don't change "tire" to "tyre" (or "tyre" to "tire"), "founder" to "founding", etc., etc., etc. Your change is not an improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You were quietly edit-warring and have only stopped because I have held back. You have broken 3RR. Finally you engage in discussion but go with "other things exist" as a defence? Right, so it's a US article and it's American English, we agree, but given that "second album" is accepted in all versions of English do please explain to me how it isn't preferable. violet/riga [talk] 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, holy fucking shit! You "held back"? Seriously? "Held back"? I stopped edit-warring because you stopped edit-warring. The difference between us is that I admit I was edit-warring, while you engage in identical behavior, yet have the audacity to act like an injured party. Please see my user-page, specifically the part that says: "This user has a low tolerance for bullshit". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, stop lying that I broke 3RR. It's kind of foolish, considering that the entire history is right there for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I didn't know you knew swear words! Right. You don't know how to count though - you reverted four times. violet/riga [talk] 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep saying it until you believe it yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pfft.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820254989&oldid=820253722
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820258703&oldid=820257231
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820263772&oldid=820261315
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820415185&oldid=820388193
 * Now stop the straw man and discuss. violet/riga [talk] 20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 of those are the same edit. Give it up already. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, the article's talk page is where you should be proposing this, not mine. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they are all separate reversions as is easy to see. Perhaps a third party might be able to explain this to you.
 * The article's talk page is not needed - this is a revert war that you instigated but you're totally unable to defend yourself. violet/riga [talk] 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as soon as you tell me you won't undo my change again. violet/riga [talk] 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine...

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. violet/riga [talk] 21:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Joefromrandb. Can you please provide a further response to this report at the noticeboard? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been trying; I keep edit-conflicting. I have already self-reverted, upon seeing Davey's opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Two SEPTA station names
I noticed your recent move-reverts of Fortuna (SEPTA station) and St. Davids (SEPTA station). While the moves you reverted were done by a now-banned sock - and thus you were right to be suspicious of them - they were actually correct per WP:USSTATION (a policy enacted a few years ago). I believe there's not a need for a move discussion; unilateral moves to comply with USSTATION are generally considered uncontroversial technical moves at this point. (I was actually against USSTATION at first, but it's proved to be a well-thought-out implementation of the wider naming policy). I wanted to let you know rather than revert your moves and risk appearing rude. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They should all be disambiguated with "SEPTA station", and if WP:USSTATION says otherwise, then USSTATION is wrong. With that said, I really don't care if you want to move them back; I've too many other dragons to slay at the moment. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: Kim Davis
You are going to participate on the talk page, right? El_C 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being referred to as a troll, Joe. I wasn't trying to get any reaction from you other than respecting WP:DS and your fellow editors. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the actual dispute, but I saw MrX's edit summary here just now, and Joe, to the extent that you trust my judgement, MrX is not, and has never been, a troll. He's good people. Maybe you guys disagree on whatever is going on, but he's good people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I do trust your judgement, I feel the need to point out that this editor has repeatedly, and I do mean again and again, edit-warred demonstrably proven lies into that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, I have very little patience for this woman; she's an obnoxious homophobe, and unlike others who were indoctrinated since birth with irrational hatred, Davis picked up her nuttiness well into adulthood. Here, on my talk page, such sentiments can be expressed freely. Our articles, on the other hand, should just present the facts. Editors who are unable to check their biases at the door should refrain from editing sensitive topics. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're conflating "demonstrably proven lies" with information that is simply incorrect. I know you're smart enough to know that "lies" carries the implication of intent, if not malicious intent. If you are trying to say that I lied, or intentionally added lies to a biography, I wish you would at least have the guts to say it directly. Your constant passive-aggressiveness and overt bellicosity is so tiring that I wonder if it's just a tactic to win content disputes, or if you really are just a person with a large chip on his shoulder who seeks to make others miserable too.- MrX 🖋 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, now. This is not going to lead to anything constructive. Let's, instead, focus on the content at the article talk page. El_C 00:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Passive-aggressive"? Now there's a first! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Red links
Hi Joefromrandb,

