User talk:That man from Nantucket

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! LjL (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, That man from Nantucket. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dweller (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Death of Gloria D. Davis with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did leave an edit summary. WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. This bio is all part of the redirect to the bribery case.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libby Garvey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Sullivan. 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) 10:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikistalking
While I understand this is a few days old, I would like to remind you of our policy on harassing users by following their edits. Your interaction with Geo Swan over the past while has had several instances of you going back through their contribs and targeting them specifically on edits made over many years. If you continue this behavoir, it will result in a block. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well two wrongs don't make a right, or so I'm told. During my week long block researched policy regarding our differences of opinion on the Libby Garvey article.  I posted what IMO is pretty strong indictment against the rationale GS was using. I advertised my opinion at BLPN. No one responded there, least of all GS.  Now of course he's not obligated to respond, but a lack of response seems he had no rationale to  dispute my thesis. It didn't take me long to put this talk page section to paper and happened to look at my watch list.  GS, *after* he was told by you that you did not consider my lost account as a sockpuppet GS proceeded to stalk my previous edits example 1, example 2, and example 3.  He gave no reason for the first two, and the third his edit summary read "reverting -- known sockpuppet".  The timestamps don't lie.  He did all of this after you explained why you didn't consider this a sockpuppet issue, and still called me a sockpuppet. I can't help but feel this was done just to annoy me and because I couldn't respond because of the time left on the block. While I was waiting for my block to expire, I worked on my rationale to post to the Libby Garvey page.  I would appreciate it if you read my post.  It highlights examples of mischaracterizing what sources said, [WP:OR] and outright BLP violations.  So many mistakes in just the first few diffs of this article was the impetus for me examining several hundred articles GS created.  I focused mostly on BLP articles, because getting some information wrong about a type of fireboat is less important than getting information about living people wrong. I also skipped most of the Gitmo detainees, not because I feel BLP doesn't apply to them, but because most of them seemed to rely heavily on primary sources, and just couldn't wrap my head around these articles. So I passed on those. However I found another article that appeared to have the same flaws as the Libby article.  Unfortunately I lost the link to that, though I might be able to find it later.  I did improve a few articles GS created that interested me.i found no BLP flaws, but often fleshed out more sources and improved the prose. . GS does not come to the table with clean hands.  He is monitoring my contrib history and (possibly) following to post walls of text to queries I made at various notice boards, where I asked for guidance on interpretation of certain policies. As I demonstrated above he stalked my edits while I was blocked, and he's still doing it now.  I don't look at his history as some people do on a daily basis just to settle petty disputes. I'm not saying they GS is doing this, he may have this notice boards on his warchlist.  But I don't think that's the case.  I honestly feel like I'm being goaded. From lectures on not to use bare references (which as far as I'm aware is not s policy or guideline)  to being challenged on minor text changes instead of seeking an amicable resolution.  Just recently we were discussing whether Garvey, who recently won her primary, should be described as having easily won.  He gave arguments A,B,C and I responded with D,E,F..  Neither of us seems ready to change their position, So I suggested to get more people to look at this issue.  Instead he badgers me with the same arguments.  Seeking other views is supposed to be a good practice. It would defuse the situation.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A serious conduct matter
Hi TMFN, I'm guessing my ping did not reach you on this matter (it's an intermittently broken system), but I'm still hoping to have you revise your statements at Talk:Afghan_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay, or I think I will have to take the highly unusual (but in this instance, I feel necessary) act of removing some of the comments myself, per the concerns I've raised there and policy about civil and productive discourse. I want to reiterate my assumptions that you did not mean to cause offense or tension, but using hypothetical like you did, linking another editor with whom you are in content dispute with to such incomparably evil acts is just not appropriate. Hope we can get the discussion back on track, but I see no way forward without your altering the comments some, having them removed by someone else, or (hopefully to be avoided) taking the matter to a behavioural forum. All that said, hope the day finds you otherwise well.  S n o w  let's rap 05:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are referring too, but I assure you I mean no harm. Feel free to revise or remove whatever you feel is appropriate.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Stormfront
Re your message: Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. It looks like the issue is already getting resolved on the talk page, so I do not think you need any further input from me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * no problem. I figured you must have been doing something else.  But for the life of me I don't see why people just ignore socks if they are contributing in a positive fashion.  This is no jab at you personally, and I thank you for the reply.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)
I noticed you edited out one of Mr. Teper's statements from the AfD. Is that allowed? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * His bad faith accusation? Yes I removed it, and my angry response. Might as well tone it down a bit.  They are obviously DU members and are upset over the thought of losing the article.  Is it allowed?  It depends. You can remove personal attacks, and it was a little personal.  If anyone objects, they can restore it.  Personally I think the page reads better now, don't you?  The formatting was atrocious. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

