User talk:Redzemp

welcome to my Talk Page. Feel free to comment your thoughts and ideas.

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Worcestershire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplex. 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) 10:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasians. 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) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Newspaper Logos
Hi,

I noticed you removed the logo of The Washington Times from the article infobox. I also noticed that the logos for the New York Times and Washington Post articles were removed too.

Is there some kind of style guide change regarding the logo? Why are the logos being removed?

Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * hi. Because of unnecessary redundancy, I would think. Redzemp (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is strong precedent for having the title for newspapers on Wikipedia. Unless the Template:Infobox_newspaper is changed, don't remove the title. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Marquis de Faux.  Thanks.    That was un-intended. I only intended to remove the top (redudant) part.   Not the rest of the info.   But apparently it's all tied in with that template there.  Redzemp (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Spheroid. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 05:00, 11 June 2016 (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) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you say my actions are out of line ? Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Toddst1. You saw it too quickly.   I changed it to  "Todd is putting the onus totally on me, which is false on its face, as even another Admin Neiln the other day did NOT put it all on me, but a lot on Strebe too. Why didn't Todd put ANY of Strebe's reverts from days ago till today? He left those out. Giving a very slanted picture here. What's up, Todd??"   Redzemp (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Spheroid
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JamesBWatson. Thank you for reviewing this matter. But I have to be blunt. You're incorrect in some of things you said, and franky out of line. Apparently you didn't read everything I wrote carefully. You wrote this: "but I see no acknowledgement of the fact that you were edit-warring". Did you catch where I wrote:   "Though I may not have been totally perfect in this"? And if so, what do you think that means? I'm admitting error. Also, as to the other two editors in question, ADMINS THEMSELVES also said they were wrong in this matter too. (You acknowledge none of that, I notice.  But it can be seen if on the notice board, and on Strebe's talk page, and on here too.)   Let it be noted, that I always abide by consensus on talk, which has not really been reached yet. As far as putting bad motives on others, I simply stated observed fact of what David and Strebe did. Other Admins said that Strebe should be blocked too, and that Strebe definitely edit-warred. Was that other Admin "putting bad motives" if that's the case? I was simply stating my case!!!! I had a right to put on a defense, no? It's interesting how YOU put everything on me and see me as totally unreasonable and the other two as reasonable totally dodging the actual facts and specifics in my points and presentation here (and on the notice board.) And YOU put bad motives on me and make assumptions that I would continue and not change. Why?

Again, did you read the part where I clearly wrote "though I may not have been totally perfect in this"??? Obviously that's admitting and acknowledging error on my part. So with all due respect, you're wrong on many levels, because it's proven that the other editors (David Eppstein and Strebe) were far from perfect themselves (not just my words but the words of at least two other Admins, which please see), and the facts and history themselves, which you basically ignored. Thanks for your consideration, but no thanks for your conclusion and rude unreasonable out-of-line inaccurate assessment and words here. Not cool and not valid. I admit error, but in my defense and presentation of my case, and as other Admins also stated, the other two editors were not perfect angels in this (as you seem to be thinking or giving the impression) either. They ignored reliable sources and how I bent over backwards to compromise. See Mark's suggestion on article talk. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that message consists virtually 100% of Strawman arguments. I will give just a couple of examples, to illustrate the point.


 * 1) You said that I "see ... the other two as reasonable". However, as far as the other two editors are concerned, I never made any comment whatever about what they had done, let alone suggesting that they were reasonable. I made no comment about them whatever for the simple reason that what they did was irrelevant to the one and only issue which I was considering, namely your block, which was based on what you have done, not what other people have done. Likewise, you say that I "see [you] as totally unreasonable", but I never said anything whatever about whether I thought you had been reasonable or unreasonable in your editing.
 * 2) You wrote "Apparently you didn't read everything I wrote carefully. You wrote this: "but I see no acknowledgement of the fact that you were edit-warring". Did you catch where I wrote: "Though I may not have been totally perfect in this"?" and later you wrote "did you read the part where I clearly wrote "though I may not have been totally perfect in this"??? Obviously that's admitting and acknowledging error on my part." However, I had never suggested that you had not admitted or acknowledged error on your part: I simply stated that I saw no acknowledgement that you had been edit-warring, which is not at all the same thing.
 * You also refer to "the facts and history themselves, which [I] basically ignored". I ignored everything in the history except the issue of the fact that you edit-warred, because that is what the block was for. Wikipedia's policy in edit-warring is, basically, "no edit-warring", not "no edit-warring unless you think that other people have been doing unacceptable things". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. &#x0020;Hi Redzemp. You should not add redundant sources and should avoid adding Washington Times as a source for a subject for which there are literally hundreds of better sources. Please comment in the linked talk page discussion if you disagree. - MrX 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: this is a CheckUser block. My second block in the block log was an error on my part. I forgot to uncheck the Block box when I added the above block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)