Please revert the red link. See Red link "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" and "Do not create red links to articles that are NOT LIKELY to be created and retained in Wikipedia". As I have noted in the Edit Summary "Red link for future article, which I am writing....Please leave as a RED LINK". I am currently working on an the article Gary Pickford-Hopkins....thanks. 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:REDNOT, WP:WTAF. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do Not Disturb (much)
Hi Joefromrandb. Re your delinking here, etc. Your three edit summaries read simply "WP:MOSQUOTE". But there is nothing about links there. I wonder could you direct me to any clear advice that WP:MoS gives for the use of links in block quotations? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "As much as possible, avoid linking within direct quotes, which can clutter the text, and in some cases, alter the meaning". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where is that located? Your interpretation then, seems to be that links are to be avoided regardless of whether or not they actually do "clutter the text, and ... alter the meaning"? Because I'm finding it hard to see how those removed links did either of those things. Thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought the guidance was, too, but apparently there was a recent decision otherwise. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/snuck-or-sneaked-which-is-correct -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Snuck" may be more common, but it is not, nor will it ever be, "correct". Joefromrandb (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in participating in one of Arbcom's famed show trials at all, let alone one opened upon the testimony of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. If Arbcom wants to railroad me the hell off of this website, they're going to have to do it without my help. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought of you today
... when I advertised the beautiful Main page. I should have come sooner. Look for song, toys and pride and prejudice, "spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda, as always. The star chamber is apparently in session, so your presence hereagain, as alwaysis a much-welcomed breath of sanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You probably know my dangerous thoughts about arbitration. On one of the talk pages, I met the phrase "net-negative" which I despise. We should be a collaborative team, no. Calculation of plus and minus is heartless when it comes to people, also depends on who looks. You feel sanity when I come, others smell battle ;) - I still believe that sticking to 1RR and relying more on others is a net-positive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone who smells "battle" when you come around obviously lacks the very "sanity" of which we speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, blushing again. Quote from the above: "I am known for my dreams. How about amnesty?" - My most famous saying, it seems (Look for my name. The user is blocked.) Dream, dream ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the many wise quotes on that page, none ring more true for me than Carlin's admonition to "think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are dumber than that". Alas, my wife used to remind me of that all the time: the overwhelming majority of people who piss me off everyday in all likelihood truly don't know any better. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Heard the same thing: your "opponents" probably did what they thought was best. - Completely different topic. I face a major boring task. The template lang changed (and see the talk page). In case you don't know: it identifies foreign language. One result: screenreaders don't try to pronounce something in English. So far, so good, I spread it generously. It was - until recently - neutral to italics, so you could format to your liking. Now that changed to italics when you don't do something, and they tell you that no bot can fix the changes, so I have to do it. Deep breath. Every Bach cantata (motet, chorale prelude ...) title needs to be touched, not only in the article but in all links to it, because the title should be italic, but not the BWV number. Every hymn title is "wrong", italic where it shouldn't be. I go now and change one hymn and see how long it takes, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did 4 short hymn articles, 90 occurences, 20 minutes. Now to the cantatas, "only" those linked from in peace and joy I let go, 15, I'd guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One cantata has about 40 occurrences of the template (at the least the better ones), and of course, while reading you find this and that else that profits from change, - anyway, the hymns and cantatas related to Luther are done. Letting go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll see if I can help with some of those, although I'm afraid I may very well screw it up, adding even more to your workload. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I discussed what needs to be done with Trappist the monk, who did something about the italics (too many) in Richard Strauss while I did the songs (but wrong, and corrected). For examples. With the Bach cantatas, I'd like to know if "lang" should better be specified in the link than outside - something I had not considered but it seems to work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, Trappist the monk! I remember him: an administrator who wanted the tools simply to make use of them and improve the project! If only we had a hundred more like he! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

... and again, passing an image from the desert, with greetings from the cabal of the outcasts. Yesterday was Handel's birthday, he composed He was despised in 1741, and I made it a redirect in March 2012. I actually returned from the desert pictured, and am going to upload a few of my own impressions, will keep you posted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I keep thinking of you, because arbcom keeps coming up on my watchlist. What do think of this: reply to an edit as if you never heard of the user, and she or he might be your child? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good advice, although I can't tell you how many times it's dawned on me that my children have infinitely more common sense than so many of the troublemakers on this site. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt about this, but you might still try it. I did, with some positive results. If you meet troublemakers, you could review some of their articles, for example. - Remember that Opabinia regalis gave good advice last year? - One simple bit moar: typing an extra "for fuck's sake" shortens your life time ;) - How do you like the image? The trail begins behind the little blackish peak in the centre. Not easy but good for new perspectives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ps: look I began the singer's article yesterday, helped the Bach cantata long ago, and made Psalm 130 a focus in 2018, - without knowing this was going to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - working on something lovely, which was on my mind when walking in The Hidden Valley, comments welcome here, where the outcasts meet ;) - Did you see that I uploaded more pics from desert and sea? (click on "the desert")--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We had to sing in memory of a choir member who died,, "say yes to me when all say no" will be my article tomorrow, by Diethard Zils. I sang with him once, same church, in a project choir for the victims of the Holocaust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Fore-edge painting
Hi Joe, just to let you know, my edit was not made haphazardly. You might want to take a look at this article: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a discrepancy in any case. By all means, change it back if you think it's better. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder
We would like to remind you that the Joefromrandb and others case, in which you are listed as party, is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat: I have no desire to participate in a show trial, especially one accepted upon the word of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to ANI noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
 * I see that this has been closed already. Now for the debrief., may I suggest that if you are going to do something like this again, you do so without appearing to be basing an entire case on an editor's background? Yes, in your view, J<R&B [sic], but I'm afraid all that did was attract attention, and not in a productive way. Not that the entire thread was ever likely to produce anything except wasted spleen and cheap coffee. And I hope this isn't true, either, although- Incidentally, if you could please sign your remarks with four tildes ( ~ , thusly), that would be appreciated. Take care and happy editing!   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 09:26, 13 February 2018 (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. - FrankP (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Joefromrandb, in the open Joefromrandb and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb and others case closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Subject to the usual exceptions, is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
 * 2) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
 * 3) Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * I'm very sorry it came to this, Joe. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Bish. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Song without words
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

More women,, and flowers for the desert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for, and please follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

