User talk:RunnyAmiga/Archive 1

BUTT OUT
The information given is not correct,I am related to georg A boeckling,and dont tell me what to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridelover71504 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, if you're going to leave messages like this, at least look at what you're typing because this is just awful. A totally incoherent mess. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Johnson Wr
Sir, I was editing the above page and you changed the information back to the original info. I run the Richard Johnson fan club on facebook and I am in the preliminary stages of writing a book about his career. All information I am entering is correct and verifiable thru the fan club page. I have posted all info on the fan page...articles, newspaper clippungs, pics ect. Please allow me to add to this page for accuracy about his career.

Thanks,

Randy Minor

Richard Johnson fan club Richard Johnson fan club (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide a link to your Facebook page. Until you do, absolutely not, because if I'm going by the sources we have, you added a whole bunch of errors. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * These are the references I used....


 * 1984 Sporting News USFL guide and register


 * 1985 Sporting News USFL guide and register


 * Houston-Gamblers.com


 * 1990 Detroit Lions media guide


 * 1989 Topps Traded football cards...shows he did not play in 86 for nj generals and 87 with buffalo bills


 * LA Times  5/7/85.  Kelly passes to Johnson for 4 touchdowns...states it is league record


 * San Pedro Newspaper 9/11/13 - Missing: harbor college hall of fame inductees -


 * Lawrence Journal-World 10/10/81 - Colorado Transfer Academically Short


 * Argus Press 7/30/90 - Record Breaking Receiver Eyes Even Bigger Numbers


 * UPI 2/7/83 Denver Gold waived 25 players


 * UPI 9/8/83 Denver Gold says 12 players selected in expansion draft


 * NY Times 4/10/87 Jets sign Johnson


 * UPI 8/10/87 wide receiver waived by Jets


 * LA TIMES 12/17/89 Journeyman catches on in a big way..,talks about johnson being with the generals, jets, redskins and bills


 * LA TIMES 3/29/91 Oilers sign Johnson to a 2 year pact


 * Gettysburg Times 5/7/85 kelly, gamblers


 * 1990 Sporting News NFL register


 * 1990 Street and Smith pro football preview


 * 1990 Sporting News NFL preview


 * 1991 Sporting News NFL preview


 * 1991 athlon pro football preview


 * 1990 lindy's nfl preview


 * And articles on the Detroit Free Press dated:


 * 9/18/89 page 47


 * 9/3/89 page 44


 * 12/4/89 page 32


 * 12/17/90 page 32


 * 2/13/91 page 27


 * 2/2/91 page 13


 * 4/2/91 page 22


 * 11/13/89 page 42


 * 11/20/89 page 39


 * 12/25/89 pages 32,33 and 75


 * 8/22/89 page 37


 * 12/23/90 page 131


 * 9/7/89 page 42


 * 10/2/89 page 46


 * Colorado Buffaloes website


 * Tennessee Titans medis director


 * Buffalo news 9/10/87


 * Sporting News newspaper archives pn google newspapers


 * Richard Johnson fan club (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this
If you are interested, he was indeed sometimes called the Spider throughout his career but you're right that it doesn't need to be mentioned at that article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I knew it had been a nickname but I'd never known of it until he started doing that podcast. In terms of nicknames famous enough to get a mention like that, I just didn't think Spider Salley was on the level of, say, Magic Johnson. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the East Cleveland, Ohio page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=726090622 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F726090622%7CEast Cleveland, Ohio%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Thank you, ReferenceBot. I fixed the error. RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of thumbnails in Infoboxes
Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Ariadna Lenham. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). If you have any questions, let me know! :-) You can respond on my talk page, or here. If you respond here, please include  in your response so I am notified. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened there was a revert of several edits that were added to that page solely to attack and insult its subject. The easiest thing to do would be to remove the image entirely since I have a feeling the page is headed for speedy deletion. Sorry about the mix-up; I was working with a big mop and I knew good edits would get wiped in the process. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! I kind of got the sense that was the case when I looked at the recent edits to the page. The above message that I left you is a form message that I've been leaving on the talk page of anyone I see adding a thumbnail to an infobox. To time consuming to write detailed messages for each case. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on that page! Keep up the good work. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Felsic2 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Two thousand - no more, no less