See my comment on the subreddit talk page
Since I am not able to ping you as you have no user page, I am leaving a note here. Please see the new section that I added on the /r/the_donald article talk page, regarding "spreading racism".--FeralOink (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

r/The_Donald
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the favored way of communication on wikipedia but I wanted to talk about the revert you did on my edit, I do believe pizzagate occured after the sorting issue, but definitely before the controversy with the admins, as the admin in question mentionned it in his excuse message. I think your revert wasn't really justified, since it makes it look like my edit was wrong when it was only partially. I'm new to wikipedia, so do I receive a penalty for making a reverted edit? Am I allowed to edit it again to put pizzagate in between both other events, as it should be? Or are you supposed to do that? Thanks. 7dare (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The best place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. There is no "penalty" against you for being reverted.  The only sort of penalties you can get are being blocked, which appears in your block log.  I suggest you don't worry about getting a high score on Wikipedia.  The only people that care about that sort of thing is those who want to become admins.  They say that adminship is "no big deal", but admins beg to differ.  Some of the dumbest things I've seen here are done by admins.  One of the dumbest arguments put forth on a discussion was made by a sitting arbitrator.  Arbs are admins (technically you don't have to be an admin to be an Arb member, but they always are) are editors who get elected to the position.  Wikipedia's supreme Court as it were.  Some people spend a good chunk of their lives striving to get power on Wikipedia. The proverbial neckbeards living in their mothers basement with Cheetos stained fingers. Kind of pathetic if you ask me.  This place has been accurately described as a MMORPG, but it doesn't have to be if you let it.  Just edit what you want, when you want.  If you run into conflicts, discuss on the talk page and don't WP:EW (edit war).  Read those WP links when people mention them. As for the algorithm issue, I don't know if there is a standard practice for ordering sections in an article.  However the algorithm gaming issue has been around well before PizzaGate started.  So even by using your rationale of order, it still doesn't belong before the algorithms.  Welcome to Wikipedia.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for this...unconventional introduction to Wikipedia (not the kinda explanation you'd find in a WP: page). Anyways, I will reorder to put pizzagate in between the two, where it belongs. 7dare (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you refer Trump as Drumpf on the Wikipedia article? It's like revering Hillary Clinton to Hillary Rodham.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * plesse take this to the talk page in question. This isn't the place for article discussion.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check out my talk page. 7dare (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I figured it was from the famous Chrome Extension, "Drumpfinator".  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 19:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

response to an old(er) talk page edit of yours at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory
I just noticed this edit of yours, and it deserves a response, but the thread is old so I'm posting it here.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZ2NShfCE8 Listen. Understand. That facts are out there. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with...they don't feel pity of remorse or fear...and they absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.] MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was joking.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate conspiracy theory
You have made your point. Please stop edit warring and let the discussion run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hit piece?
Care to explain why you reverted my edits with the edit summary :"Undoing hit piece"? -- Auric    talk  14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fascination with his transgressions are surely notable. But the weight given these events, namely in the amount of text are undue for this BLP -- especially the deaths of Frederick and Martin.  The proper avenue to take would be to create forks for these events.  There is ample precedent follow this path for notable people involved with significant events outside of their inherit notability.  Wikipedia is not a place to shame BLP subjects as this |this comment (itself a BLP violation) implies.  I apologize for inadvertently reverting your edits, but this article is in poor form.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"admitted drama watcher"
Keep your comments like this to yourself. Thanks. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 19:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Shoe fits.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome!


 * You know. I like to be a good influence whenever I can. Not enough positivity around here lately.  T J W  talk   20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've totally not read up on whatever is going on here in order to have a strong opinion. And thanks for following the advise below and removing the unnecessary bits. That was getting a little off the reservation.  T J W  talk   20:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect anyone there to understand that, which was rather the point of asking on MS's talk page. I took your thanks as a token of appreciation about my distaste of the goings on at noticeboards. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice on MS talk page
On MS's talk page just now, you're confused about what is going on. The person you're replying to is not the sock discussed in that section; they just didn't start a new section. Kibitzing on the talk page of someone you've just reported at WP:AN and telling someone who is severely violating BLP how to evade scrutiny is not on. Please remove your post there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I don't give a rat's ass about sock puppets, but BLP violators is a completely different story. I left the part about contacting OTRS, as it is his best option in a stresfull situation.  Thank you for informing me of this.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * if there are BLP issues related around this unconfirmed user, why aren't the articles in question at least semi-protected?That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because he only made the BLP-violating edit s once, and didn't repeat them it after MS's warning. I have the page on my watchlist and will semi if it happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good on you.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Gschadow

 * I read that as "HERE IS THE DOOR!". In fact he goes to some pains to say that "better men then you have tried to chase me away and failed". So no I do not think he is going away.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * meh. The outcome is predictable.  Kinder to him if we just archive it so he saves face and he goes and edits something else. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the gist of this dispute was just that, his rantings being "hidden", You maybe right. I suspect (assuming this all not just a pose) that it will just fuel his righteous indignation at this "politically motivated bias".Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , should we ANI now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Try and handle it yourself without going to the kangaroo court that is ANI.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I was correct about what would happen was I not? So kangaroo court or Erector appraisal of a user who will become increasingly disruptive as he does not get his way over pizzagate?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was fairly obvious this would happen? Consider this; getting people blocked or banned at ANI is childsplay.  For real sport, try and get them to go away without resorting to their ham fisted displays of power.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The Cranberries
Your recent edits on The Cranberries entry appear to be non constructive. You can not simply change the status of the band because you personally believe that they will disband. Wikipedia depends of verified facts, not assumptions or personal conclusions. Should the band announce that they will disband, the entry can be modified accordingly and sourced. Thank you. (Sellpink (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC))
 * I didn’t change the status of the band. You don’t know what I believe.  Asshole.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

Cleanup tags are not immune from the the BRD cycle. Please start a discussion on the talk page and do not revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, I have begin the talk page discussion for you. You can find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m well familiar with guidelines. But are you? There is no such guidelines for introducing tags.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case
I recommend that you read the text of the article and the sources cited. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2019
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sorry. Quit flinging bullshit and I won’t call you a bullshit artist. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Peter E Voss concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Peter E Voss, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Peter E Voss


Hello, That man from Nantucket. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Peter E Voss".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote) 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/Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Lightburst (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)