thought of you again with more music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking of you on Bach's day of death, adding a fly for the dead and the otherwise missed, hope you like my DYK on the occasion: ... that the oratorio Sankt-Bach-Passion by Mauricio Kagel, premiered for the tricentenary of Bach's birth in 1985, "changed the game by making Bach himself the suffering protagonist"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always, Gerda, my most valued Wiki-friend. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can exchange Die Fliege for happy cat dance! We sang good music yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and today, singing good music, I mean ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The The
Hi Joe - I see you've been renaming the The albums with a disambiguator, but I'm not sure you're correct. You're right that within prose the first "the" should be lower case, but every other song or album article that uses a disambiguator with a band name that begins with "The" uses a capital letter in the brackets. I realise that with the The there's always going to be confusion over which part of their name should be capitalised, but as it stands, it's now different to every other disambiguator on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; many of them were moved following "The Beatles" RfC, and I've moved a few more since then. (Incidentally, I'm just following what was overwhelming consensus; I myself voted for "The Beatles".) With that said, The The may be an isolated case. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I apologise then, I didn't realise that there had been an RfC about this and that it had reached a consensus... if it's reached a consensus about the most famous band in the world, it's safe to assume it's fine to do it for the other "the xxxx" bands. Personally I don't mind one way or the other (it's just a disambiguator), I was just worried you'd opened up a can of worms... you've certainly given yourself a LOT of work to do now. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not much work. As I said, I'm more or less just tying up loose ends; most of them have been moved already. In some cases, it was determined that simply omitting the definite article was the best course of action. For instance, "Real Love (The Beatles song)" was moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)", and then moved again, to "Real Love (Beatles song)". While that solution works quite well for many articles, I don't think it would fly for The The [xxxxx (The album), xxxxx (The song)]. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't – I'm working on the Soul Mining article at the moment with a view of getting it to GA, and doing background reading on the album... their frontman Matt Johnson regrets having chosen the name because of how hard it is to Google, but of course that wasn't a concern in 1983... Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, I've just reverted a couple more of these cases where you've changed "The" to "the" where it clearly looked wrong. This was "the Killers and "the Adult Net" in bullet lists, and "the Police" when the next sentence used "The Police" in a quote. Having now found the RfC it seems the consensus was  'to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence'  which is not the same as  'change every band name beginning with 'The' to 'the' without any further consideration '! MrMajors (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing
Could you show me where it says that? This is directly from WP:MOSFILM: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." -- "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Notice how it states that the infobox contains the details about the film that we would use to provide an in-line citation. That isn't the case with character pages, thus you need to source it. It's still a primary source, but that does not remove the need for the citation. It's, you'll notice that the rest of them have it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then put a "cite video" there if it satisfies your desire for pedantic process-for-the-sake-of-process, but don't disrupt a GA by returning a "cite needed" tag for an egregiously trivial statement that, again, anyone can easily verify by simply watching the film. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Onus is not on me. It's not disrupting a GA article by requiring a citation in the plot section that has citations for every other film there (except the new one). Yes, they can verify by watching the film. The point is not that it's a primary source, the point is that there isn't a source listed. For a source to be listed, you must have a reference point filled out. Would you be allowed to go into an article and say "In the Washington Post in 2018, they reported...", but not actually put a citation there to back up the claim? No, you need to identify the information necessary for verification. Yes, it may seem mundane, but the reason it's a GA article (I would know, as I wrote the damn thing) is because it has standards. Those being that it is fully referenced. There is NO guideline or policy that removes the right to put a source in there when it's a primary source. The only exception to this is when the sourcing information is already present in the article (i.e. infobox, episode table). That is NOT the case here. At this point, you are repeatedly violating WP:V and edit warring over a citation tag. Either fix it or leave it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because you wrote "the damn thing" doesn't mean you own the damn thing. I already fixed it. Go do something productive. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed it how? Removing a citation request tag is not fixing it. Either fill it out or leave it be. As of right now YOU are the one making a GA article unstable by constantly removing a citation needed tag from the section. Clearly, you see the rest of it is sourced. So, if you feel the need then fill out the template. Otherwise, please stop removing per WP:V.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Red link at Register (sociolinguistics)
Hello, Joefromrandb. Your edit summary at Register (sociolinguistics) on 8 November was "WP:REDNOT". That guideline says, "red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability." Since T.B.W. Reid presumably meets notability guidelines, the redlink was appropriate. That – and not the fact that he is usually referred to by his initials – is why I re-added the link. For the time being, your solution of linking to his German-language article seems appropriate. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for the note. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Myers (Halloween)
Hi Joe. I was asked by Gerda a few days ago to look into a case request from last year concerning you. As I was looking into your background, I noted the above discussion with BIGNOLE regarding the Michael Myers (Halloween) article. On looking at that article I noted this edit and then this second edit, are restoring this edit  within 24 hours, which appears contrary to your restriction. I don't know your full history, nor yet the details of the case, but felt that someone should speak to you about it. Preferably someone with more knowledge of you and/or the case. I left a note regarding the incident at Gerda's question, asking someone to look into it, but it would have been better if I came direct to you myself. So here I am. Considering the ArbCom ruling that if problematic behaviour continues you might face an indefinite ban, it would be wise of you to think very carefully about the consequences of making any sort of revert, and of the way you communicate with others. In your defence here, the second edit is dated the next day, so you may not have been aware it was within 24 hours, and you made another minor edit at the same time which might make you think it wouldn't be counted as a revert, however you do need to take care, as you were making those reverts after BIGNOLE made contact with you regarding your initial edit, and you are continuing the slow edit war with another revert yesterday:. Whatever your feelings in this matter, you either need to move away from that article and edit on safer ground, or engage in a more productive discussion with Bignole on the article talkpage, otherwise this might turn quite unpleasant. I don't think attempting to win a slow edit war over a CN template is really worth losing editing privileges on Wikipedia. Although this is a friendly warning, without any kind of templates or formal notifications, it is a serious one. Please take heed. SilkTork (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you decide to discuss the value and purpose of the cite template on the article talkpage with Bignole, I would be willing to mediate. SilkTork (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have placed a citation in the article, so I think this matter has now ended. If you wish to discuss it further, please leave a note on my talkpage as I am unwatching your talkpage. Safe editing. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You were asked for an opinion about an old case, and somehow wound up coming here to threaten me instead? You, sir, are most definitely Arbcom material! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Joe. I wrote about petty restrictions in February 2012, DYK? That was before I even knew what an arb is, or an infobox. The whole system translates to pettiness and waste of time to me. I have asked the candidates about that edit because I want to support those who answer like Drmies ;) - Please pick a rose on my talk today, a happy anniversary day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ps: working on Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214, for GA eventually. I'll ping you when that is ready for you copy-editing, tomorrow I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping ;) - the movements section is the least developed, will try to improve, but am too tired right now. This is a great week: rehearsing Christmas oratorio (which has some of the music) on 6 of 8 days! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a look at it I'm incredibly busy with work this week, and likely won't have much time until after the holiday. To whatever extent Thanksgiving or something roughly equivalent is observed in Germany, happy holidays to you and yours!! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We have no equivalent (Erntedankfest in early October is really more a harvest festival), but I lived in the US long enough to know, and remember several extraordinary feasts, especially the community feeling where the Rabbi held the sermon in the Catholic church, followed by a meal at their house to which everyone invited brought one dish. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