 * I think this is probably the only award I'm going to win here tonight so I was trying to think maybe I should just say a whole lot of stuff right here, right now, just get it all out of my system.
 * Mr. Rawley Farnsworth who was my high school drama teacher, who taught me to act well the part, there all the glory lies. And one of my classmates under Mr. Farnsworth, Mr. John Gilkerson. I mention their names because they are two of the finest gay Americans, two wonderful men that I had the good fortune to be associated with, to fall under their inspiration at such a young age. I wish my babies could have the same sort of teacher, the same sort of friends.
 * It was my privilege. Thank you.
 * The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it. And I can't deny the fact that you like me. Right now, you like me! Thank you.
 * And most of all, I want to thank my father, up there, the man who when I said I wanted to be an actor, he said, "Wonderful, just have a back-up profession like welding."
 * Everybody in Lowell, all the actors from there. Dicky and Micky. Where's my quacker? Is he up there? Dicky's up there somewhere, mate. Ey mate, you're the best! You're the best. I can't wait – and listen, he's had a wonderful story and I can't wait to see the next chapter of his story, you know?...If you wanna get trained with him, go meet with him.
 * Thank you! This is a terrible mistake because I used up all my English. I don't know! I am not able to express all my gratitude, because now, my body is in tumult because it is a colossal moment of joy so everything is really in a way that I cannot express.
 * My brother's sitting there, he says, "Thank God we don't have to listen to any more. You can do it now." My mom's home, everybody's watching.
 * To paraphrase Forrest, who knew a good thing when he saw it: I may not be the smartest man around, but I know what love is. I sure do. Thank you.
 * Can you believe it? Forty-two years later he was right. How’d the son of a bitch know? Thank you. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Currensy
Hello, RunnyAmiga. Please always verify the edits being made, like in the article Currensy, even if they're partially right. See the diff. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 18:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, I did. The claim is regarding the location of Jet Life Recordings, not iHipHop Distribution. Jet Life is headquartered in New Orleans, not Los Angeles. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I didn't notice that. Carry on. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Re the Philips vcr
Re this edit of yours, I concur. (Though I'd have said "company history" instead of "textbook"!) Jeh (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I Googled several unlikely phrases and found nothing so I'm not 100% sure this is a copypaste. If it's not, I'll reinstate the whole thing and edit it so it's not, you know, bad, but I really wanted to hear from that user first. If he can source that stuff, bits and pieces of it are really worthwhile. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson: TPP Stance
Sorry if I am doing this incorrectly; to answer your question, this quote can be found in the fourth video, shortly after the 2:00 minute mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.190.78 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I found it but the information you inserted was removed and probably can't come back the way you put it. You kind of translated or explained what Johnson meant, and this sort of translation is an issue with the Wikipedia rule against original research. We need a source saying that his stance is skeptical and still forming, and that source can't be an editor here. It has to be a reliable publication. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

