User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 13

Pyramid of Sahure
Looks good. Had a run through, found nothing major, in fact was highly impressed. You should go for it. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have some replies to your questions (left for me in edit-summaries) in a few days. Thank you for taking a look at it, . Mr rnddude (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936)
It is my latest FAC. If you have time, please comment here. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  07:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW
Levi argued for Wikipedia-sourced content (or at least content that was attributed to a source that demonstrably took the relevant information from Wikipedia) here as well. I'm not sure if this is a coincidence or a recurring problem with this editor. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * – I think that Levivich's position on WP:CIRCULAR is: if a reliable source repeats something, even if it originated on Wikipedia, we must assume that they fact checked/verified the asserted content before reporting it. They held pretty much the same position in debates on Talk:Clarice Phelps and at the DYK nom previously. Reliable sources should fact-check/verify material before reporting it, but the existence of this page is proof that this often does not happen. I don't know why he's arguing for using Wikipedia as a source directly, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in the above-linked case I actually contacted the author of the reliable source in question and asked him where he got it (the reliable source itself actually contained a footnote seeming to imply something that contradicted its main text), and he said he didn't remember. I am not sure if this is a case of a professional scholar knowing that they actually took the information from Wikipedia and not wanting to admit it, or legitimately not remembering and assuming they must have fact-checked, but the fact that the published work cited a source that definitely didn't verify the content combined with the fact that the author when contacted couldn't say where the content actually came from means it was almost certainly a case of CITOGENESIS.
 * Weirdly, though, Levivich quickly thereafter withdrew his support for the CIRCULAR content in question, instead opting for a version of the article that omitted virtually all the substantial content. The tragic part, though, is that his being unwilling to through his support behind a different, better-sourced and more-detailed, version, along with a number of disruptive editors showing up to (still) explicitly support the circular content means that after three months, one ANI thread, and two RSN threads, the open-and-shut case still hasn't been resolved...
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Your statement at AE
I'm not sure if you're aware, but my previous AE warning regarding polemics was rescinded almost immediately. See the AE log and Sandstein's comment. Please consider rewriting your recent AE comment to reflect the fact that I am not subject to any prior AE warning. –dlthewave ☎ 13:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I was not aware that the warning was rescinded in your and Springee's cases. I have put a sub-comment noting that you have informed me of that, alongside links to the log and this comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi FAC
I hope you have time for this... or at least you can help improve the prose. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm relatively inactive at this time, but if I have time I'll take a look at it. Let me know if a source review is conducted. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect accusations of 3r
Hi. Could you explain why you accused an IP on the Marina Hyde article of being close to 3R when they weren't because reverting changes by a user who's been banned is an considered an exception? I can quote guidelines if you want. Thanks 80.47.148.59 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's two parts two this. In my opinion, the article is not covered by the TBAN and PC's edits were not in breach of their TBAN. In such a case, no exception under 3RREX could be claimed. The second, presupposing that the discussion at AN found otherwise (one admin claimed no vio, one claimed marginal, one claimed clear vio), I covered the base that I was under no restriction from editing any article on Wikipedia and could hence take ownership of the edit, such that a valid rationale would need to be provided to revert anyway. If my interpretation was correct, then 3RREX was inapplicable and a warning was needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "In my opinion, the article is not covered by the TBAN and PC's edits". Wikipedia is not opinion. Provide an objective set of criteria we can judge against or admit you were wrong. Othersise I can retort with "it's my opinion that it is covered by the TBAN" and it's stalemate 80.47.148.59 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Three admins drew three different conclusions, all from the same evidence. Objective criteria: there's no reference to politics within the edits I restored, so no TBAN vio. Now, you can take your uppity attitude elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee and a thank you
 Here's a digital cup of coffee for you! Thank you for believing in me and for your help! StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Believing in you?!...wow. ——  SN  54129  07:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind then. I'm sorry. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Phrase "Suicide aircraft bomber" is not absurd
I just want to reply your comment on WP:ANI Violation of Manual of Style and WP:NPOV: Cmtthat term "Suicide aircraft bomber" is nonsense, but how if you read these articles where you could find "Suicide car bomber", "Suicide truck bomber" (or "Suicide (vehicle) bomber") that is correct phrase and no one questioning this. But why you questioning "Suicide aircraft bomber"? You don't understand grammar or what? — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2007 suicide bombings in Iraq
 * 2 and 5 September 2019 Kabul bombings
 * 2010 Vladikavkaz bombing
 * Battle of Timbuktu
 * Returning to this dispute right after coming off a 1 month block by and TPA revocation by  suggests you haven't learned from your mistakes yet and further preventative measures may be needed. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what suddenly sparked this message. Thank you,, for intervening and refreshing my memory. , first of all, you wrote 19 suicide aircraft hijackers, not suicide aircraft bomber as can be seen here. Albeit, the latter example is still questionable. If you Google "suicide aircraft bomber" it gives a grand total of 2 results (both relating to Kamikazes, and I'll give ten points to whichever house works out why that is). If you try "suicide aircraft hijacker" – which is what you originally wrote – then you get this: No results found for "suicide aircraft hijacker".  You might want to try Googling "suicide car hijacker", "suicide truck hijacker" or variants thereof which all give: No results found for "suicide [vehicle type] hijacker". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether bomber or hijacker, It's still grammatically correct (Suicide [vehicle] [doer]), in spite of search engine results. because I am not talking about Google results, but talking on your accusation that my edit is nonsense.