NPA inquiry
Can you point me to the passage at No personal attacks that applies to the words, "original research by Joefromrandb"? —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blatantly lying is most certainly a personal attack. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not "owned"
That I disagree with your point of grammar, does not mean that the article is "owned". You think that the sentence is saying that "one single proof solves all mathematical conjectures" I think that the sentence is saying that one single method&mdash;i.e. the technique of mathematical proof&mdash;solves solves all mathematical conjectures. As Trovatore has pointed out, "proof" is being used as a mass noun. Paul August &#9742; 21:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you're blue-linking to an article that does not use it that way. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? I assure you the noun "proof" is used this way. And in any case what does this have to do with article ownership? Paul August &#9742; 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, how does poor grammar make a sentence "mathematically incorrect"? I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that a single proof solves all conjectures is "mathematically correct"? Must be a new theory of everything of which I'm unaware. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of a "single proof", however. I take "by mathematical proof" to mean "by means of mathematical proof" or "using the technique of mathematical proof", not "by a mathematical proof". Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh ... what Lord Bolingbroke says is correct. Let me try  to explain another way. Imagine that the sentence were "Mathematicians seek and use patterns to formulate new conjectures; they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof, instead of hand-waving." Would you want to instead make it "... they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, instead of hand-wavings"? Mathematical proof (notice the use here as a count noun) is something which sets mathematics apart from other disciplines, much like the scientific method sets science apart. The main point of that sentence is that, more important even than all the thousands of mathematical proofs which have resolved all the thousands of mathematical conjectures, is the method of mathematical proof itself.
 * Look, you seem to feel like you are being mistreated, If so then let me apolozize for that. I assure you that even though I disagree with your edit I mean you no ill will. And I assure you that, for my part, all editors are welcome at that article. Here's wishing you a Happy New Year.
 * Paul August &#9742; 11:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been mistreated here plenty, but not by you. I disagree with the way this is being handled, but I coukd have less of a dickhead about it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whose been mistreating you? And how would you prefer it had been handled? Paul August &#9742; 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

2019
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 32em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and for bearing with me! How do you like Ray's Rules? - So proud to have helped bringing Amos Oz to the Main page, besides Bach and Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You should be proud! Thank you as well, and happy New Year! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am proud of the TFA on the tricentenary of the work, prouder of having our local music pictured on the same page, prouder for Amos Oz, just a bit sad that Raymond Arritt wasn't there also. How do you like his rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oz was a legend! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was there when he received the peace prize, - unforgettable. I understand only now how early that prize came, internationally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks for biographies
Hi. I hope there are no ill-feelings for the revert I made. I'd like to explain my action in greater detail. The redlinks you removed are articles I want to get to in the future. I've created articles from redlinks for the following CJNG biographies: Abigael González Valencia, Elvis González Valencia, Gerardo González Valencia, José González Valencia, Rosalinda González Valencia, Martín Arzola Ortega, Érick Valencia Salazar, and Rubén Oseguera González. Not to mention dozens more from other cartels. Those redlinks removed were original members (founders, per say) of the Milenio Cartel, and there are plenty of sources about them. I usually decide if a cartel member deserves a biography if they (1) have outstanding international charges; (2) were high-ranking members or founders of a cartel; (3) received detailed coverage on their criminal career; (4) had a lasting impact in the organization and are mentioned years after they were active. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to post a detailed response at the moment; bear with me. For now, though, just one quick question: if you plan to create these articles yourself, why are the red links necessary? Your criteria seem reasonable, and I have no objection to to the creation of those articles. There is, however, an issue with them sitting as red links. Hopefully I'll have some time to explain this in detail within the next day or two. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw this message. Per WP:REDLINK: It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. I set them as redlinks and then add them to my to-do list so whenever they are created they are linked immediately. If someone gets to them before me, that's fine. Wikipedia is far from being done and I think redlinks can encourage new contributors to start writing. Regards, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good. The problem isn't with red links, but with red-linking personal names. Someone looking for a scientist or a poet can all too often wind up at an article about, for instance, the head of a drug cartel. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Can you please leave the split-apart tag at Shooting of Trayvon Martin until May 2019 or when the discussion is complete? Also Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I like my talk page the way it is. If it bothers you, do feel free to refrain from posting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

An Explanation
Firstly, what RfC are you talking about exactly? You mentioned it in one of your edits. Secondly, you shouldn't accuse other users of trolling without any proof, as you did here. Accusing other users of trolling without explicit evidence goes against the practice of assuming good faith. And thirdly, this edit summary gives me the impression that perhaps you are overreacting and getting heated up over having your edits undone. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny Whitten
Hello again! Some years ago we had a brief chat about whether Danny Whitten was born Daniel or Danny. Happily, I discovered that the Danny Whitten page now cites a book by Jimmy McDonough (about Neil Young) that contains some biographical information about Whitten; this includes his full name at birth, which turns out to be Danny Ray Whitten. My original edit was motivated by the databases of performing rights societies, but these do not always store the birth name. The book by McDonough seems to be a reliable source. All the best, Labalius (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! I remember this! I intend to respond properly to this when time allows, but, for the moment, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello to you too, Ed