National Geospatial Science Center of Excellence
Hello RunnyAmiga, You recently reverted my edits to South Dakota State University in reference to the "National Geospatial Science Center of Excellence". I'm unclear of your edits. The statement was based on fact, which had several references that clearly spelled out it's relationship. Yes, there are multiple "national centers of", but with references to USGS EROS, it would be POV to wipe the entire statement from the lead without any notation as to why. That would be unfair. For your tracking I have edited the Research section to reflect the existence the NGCE because the average reader may find that interesting and notable. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The statement was based on fact" I never said the statement was false. I believe it to be true. But truth is never, ever a reason for including material here. The standard for inclusion is higher. I explained myself in my edit summary, which said of your edit that "This is promotional and even if it weren't, it's still not appropriate for the lede". You'll note that I didn't accuse the edit of containing falsehoods. Reading the edit I removed, I stand by it because of the two issues I raised, neither of which you've addressed.
 * So here's a question. If a purely promotional statement that is designed to do nothing but advertise doesn't contain any falsehoods, can that statement stay on Wikipedia? You seem to think so. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are implying by way of a straw-man argument that notable data relating to a university is in fact promotional. Rhetorically you haven't proven that it is in fact POV promotional. By that logic, any article is promotional and every fact within that category of articles is also promotional. The article Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science was created in 2006. By the nature of the guidance at UNIGUIDE, Universities and their organs are "In general ... notable". Do you specifically have an reference which specifically states "The EROS National Geospatial Center at South Dakota State University is not notable because..."? If you don't, then your reasoning is POV and your edits to those lines should be reverted. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't come within a mile of a "straw-man" [sic] anything. Not one mile. I think you misunderstand that term, which is really interesting when you think about it. I didn't claim or imply the university wasn't notable because I'm not an idiot. So since I haven't even come close to claiming or implying the university isn't notable, do you know what kind of argument you're making by responding to me by claiming that, contrary to what I've said or implied, the university is notable? Guess.
 * You falsely quoted that essay by claiming that the words "In general ... notable" apply to "[u]niversities and their organs". You left out an interesting bit of context with that quote, which does not say anything about "their organs" or anything else. The sentence reads, "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." Nothing about "their organs."
 * So. You're answering questions I'm not asking, and you're avoiding questions I'm asking. I'll make it simple.
 * If promotional material is both truthful and unhelpful, is it allowed on Wikipedia?
 * I think the lede isn't an appropriate place for one aspect, out of hundreds, of a gigantic university. I must have been convincing since you moved your text to a much more appropriate place. Even still, it contains the word "notably," which is true about anything mentioned on here, and the name of the center is bold while similar text elsewhere in the article isn't. Do you see how this comes off as promotional?
 * I've asked these questions twice and, if you count my edit summary over there, I've expressed these concerns three times. Feel free to respond whenever. RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it's worth exacting explanation. Let's do that.
 * You assumed that the EROS Center partnership is not notable, and, the addition of content relating to is only POV Promotional.


 * The EROS Center already has an article that was created in 2006. It was notable enough to mention a federal government agency of nominal interest then, therefor I infer that as a result of the fact that no one has requested it be deleted yet - it is STILL NOTABLE. As per, yes, you guessed it the very article (guideline) which "guides" the topic material (and therefor notability) of content WITHIN an University related article that quote "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia."


 * Of course if you had actually read the rest of the guide it also states very clearly under the "Article Structure" section that:
 * "The basic structure of a college or university article should follow the general format below. Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution. It may help to take a look at some of our example articles before you start and/or edit your own. Make sure to always cite references."


 * Many university articles discuss or list research centers on campus. Take University of North Texas Discovery Park as an single example, that is also in the University of North Texas article.


 * Then within this section:


 * Campus, or if more appropriate Facilities or Buildings "by describing important buildings, their design, and uses." (An organ)


 * and also


 * Organization and administration " Discuss the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees or regents, student government, endowment information, and academic divisions of the college/university. If this college/university has a special organizational structure, such as a residential college system, then it should be mentioned here. If the university is part of a larger system (as in University of California) or otherwise has formal relationships with other colleges/universities, discuss this relationship and provide requisite wikilinks. Capital campaigns and major endowment numbers should also be presented here, with any notable gifts being referenced. If the college or university has formal affiliations with other educational institutions (e.g., Five Colleges) or is a member of a major consortium or other inter-university organization (Annapolis Group, Association of American Universities, etc.), mention these as well." (An organ)


 * The NGCE and the EROS Center are both acceptable to include within a University article as administrative units, that are also campus buildings at bare minimum. But to be blunt I posit that the fact that the National Government of the United States in the form of the United States Geological Survey and the United States Department of Agriculture have sponsored a partnership at a land grant university, that yes using WP:Commonsense that is notable to be within the article. I remind you that the notability rules WP:Notability would state it is verifiable information, that has reliable sources, that enhances the content of the South Dakota State University article by informing the reader of an interesting research institution (e.g. an organ of the institution). The preceding line of the lead stated that "The graduate program is classified as Doctoral/Science, Technology, Engineering, Math dominant." The NGCE center also hosts one of their highest federally funded graduate programs in 'science, technology, engineering and math' in the form of the Geospatial Science and Engineering program. Because you know, that organ, that part of the institution also has an academic side as well as the research.


 * You also state quote that "...the lede isn't an appropriate place for one aspect, out of hundreds, of a gigantic university. I must have been convincing since you moved your text to a much more appropriate place."