 * To Levivich, I think you should think whose parts violating WP:IDHT and whose parts deserved to be banned — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on RfA
I saw your recent edit to CaptainEek's RfA; I think you raise an excellent point in response to what Javert said, but I think it would be a more effective response if you left off the remark in &lt;small> tags at the end. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've removed the snark. You raise a fair point. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Socking
Yeah, is spot on, and if the discussion hadn't been closed I would've said the same thing. I note, of course, that you never got an answer. serial  # 14:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. BD2412 T 23:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * - I have not socked, and I am not the IP editor. You are now engaging in personal attacks. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - Since you're around: How would you like me to rewrite the offending statement. I believe that BD2412 left that fact out intentionally. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to take User:Black Kite's advice and unblock you, but you have doubled down on asserting that saying "You're a liar" to someone is not a personal attack. As to the IP edit, it is precisely in keeping with the pattern of socking following a block for an IP which has never before edited Wikipedia to appear in support of an editor immediately after their block. Your conduct has not given me reason to have confidence in your denial. Nevertheless, I will reduce your block to an hour, as it is not intended to be punitive. BD2412  T 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - Do you have any evidence that I have ever used an IP address to edit? Do you have any evidence that an IP that geolocates to the US (I am in Australia as any CU could confirm) belongs to me? I will thank you for the block reduction, and in a counter-extension of an olive branch ask: Why did you not mention the fact that you personally brought the case against MPUWT? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I give you permission to do whatever is necessary to deal with the unblock request that I have submitted (so that it's not waiting in a queue). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't give it any thought at all. The pattern of conduct underlying the topic ban is what matters. You might note that the first response in the previous discussion, from User:Bishonen, was that "you can do it at your own admin discretion if you want to, you don't have to wait for a community sanction decided at ANI". As for the IP edit, as I noted, an IP post echoing the position of the blocked editor immediately following the block is objectively the most typical pattern of block evasion. Assuming the IP is not you, their appearance in that discussion at that moment is peculiar, and therefore isn't doing you any favors. BD2412  T 00:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I cannot prevent other people from commenting, IP or otherwise. You might also have noted that I have been commenting here logged in the whole time. I've struck my personal attack. Would you do the same? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the most typical pattern of block evasion. Unless you think Mr rnddude thinks we're idiots? It is the most typical pattern of either (a) a joe job, or (b) an IP editor expressing an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I edit as an IP frequently, but I'm currently out and about (friend started a new job at a restaurant and so I'm hanging out here while he works) on public wifi - I admit I probably shouldn't have commented while not on my normal IP (as I'm on public wifi right now) as it looked poor - sorry to you Mr rnddude... but I stand by my comments that these were clearly bad blocks and clearly violated involved... regardless, I'm not Mr rnddude and I thank Floq for having the clear head we expect from them in their quick and logical actions here. I'll not comment further (at least not while on public wifi) but I had to apologize to Mr rnddude for appearing like he was evading his block - I did not even consider that my comment may appear as such. 198.90.109.60 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having been on the receiving end of more than one joe job here, I am sympathetic to the possibility. It is, again, odd that the first-ever edit from a given IP is this sort of involvement in this sort of discussion. BD2412  T 00:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, hope you're doing well. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, healthy, but a friend is not, and too many die, both family and in the world. More on my talk, and I keep singing in defiance ;) - How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know about RexxS having Covid, that is unfortunate. I'm well. Now's a good time to be living on an isolated island. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)