 * Hello Joefromrandb. There may still be time for you to back away from this dispute. If you agree to stop all reverts on the MOS-related issue and stick to 1RR in the future, the AN3 complaint may yet be closed. Due to the severity of the past restrictions, if you make no concessions at all admins may feel they have to take some action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, Ed. Anything for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This reply would be more convincing if you made it at a noticeboard, and used your own words to say what you're agreeing to do in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My reply was meant to be taken at face value. As I said at the noticeboard, I will not reply there for the sole reason that I stated. See User:Floquenbeam for details about that, as I'd rather not even discuss it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the rules you are supposed to be blocked for one month. Now you are too scrupulous even to defend yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I said I would not respond further at that noticeboard, and with good reason that has nothing to do with "scruples". I think User:Swarm summed it up quite well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Joe, my memory is not what it used to be. I thought there was an i-ban between you two, but can find no evidence, and maybe it's my imagination. Am I wrong? Have you just been unilaterally disengaging?  Just a "yes there is an i-ban" or "no there isn't an i-ban", without getting into any details or names or giving them a reason to post here. On a separate note, remember that there are literally millions of articles with errors, and most of them are frequented by people who actually appreciate the help.  If you run across an article where someone wants their article to be wrong, just let it go, and move on to one of the million other articles where the principal authors do want their articles to be right. You aren't going to fix them all, so fix the ones where the work is appreciated. Good for the encyclopedia (maximizes the unreverted corrections), good for everyone's blood pressure, good for everyone's soul, good for everyone's block log, good for everyone's karma (except the person who wants their article wrong, and who cares about their karma?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no actual I-ban; you investigated things at my request a while back, and told him he would be blocked for 2 weeks if continued to harass me; before long he resumed stalking me, and you followed through and blocked him. As far as my end of it goes, it has been my personal policy for years to have zero interaction with him. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Monkee's 'Christmas Party'
Can you please point me to the policy that justifies moving the page? I'm not saying you're wrong (though it doesn't make sense to me), but you did not indicate the policy that justifies the move.Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:THEMUSIC, for starters. As a corollary of sorts, take the song "Real Love" by the Beatles: originally at "Real Love (The Beatles song), moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)" after The Beatles became "the Beatles", and now at "Real Love (Beatles song). Similarly, "Christmas Party (Monkees album) would be fine too. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think I'd necessarily object to "(Monkees album)". But you didn't do that. And since "the Beatles song" isn't used, I'm not sure why the Monkees material doesn't follow the same system.  Unfortunately, I can't find a guideline that specifically speaks to the word "the", as part of a band's title, at the beginning of a paranthetical phrase, only at the beginning of or within a sentence.  I don't see much difference between the Beatles and the Monkees on this issue, so it's odd they are being treated differently.Rhindle The Red (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles
Hi Joe,

I see that you have made a large number of job titles lower case, in good faith. Please see MOS:JOBTITLES. There you'll see that certain job titles are capitalized, when unmodified. I hope that you will consider undoing edits that you have made that counter this rule, to save others from the need to do so.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted the ones in the infobox at George H. W. Bush because "These are in title case because they are titles of sections of the infobox (as are the sections below them [which are title-cased])". It really doesn't look right or consistent otherwise, and there is probably a guideline somewhere about it, not to mention extensive use. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 22:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey joe, I'm as active as anybody on this JOBTITLES compliance, but I agree with the preceding that the infobox headings are in title case so JOBTITLES doesn't apply.While I'm here, I'll note that you were incorrectly reverted a few times recently after using the editsum "lc", and that user self-reverted after being directed to MOS:JOBTITLES. So at least one user actually respects guidelines when aware of them, and it might be worth your time to link to it in your editsums. That is, if you're more interested in avoiding fights than in winning them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible that I should have written "sentence case" instead of "title case", though there is rarely a difference (i.e., most usage is of the form "Title [of, which is the same in title- and sentence-case. One example is at Chuck Grassley, we have "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa's 3rd district". —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you correctly wrote "title case". If it were sentence case, uncapped would be correct when there a modifier, in this case the ordinal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you're thinking about things other than the title, such as "district". This issue is not about those things as I understand it, and the JOBTITLES guideline is not about them ("from Iowa's 3rd district" is not part of the title, certainly). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had been linking to "JOBTITLES", but seeing as how I was being blindly reverted anyway, I eventually went with "lc" as a matter of convenience. I have no quarrel with title-case or sentence-case in the info box, but I don't see why it would be capitalized when a numerical rank precedes it. Suppose it were "2nd person to win 'x'"; would "Person" be capitalized? Frankly, the whole thing is a mess – not the guideline itself, but rather the ubiquity of unapologetic noncompliance, a la "IDONTLIKEIT", as well as a generally poor understanding of un/modified by those claiming an exemption (which, in most cases, is actually just a thinly veiled "IDONTLIKEIT"). Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In title case that would be "2nd Person to Win 'x'". I.e. all words capitalized except the preposition "to". That's why JOBTITLES can't apply to titles within title case text. (Nothing at all confusing about the two definitions of the word "title" in that! :D)The unapologetic noncompliance is (mostly) from editors asserting the principle that guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should reflect the implicit consensus demonstrated by what editors have done in articles. There's no disputing that a majority of existing content is non-compliant with the current guideline, so the principle dictates that it's the guideline that should change, not the existing content. The principle is completely dysfunctional in my viewparticularly with respect to MoS, and even more so with respect to MoS that seeks to base itself on today's authoritative sources rather than what editors think looks right, what they have always believed, and/or what they learned in the 4th grade. But, while dysfunctional, it's still an actual Wikipedia principle that can be found somewhere in policy, and that makes this a largely unresolveable problem for now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, this discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. I don't see any exception to MOS:JOBTITLES at Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Naming conventions (capitalization) doesn't have any special rule for infoboxes, either. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that anything is still in dispute as concerns your original complaint. AFAIK we are in agreement that infobox headings should be (and generally are, in my experience) in title case. The thread has moved past that to stuff that is just fine on this pageand may be itself finished now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra
Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Learning
Image unrelated, but just for you ;) - Learning: so you would say "in an article of the New York Times?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how it's being done now. Initially, I was vehemently opposed to this practice, and in the "T/the Beatles" RfC and subsequent RfM, I was firmly in favor of the uppercase "T". Consensus, however, was overwhelmingly in favor of lowercase. I began making these edits through clenched teeth, but was slowly swayed upon seeing how various media and style guides treat the issue (most sources even use a lowercase "t" for the The at this point), and eventually, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the lowercase camp, where I now happily reside. That being said, I would never in a million years dream of edit warring with you, Gerda, and if you would prefer uppercase, I promise I won't change it back if you revert my edit. Always a pleasure to hear from you; hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, and especially the transition from screaming to happily ;) - I was "converted" from opposing infoboxes to understanding that the intended "redundancy" is good for some readers in a 2012 discussion on Talk:Samuel Barber. You - as everybody else - are/is safe from edit warring with me because I observe my personal voluntary !RR happily, - saves time! --
 * Never signed that one ;) - I have a GAN under review, and would appreciate if you'd give it a read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not my area of expertise, but I gave it a quick once-over and made a few copy-edits. I hope I was of some help. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Manuscripts
Please note that gospel book, book of hours, psalter etc are all lower case unless part of a name - see WP:VAMOS. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. That "psalter" and "book of hours" are lowercase has nothing to do with the fact that "Gospel Book" is not. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For a moment I thought that said apostles-to-oranges. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With the bizarre punctuation conventions to which you subscribe, it should have apparently read: "apostles –to–oranges". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (Ask yourself that question) Well, ok, good RS usage varies a bit between "gospel book" and "Gospel book", but it should be the former, and certainly not "Gospel Book". Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WTFs at Donkey milk
This and this were parts of a vandal edit that nobody noticed for a whole year:( Thanks for fixing! DMacks (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol Lynley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Englander ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Carol_Lynley check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Carol_Lynley?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Joefromrandb (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me stay
You gave me great pleasure, because I read again what you wrote seven years ago (partly collapsed), and found it still good and uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aah, good old Jack! Hard to believe it's been seven years. Hopefully he still edits among us quietly. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder. I met a few accounts I thought could be him, one (forgot the name) was blocked often ;) - but I'm afraid he has better things to do. While Dreadstar kept in email touch after, he cut all connections. Such a loss. But nothing compared to this. - You people in the thread, you really made me stay seven years ago, - I thought I shouldn't support such a "community", expelling her best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
... the day I have 3 recent deaths on the Main page, but not the 4th, Márta Kurtág, see my talk. Thank you for being you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're incredibly kind, Gerda. I can tell you that that is not something I hear often. I would normally question the sanity of someone who commented such. Most would prefer that I were someone else entirely. The tiny soupçon of folks who can tolerate me being me aren't exactly lining up to thank me for it. I appreciate it nonetheless, and your kind words are indeed reciprocated. You being you, along with your friendship, have no doubt enabled me to become a better me. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * blushing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bantustan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Namibians ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bantustan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bantustan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Joefromrandb (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to 2020
Looking forward to 2020 with your helpful presence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. I'm looking forward to it. Happy new year to you and your family! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