 * You just moved the goalposts. I stated that I compromised on the subject, and then, you retorted that it isn't notable and implied some inane questions that have no relevance to our discussion by employing a straw-man. I don't have to answer your questions, nor are they even relevant. Your statement implies you really don't understand universities. SDSU is not "gigantic". Nor does the SDSU article have "hundreds of places", either in the article or in the physical campus. But besides that you came off as arrogant and threatening and if you don't wish to compromise or see reason I certainly can revert your edit if that's what you would like.


 * At this point you are repeating ad naseum the same statements. You also asserted that I have "falsely" made claims aka lied. I don't appreciate those assertions. If you don't know what an organ is or refuse to read the rest of the guide that is for you to resolve. In any case this discussion was silly, I'm done fighting over something so trivial because you can't wrap your head around this subject that's your problem. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And I'm done too. One more scorched-earth campaign, though. Count the lies, Randomeditor1000.

You assumed that the EROS Center partnership is not notable, and, the addition of content relating to is only POV Promotional.
 * False. Didn't say it, didn't imply it, didn't assume it. Lie #1.

''The EROS Center already has an article that was created in 2006. It was notable enough to mention a federal government agency of nominal interest then, therefor I infer that as a result of the fact that no one has requested it be deleted yet - it is STILL NOTABLE. As per, yes, you guessed it the very article (guideline) which "guides" the topic material (and therefor notability) of content WITHIN an University related article that quote "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia."''
 * False. That's an essay, not a guideline. I'll assume that was a failure on your part to read the big box at the top of the essay I've read twice so I won't call this a deliberate falsehood.

Of course if you had actually read the rest of the guide
 * I read the entire thing twice and the pertinent section three times before I typed a word. Lie #2.

''it also states very clearly under the "Article Structure" section that: "The basic structure of a college or university article should follow the general format below. Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution. It may help to take a look at some of our example articles before you start and/or edit your own. Make sure to always cite references."''
 * Thank you for copypasting an essay I read twice.

''Many university articles discuss or list research centers on campus. Take University of North Texas Discovery Park as an single example, that is also in the University of North Texas article.''
 * But not in the LEDE. THAT WAS MY ISSUE WITH THAT INFORMATION: NOT ITS CONTENT, ITS LOCATION IN THE ARTICLE.

''You also state quote that "...the lede isn't an appropriate place for one aspect, out of hundreds, of a gigantic university. I must have been convincing since you moved your text to a much more appropriate place."

You just moved the goalposts.
 * False. That's lie #4, and it's probably the biggest, most easily-disproven of any of these. I commented about the text's worrisome location in the edit summary where I removed it. I've dunked a lot of times on a lot of people, but that right there is my best dunk of all.

I stated that I compromised on the subject, and then, you retorted that it isn't notable
 * Lie #5. Never said it.

and implied some inane questions that have no relevance to our discussion by employing a straw-man.
 * Lie #6. I never deployed a straw man. And it's two words: "straw man." We have a relevant article on here. You should read it.

''I don't have to answer your questions, nor are they even relevant. Your statement implies you really don't understand universities.''
 * Are you noticing anything here? You say, over and over, that I "implied" this and I'm "implying" that. I never seem to say anything, do I?

SDSU is not "gigantic".
 * Lie #7. It has 12,500+ students, according to our own article on here. You should read it.

''Nor does the SDSU article have "hundreds of places", either. , either in the article or in the physical campus.''
 * Lie #8. Never said how many places are on the article? Places? Article? What? And as for the physical campus, can they really fit whatever portion of the 12,500 students who live there in fewer than 199 dorm rooms? Because over 199 is "hundreds."

But besides that you came off as arrogant and threatening and if you don't wish to compromise or see reason I certainly can revert your edit if that's what you would like.
 * Lie #9. I didn't threaten anything. Or maybe you're right! I'm so threatening to your edits that I've reverted you once and never edited that page since! Because as worthless as you've made this discussion, I'd still rather it played out than get into an edit war. And it's interesting: right now, the article is better because the edit is out of the lede. You must think that because you moved it, and I think that because I mentioned it in that edit summary. But you just fucking threatened to move it back to the lede! You threatened to revert the article back to what we both apparently agree was an inferior state!

At this point you are repeating ad naseum the same statements.
 * No shit. And you're not responding to any of them.

You also asserted that I have "falsely" made claims aka lied.
 * Lie #10. My previous use of the word "falsely" wasn't an accusation of dishonesty, but right now, the several uses of the word "lie" on my part do constitute accusations of dishonesty. You, Wikieditor1000, are a liar.

''I don't appreciate those assertions. If you don't know what an organ is''
 * Lie #11. I do know, so save your wikilink right there.

or refuse to read the rest of the guide
 * I won't call this lie #12 even though I did read it and even though it's an essay.

''that is for you to resolve. In any case this discussion was silly, I'm done fighting over something so trivial because you can't wrap your head around this subject that's your problem.''
 * Damn. We only got to 11. I'll leave you with a bit of advice: the text you inserted came off like it was promotional because you put it in the lede, you bolded the center's name, and you included the word "notably". Maybe avoid that in the future. RunnyAmiga (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You went off an on an inane tangent, made wild accusations and then attempt to prove your self correct. I haven't lied at all. The statement was not promotional, not POV and this is the very crux of statements. Then you turn around and state that wasn't your point, make up your mind! You can choose to disagree respectfully rather than being ridiculously obstinate. But you just keep moving the goalposts to cover yourself. Unlike you I won't call you names, unlike you I won't continue to stretch the very boundaries of reason to attempt to define why I randomly deleted a well cited, factual, notable piece of information off of a university article. Maybe in the future you will consider responding in a less threatening and aggressive manner that is productive. Goodbye. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

 * Cheers. --Jorm (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * I've been doing that quite a bit lately, where I just obliviously bonk and smash my way into other people's business and go, "Here's my contribution nobody asked for!" I was hoping today's ill-advised foray onto Anita Sarkeesian's talk page would put me in my place but nope, it was handled with speed and maturity so I didn't learn my lesson. It'll happen eventually. In the meantime, thank you for the cookie! RunnyAmiga (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * * RunnyAmiga and KGirlTrucker81 gives a hug * Well, LOL. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 11:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Your question
You asked, "I've asked this before and I'll ask again: is there anywhere in dispute resolution that actually requires disputes to be resolved?" If by that you mean a place which will consider the facts and render a binding judgment on content issues, no there is no such process at Wikipedia (though many, including myself, have tried to introduce one). You can see a list of the dispute resolution processes at DR and all the content ones are focused on facilitating discussion. If, on the other hand, you are asking whether there is a way to force editors to engage in dispute resolution, the answer is again no, but this time "no, but." None of the moderated forms of DR — 3O, DRN, or Medcom — have means of forcing editors to participate, but RFC does, in a way. RFC's are filed on the article talk page and invite the entire Wikipedia community to join in the discussion. While those who have already been participating in the dispute do not have to respond to the RFC if they do not then their position will probably not be taken into account. In other words, they either have to participate or possibly be ignored. The downside to RFC, however, is that so many RFC's are filed these days that many of them obtain no significant response beyond those already in the dispute and, moreover, many that do still fail to reach consensus. (And it must be understood that under the wiki model that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result.) If neither of these answer your question, let me know what I'm missing and I'll try to answer it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC) (no longer speaking on behalf of the Mediation Committee)
 * Consensus favors the side opposite Felsic2, so why would that side's editors ever want to participate in mediation? If there's not a single stop on the dispute resolution process that can overrule consensus, what is the point of dispute resolution in any instance where a majority of involved parties feel one way?