February flowers
A late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. - I thought of you. The song "Der Weg" was played in the pictured church, written by a singer-songwriter who lost his wife. It's on YouTube, look in Mensch (album) for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Gerda. What a beautiful message. I've been a bit busy with family issues lately, but please know I cherish your friendship (and all of the wonderful music you've helped me to discover) more than I can explain! I hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate
or: the resurrection of loving-kindness - You may like this, about tears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

... and today Credo, or this is the day from Psalm 118. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A belated happy Easter to you as well! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It was different. See my talk today, for "be glad" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Findagrave.com
Regarding your edits to Mark St. John, findagrave.com is generally not permitted as either a source or an external link due to the fact that the content is completely user-generated and thus unreliable. You may want to discuss it here rather than edit warring. All the best. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 21:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you decide at any point that you would like to act like an adult, I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you'd rather stick to puerile passive-agression (which I personally view as little more than trolling), I can promise you, you have the wrong guy. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disappointing response. The guidelines have been shown to you, that's all I can do. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see how being called out on your bullshit would indeed be "disappointing". It's a part of growing up though. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Kiss Associated Acts.
Hello, you reverted this edit a while ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_(band)&diff=955796272&oldid=955611167 I wondered if you can explain to me what the criterion is for associated acts and why MCZ fail to meet it? It's the only group Kiss have ever collaborated with. Kind Regards -ipuser 80.0.45.128 (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. You're inference is perfectly reasonable, and one that tripped me up more than once during my early days here. Generally speaking, I think MCZ could certainly be seen as an "associated act". However, for the purposes of the "Associated acts" entry in article info-boxes, the criterion for inclusion is the bands must have (at least) two common members. (Incidentally, I just removed "Chelsea", as they clearly fail this criterion.) "Wicked Lester" easily qualify, with Stanley, Simmons, and Criss in common; "E.S.P" qualify, with Singer and Kulick in common; "Frehley's Comet" technically don't qualify, but here in the land of "ignore all rules" they should eke by, with Frehley and Anton Figg as common members — Figg has done extensive session work with Kiss, and was the ghost-drummer on the entire Unmasked album, with Peter Criss appearing in name only. "MCZ",on the other hand, while certainly collaborators with Kiss, are not an associated act, at least not for these purposes. Hope that helps. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it to me :) 80.0.45.128 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

delete page criticism
You don’t need to Blame yourself for anything. It’s good that you gave me a constructive criticism and this has given me the experience, and motivation to learn about how the delete system works. I failed in my original argument by repeating everyone, and now I learn that I need instead give a direct reasoning to my vote, which I suppose I did in a small way in my reply. But anyway thanks for pointing me out, Goodbye (: Vallentunar (talk)9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was constructive criticism, but at the same time, I was kind of a douchebag to you. Your comments were clearly well-intentioned and made in good faith, and my response was at the least unnecessarily acerbic. Thank you for your kind words, and I'm glad you're learning so much so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"what in the world is a "cardinal-nephew"?"
It was a thing, and there's an article on it somewhere :) 2A02:C7F:BE17:2D00:11F3:A541:165E:1CBA (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I know. I feel like quite the horse's ass. I'm not sure why I acted on the basis of my own supposition; forget due diligence, I didn't even attempt the most cursory inquiry into it, such as, oh... typing it into the search-box? Thank you for educating me. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