 * 1) Any high-input editor who violates any aspect of WP:CIVIL gets, without any warning, a 24-hour block. Further violations get escalating blocks per block policy.
 * 2) Any high-input editor who refuses mediation (or some sort of dispute resolution) is topic-banned from gun articles. Combined with a zero-tolerance CIVIL ban, it mitigates almost all concerns about Felsic2's behavior since their issues with WP:IDHT are also CIVIL policy violations of the requirement to react to others' positions.
 * And while these two rules would resolve a month-old fight inside of a minute, I'm aware this isn't going to happen. Per you, I won't bother with an RfC. I'm in almost complete agreement with consensus on this so for me personally, this is still going where I'd prefer it to. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 United States network television schedule
We try not to have pictures replace text for accessibility reasons. --Neil N  talk to me 23:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, perfectly fine. I'll admit that my edit was problematic because I knew it would get reverted; the difference, though, was that you didn't accuse me of vandalism or report me to WP:AIV. An AIV report for User:Howiebraunstein with no warning for obviously good-faith edits? And I should point out that User:AdamDeanHall has been here just over ten years. That's, uh, really something. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV and removal of reports
Regardless of your opinion of the report, do not remove it from a noticeboard. I've restored the report. If it's inappropriate, let an administrator deal with it, and if needed, the reporter. --Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please strike your incorrect claim even though, this being my talk page, I'd like to let it stand with a strikethrough. The report was not iffy. It wasn't a maybe thing. It was bright-line vandalism and a blatantly false personal attack that, per policy, any editor could have nuked on sight. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not incorrect, so I'm not going to strike it. Noticeboards are the responsibility of administrators, not editors who feel they have the right to remove any report with which they do not agree.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You know what? I took the extra step of putting that pound sign/hashtag thing into the link so it would take you directly to the relevant section of the policy in question. That was difficult. It took me like three previews before I was sure it worked. And I did that so you wouldn't have to scroll. So the least you could do is click it and read, apparently for the first time, a policy that's been around since the Stone Age. You're good to point out where on that entire page (or anywhere in policy? I seriously want to know if I missed something) it makes an exception for noticeboards. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You're treating the report as vandalism. It's not vandalism, and thereby, you have NO rationale for removing it. KrakatoaKatie said as much a few minutes later, minus all the needless drama. --Drmargi (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate:
 * AdamDeanHall has been editing here for ten years so he can't claim he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong.
 * HowieBraunstein's edits, while not great, were not deliberately damaging. So no matter how bad they were, they weren't vandalism until he started ignoring edit summaries, reverts, and warnings. As of this moment, he hasn't put up any such fight.
 * Even if they were vandal edits, AdamDeanHall has to warn HowieBraunstein at least once before going to AIV.

It has little to do with the ill-advised report itself. The issue I took, and that you really are doing an incredible job disregarding, is the fact that AdamDeanHall has been here ten years, knew his behavior was completely wrong, and went ahead anyway. That's as textbook a case of vandalism-via-bad-faith-edit as there is, and you know what? It turns out that after you twice falsely claimed that there is no instance in which I can remove a report from AIV, you finally figured out where to plant the goalposts: deny that blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism. And you've got me: I can't really react to that.

Also, KrakatoaKatie said HowieBraunstein's edits weren't vandalism. I've been saying the same thing. She didn't react to the vandal AdamDeanHall. That's an even more obvious mistake than your belief that I can't remove vandalism from AIV. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said about all I'm going to say on the matter. Your anger is far out of proportion to what happened, and you could have, as I suggested, simply let the administrators handle it, as KrakatoaKatie did. Why you refuse to escapes me.  I'm not going to parse AdamDeanHall's motives; I don't know what they were, or whether he knew what he did might have been wrong, and neither do you for all you claim to.  I prefer to assume good faith on Adam's part in this particular instance.


 * Meanwhile, in your anger, you miss the irony that you're doing exactly what you accuse AdamDeanHall of doing: you're treating his report as vandalism when it's not.  And it's for that reason and that reason alone that it's inappropriate for you to remove it from the message board.  We have a standing policy that we do not edit another editor's writing in any discussion on talk pages and message boards.  Period.  And that includes reverting reports on message boards.


 * At this point, I suggest you do two things. First, go read what KrakatoaKatie has to say in response to your post on her talk page.  She's telling you the same thing I am.  Second, step away from all this for a time, take a deep breath, regain your temper, then go find an article to edit. Take some time to review basic editorial  and vandalism policies; you're new here and haven't gotten to grips with them all, that's clear.  You're not hearing what I'm saying, and at this point, any further discussion is a waste of time.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I'll back down from my claim that Hall's edit was vandalism since Katie is essentially saying that it's either trigger-happiness or lack of ability, not maliciousness, that drove him to make that edit. She didn't address my concern that a ten-year veteran showing that level of incompetence is something that needs to be dealt with but it's not really worth worrying about since thanks to me, more than one other editor has eyes on AdamDeanHall's inappropriate behavior now.


 * My issue here is that, in the midst of a question I asked a different user, someone I'd never interacted with before came here, falsely claimed my noticeboard revert was not allowed, went to WP:AIV to perpetrate what Katie hinted was an "edit war," and is now using the tried-and-true tactic of shutting down a conversation by falsely accusing me of being angry on the internet. Believe me, I could not care less about the drama you started here although I do admit, I probably would have accomplished a lot of really terrific things if you hadn't appeared out of the blue to pick a fight with me.


 * And thanks to you hijacking a thread instead of starting a new one, I still haven't gotten a response from User:NeilN. You've contributed nothing, you've changed nothing, and you only keep arguing because you'd sooner quit Wikipedia than admit you were wrong about anything. You were, but you have to keep fighting. In the future, if you're going to interact with me at all, react to things I say or don't even bother. I don't think you're stupid enough to believe the whole "you're new here" head-patting stuff is an appropriate way to address anyone. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What response were you expecting? Unless you're reverting vandalism or socking at AIV, it's best that you don't revert. --Neil N  talk to me 14:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See? Confusion. From you, I was hoping for a reply to the section above this, the one titled "2016–17 United States network television schedule." Although now, I'm pretty sure that, if we're talking specifically about Hall and not generally about the sort of behavior he's exhibiting, I might have been wrong to conclude he's a vandal. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk page reverts
Seconding 's comments that "Unless you're reverting vandalism or socking at AIV, it's best that you don't revert". This applies to as well. AldezD (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Per the talkback template you left here, I went to your talk page and replied to you. Instead of addressing my concerns, you removed my edit without explaining why, a move that implies I vandalized. Such an implication is a violation of policy. Although I could be mistaken: while you still haven't addressed your errors, in which you credited me as an editor for two edits I didn't do and didn't address my concern with inappropriately being labeled a vandal, maybe it's because you'd rather discuss here. If so, no problem. Wherever you'd like me to correct your falsehoods is fine by me. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for attributing another editor's revisions to you. However, in terms of removing your comments from my own talk page, please familiarize yourself with WP:UP, and specifically that "policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Regarding my actions at Judith Barsi, my comments that you should "review the edit history and protection log for this article" before reverting another registered user's edits still ring true. AldezD (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please strike the second sentence of your comment. I am familiar with the userpage and talkpage policies and the implication that I need to familiarize myself with them when I've never indicated that I haven't is another personal attack. WP:NPA overrules almost everything, and it certainly overrules your right to attack me with impunity by reverting me without explaining why you're doing it.
 * So I want to understand something I'm genuinely bewildered about: why don't you use edit summaries when you revert what you believe is non-blatant vandalism? I mean, even if I'm reverting some jagoff who went to Justin Bieber's page and tried to replace his photo with a Hitler cartoon, I'll still put something in the edit summary box. Why not put "this is lowkey vandalism, check the page's edit history and protection log" or something like that? RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not striking anything. You didn't adhere to WP:UP#CMT and I undid your reversion of my edit to my own talk page. You're picking a fight over a single reversion edit of mine in an article that has been protected three times in the past 90 days. AldezD (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Right here, and you can use this if you want to try to get me blocked: I didn't adhere to WP:UP. Not only did I not comply with it, I violated it part-and-parcel. And I'm not concerned with a block since WP:NPA, the third bullet in the summary box of one of the five pillars, overrules every letter of UP. But don't acknowledge that you're using a guideline to explain why you violated policy. That would be an admission of error and you don't want to do that.