September
I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that this morning. I didn't have the time for a good look at it (although I plan to), but I was fairly sure it had to be one of yours. Great work! Beautiful piece of music! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. (Just click on "September".) A funeral in 2 days. Brute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Be careful


This used to happen to me as well until I turned off word continuation prompts on my mobile devices :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just bizarre. In 10 years, I have never had that happen before. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

ZZZZ
In the spirit of WP:AGF and Don't template the regulars I won't post a user warning here, but your edit reversion was unconstructive and your edit summary 'who gives a flying fuck if "the link is in the article"'? was uncivil. At Sweep the Leg Johnny there is a mention of ZZZZ and a redlink to ZZZZ (band). That justifies an entry on the disambiguation page Zzzz. If you don't like that, take it up at Sweep the Leg Johnny and not at Zzzz. If there's another band called ZZZZ then write about it. And don't swear at me again. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
music, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore, as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories - eight years that we met --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My, where does the time go? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That link took me to your current talk page so I looked in your archives but I wasn't able to find an interaction between us on 16 October 2012; I'm just curious as to what was said between us and how you happen to know the exact date! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I also meant to thank you for that beautiful music — above, as well as for the past 8 years! So much wonderful music I probably wouldn't have discovered if it weren't for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The link takes you to my 16 October talk page (which didn't change much since because I like it), and if you scroll beyond the highly interesting conductor's bio and my song of defiance (from 2013), and hit the first link, under the bish-wish-protection image, you should see where I first noticed you on 16 October 2012 (same image there further up, btw). You said "Another example of the jealous little ones foresaking good content-contribution for the opportunity to play hall monitor." My heart was heavy so I responded by Precious only some days later, wait and see right here, - I (or rather RexxS who gave me a great template) changed the procedure to mention the Precious anniversary when it comes, even if more than once on a page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary 8
... as said above I was a bit slow with recognition ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bottom dealing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magician.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm
When I saw your edit to Grim Reaper (disambiguation) I thought "good catch, someone must've vandalized it an hour ago."

Then I went back into the page history and it's been there for months.

I was about to write a polite "why did you do that" letter to the person who put it there, but I figured "let's see what is on the Mitch McConnell page. Well, in Mitch McConnell it says McConnell stated that if he was still Senate majority leader after the 2020 elections: "none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper.".

So, if anyone is calling the Senator the Grim Reaper, it's himself.

That said, I didn't undo your edit. I just wanted to make sure you knew the background of it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of the statement. The "facepalm" summary was me sighing aloud that someone felt this isolated self-reference was sufficient to add him to the disambiguation page. With Scarpa and Grimson, "Grim Reaper" is a long-term epithet. Disambiguation pages are meant to assist our readers in finding what they're after, and I just found it absurd that someone searching for Mitch McConnell would do it via "Grim Reaper (disambiguation)". YMMV? Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in the week or two after he said it, someone might search for "Grim Reaper" then follow the hatnote. But yeah, it's outlived its usefulness as a search term.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Howdy!
Very interesting edit here. You are right. Thanks for the edit. Cheers. Ktin (talk)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I don't think I've ever had someone call one of my edits "interesting" before. It's a really cool compliment. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

November
Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - instead of turkey --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's good stuff! Just don't let our governor hear about it. Here in Pennsylvania (and I swear I'm not making this up!), the governor has admonished us that there is to be no singing at our (six-person-maximum) Thanksgiving celebrations. Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause an earthquake in Bolivia, lifting our voices in song in the keystone state will apparently give corona virus to a polar bear, or something like that. The thought police can't be far behind. I hope all is well with you and your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm healthy, so is family, - I miss singing which I can do only at home. Choppers came yesterday to the two trees pictured under "November songs" on my talk, - that was a shock, and the beauty of the earth was diminished. Sing my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