And it's weird that you didn't respond to my second question, which is obviously a matter of much greater importance than this policy pissing contest we're having. I still haven't been made to understand why you don't fill out edit summaries. Maybe it's just a habit you've never gotten into. So let's say this: if the reason for reverting isn't obvious, and you can't possibly deny that to a non-involved party such as myself, your reason for reverting was not obvious, can you provide an explanation from now on? RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note WP:EVADE: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason..." While a note is helpful for non-obvious socking, many editors will just simply revert an obvious sock. I myself will use mass rollback if the sock has hit a lot of articles. --Neil N  talk to me 16:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * These were the reverted edits. Had you been a passing editor, like I was, you'd have looked at the differences in content and immediately known they'd been added by a sock who was sabotaging the page? No way. And while I doubt AldezD is particularly concerned about getting blocked for personally attacking a puppeteer, I have to ask again: why not just type out an edit summary, like I've done for literally every single edit possible? ("Every edit possible" would exclude rollbacks, right?) It doesn't take long. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a clueful editor, I check the history to see what's going on. You have ~1,500 edits. We have editors on here which have more than 10x that in sock reverts alone. We're not going to ask them to type out "rv sock" 50-100 times a day. --Neil N  talk to me 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So edits go through with policy-violating empty summary boxes because actually typing "rv sock" is too much work. Got it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason." Not policy violating if you are reverting a sock (reverts of an editor who has re-applied the sock edit should have edit summaries). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So when AldezD reverted me and KGirlTrucker81 without explaining, they were in the wrong. Got it. I hope they see this. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And feel free to explain to me how this is relevant at all to this edit. My Pending Changes acceptance of it means I get partial credit/blame for it, but I don't get an explanation per WP:EVADE? Are you sure about that? RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure. You can get an explanation if you ask. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's all I wanted. AldezD: the anonymous IP edited three times. The second and third edits were accepted via pending changes by two other users, User:KGirlTrucker81 and me. You reverted them, I reverted you with an explanation, and you reverted me without explaining why. Since my revert wasn't vandalism, your (lack of an) edit summary was inappropriate: you're supposed to provide an explanation in that box to explain to me and KGirlTrucker81 why our work was undone. In the future, when you're doing reverts like this, can you take care to ensure that good edits aren't getting caught up in bad-edit reverts? Thanks. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was tagged at 's talk page, I'll chime in here: a handful of us have been fighting an exceptionally disruptive editor who, for months now, has (among other problems) insisted upon adding to numerous articles non-notable days of the week, non-notable relatives and non-notable dates; shit-piling non-notable "works" into infoboxes; changing "they had children" to "she bore him" children; and, most egregiously, changing the causes of death to "Complications from [fitb] leading to death". Each edit in a vacuum may seem innocent, but we're talking hundreds en toto, repeatedly, by an IP jumper who refuses to acknowledge the issue, never mind stop. (My sandbox lists those IPs just from this year; it began in earnest last September-ish. Most recently—including the one you've noted—he'd been gone a month before coming back to hit a dozen of his usual targets.) This person has been reported by me and others, and a public edit filter was created (an extraordinary move) to allow us to keep an eye on this person's favorite phrases. Sometimes, when repairing dozens of edits in a sitting, I will eschew an edit summary; I'll try to do better. — ATS 🖖  Talk  18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * At the time, I didn't know any of this. Had I known, I'd have reverted the anon on sight as many times as necessary and reported them to AIV at the same time.
 * I assure you you're at least the third person to explain it to me. The problem is not the anon's edit. The problem was that it wasn't just the anon who was reverted without explanation. Right here, this edit represented a good-faith effort on my part to improve the page via an accepted pending-changes review. The next edit was approved by a different pending-changes reviewer; both edits were caught in the same revert without explanation. That lack of an explanation was a policy violation because it wasn't reverting blatant vandalism. It wasn't blatant vandalism because regardless of its content, two good editors approved it and we were owed an explanation. Or hell, maybe me and the other reviewer are vandals. At this point, I don't know. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This again is why you should review the edit history of an article rather than leaving a warning message on a registered user's talk page when a revert is made without an edit summary. ATS's rollback of your accepted pending-changes review at Judith Barsi is in no way a personal attack, nor is it a policy violation as you have repeatedly claimed it to be. Neither is my rollback at my own talk page removing your messages. However, your WP:BATTLE mentality and your own actions rolling back my edit to my talk page would likely be seen as personal attacks, mostly from the tone of your messages here and in your own edit summaries. AldezD (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It can't be fun to read, I'm certain, but is correct: the question to ask yourself is "Why was I reverted?" not "Why did you revert me?" If you don't look into the purpose, you may end up taking personally that which is not thus intended, and jump straight into attack mode. — ATS  &#128406;  Talk  19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting back into the substance of this five days later since I've explained myself repeatedly. I'll just ask you both: these two messages you've left me right here are rehashes of messages you've combined to send me at least four other times. I've responded to the concerns found in these two messages way more than four times because it's not just you two repeating yourselves. You're here responding, yet again, by rewording what you've already said rather than reacting to what I've said. Why is that approach so pervasive? RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)