JOBTITLE
I'm all for removing unnecessary caps, but WP:JOBTITLES says to use caps "When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon". Some of your recent downcasings seem to go against this guidance. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I always value your advice, Dick. Can you be a bit more specific? I don't need diffs or anything like that, just the article(s) in which you feel I've been in error. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that 1960 U-2 incident is one of them; I've started a discussion at that article's talk page (soliciting an opinion from Tony as well). Please let me know if there are others; if this issue is ubiquitous, it may be better to have a somewhat-centralized discussion somewhere, rather than going article-by-article. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven 250 years
The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having been obsessed with Bach since I was a child, I was until recently only a casual fan of Beethoven. Delving into his oeuvre, I was amazed to discover the depth and nuance of his writing. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Off-topic ping for : If you are going to be obsessed, at least you are obsessed with someone worth obsessing over. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  16:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How true! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Philadelphia crime family
Your recent editing history at Philadelphia crime family shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not troll my talk page again. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (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. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thank yooooooooooou, Mr. Acavano. (I didn't do it, Dickstein shot him!) Joefromrandb (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Joefromrandb. At this AN3 complaint (see bottom line) User:EEng states that you broke your 1RR restriction at 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you want to answer the complaint? EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he broke 1RR at the 25th Amendment article, but rather on the page originally reported, plus I was saying that at the same time he's being insistent at 25A on something he obviously doesn't understand. So, ya know, maybe he should just slow down and pay attention, give that he's under the 1RR for a reason. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Something I don't understand"? As this is coming from someone who insisted compound adjectives should be joined with a dash instead of a hyphen, and carried on with such nonsense after being corrected by multiple editors, understand that I'll be taking any answer with the perfunctory grain of salt. With that caveat firmly in place, do tell, EENG: what would it be that I don't understand? Joefromrandb (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't understand that the 25th Amendment has nothing to do with the presidential line of succession, you don't understand that the list of cabinet secretaries in this section has nothing to do with the presidential line of succession, and you don't understand that the eligibility of anyone on that list to hold the office of the president is irrelevant to that passage. And yet you've had to be repeatedly reverted, by two different editors, in your clueless attempts   to insert nonsense about presidential eligibility into the article.
 * As to the stuff about compound adjectives, I have no idea what you're talking about and you apparently have me mixed up with someone else – merely the latest example of you wandering about the project in a confused state emitting random mental debris. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm surprised to find you wrong on all counts; not (entirely) wrong factually, but rather wrong as to what you have impeached me of not understanding. You apparently don't understand my supposed misunderstanding. Now I can certainly be one ignorant motherfucker, but in this case the one who stands in ignorance is not I. The older I get, the more I realize how little I know, and I'm always excited to be able to learn something; learning I was wrong is even more exciting than learning something new, and my lack of surprise notwithstanding, I'm still disappointed. As far as compound adjectives, are you sure you don't remember? The "wandering about aimlessly emitting random mental debris" comment shows I've clearly hurt your feelings. It's a defense mechanism, I get it. Same with the class clown routine. It's obviously a mask for something unpleasant (although humor can be a healthy catalyst, and your comment about "not knowing Kirk Douglas was trans" made me laugh until my sides ached). Trust me I do not, and I could not possibly, have you confused with someone else. Fear not, as your attention-seeking behavior has not been for naught. Perhaps Bishonen would remember. She was one of several editors who corrected you, although as I said, you refused to accept said correction. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dunning-Kruger effect. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an admirable admission. With Dunning & Kruger, even though those of low ability were blissfully unaware of such the majority of the time, with even minimal instruction, these same folks were generally able to identify their shortcomings, and improve their scores dramatically. I'm glad someone pointed you to Dunning and Kruger in the aftermath of "punctuation for the insane", and I'm impressed that you chose to use it as an instrument of self-improval. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Himla med ögonen.gif <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if I understood this discussion I don't think I would find it reassuring. Should the dispute resurface on the articles, admins might start doing things to make it stop. So it could be worthwhile for the two or three of you to make your own agreement among yourselves. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, Ed, particularly the part where it's 2 of us. The complainant was misinformed as to the seriousness of the situation, but he's clearly well-intentioned, and a bit more tact on my behalf earlier would have made things much more mellifluous. Seeing his sincerity, I'm happy to help with the article and try to be a bit less of a dick going forward. EENG, OTOH, is free to take his tetragrammaton and his Zara Cully "nobody's paying any attention to me" routine elsewhere. Between trolling a closed AN3 report, while failing to realize that using "new math" doesn't magically make division by zero possible, to blue-linking "Dunning-Kruger", perhaps fearing I would otherwise think it meant harassing that fellow from Elm Street to repay a debt more expiditiously, the time has sadly come to retrieve the millet from that poor goose's esophagus and gong him off the stage on which he hadn't been invited to perform in the 1st place. I'll AGF that he simply missed the word "tomorrow" on the "amateur night" poster. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

2021
Proud today of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As you should be! Splendid piece of photography! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A friend liked the frost on nettles better ;) (although he is the father of soprano 2) - Today, I decorated for the birthday of a friend, - she sang with us in 2019, pictured, and you can listen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Today see Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena
The information you just added back is currently being challenged on the article's talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiki_Camarena Before adding anything please discuss it on the talk page. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So i take it you're just going to continue to edit war without discussing anything on the talk page. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Jaydoggmarco, the talk page doesn't show any consensus to remove all content related to the Amazon documentary made about Kiki Camarena. I agree with Joefromrandb and don't believe you should have reverted four times in a few hours. I've opened a report here: . -Darouet (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

February flowers
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How interesting! I was away for a spell; always so nice to come back to find your usual kind words! I never cease to learn something new when you post on this page. Hope all is well with you and yours! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have said more or less yes until minutes ago when I learned that Yoninah died (most likely). March flowers later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

June songs
some flowers and music for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you are still around. See my talk for August, - I'm a bit short on time this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been away for a while. It's always nice to come back and see you've visited while I was in absentia. I'll probably be tied up again for the next few weeks, but after that I'll likely return to more active participation. I hope all is well with you and your family. We'll talk again soon. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

August harvest
I liked yesterday's Main page, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: nominating the TFA Mary Shelley, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. August harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

ps: when you click on "songs" you see a bit what family is doing, pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink
Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
I have a FAC open, please check out the prose? Two many people (article subjects) died, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gerda, I had meant to check this out but I got sidetracked somewhere along the line. Guess it's a bit late now, but hopefully it worked out well. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, visit my talk from time to time, always something new. - arbcom time again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

in friendship
Happy new year, in friendship! - Thank you for still being around! - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you as well!! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * today: my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a pic in 2009 that was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Gang stalking edits
My apologies; I missed those. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

All You Need Is Love (JAMs song) Featured article review
I have nominated All You Need Is Love (JAMs song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

August songs
images of a rich summer, especially in music -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

List of bare-knuckle boxers
Hi Joefromrandb and (courtesy ping). In the past I've worked on the article George Godfrey (boxer, born 1853) and noticed today that the see-also link to List of bare-knuckle boxers is red. I guess it's been a while since I found that Muboshgu deleted it as an expired PROD way back in 2019, and then a couple years later you asked for it to be userfied. Were you planning on doing something with it? It doesn't seem that you've edited it since the move. It seems to be a useful list, and the PROD rationale links to a deletion discussion focused on a source that isn't used in the list so I don't think it was all that valid in the first place. Do you mind if I move it back to article space? Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs
fresh flowers for you! - My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is.
Niklomder kui poolt. Kodu selge Britta 174.250.211.66 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

July music
My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death - and there was your name. How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

July 2024
Please stop. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Gino Jennings, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)