User talk:Weeb Dingle

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Washburn Guitars instruments (February 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Washburn Guitars instruments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  05:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

overdue response
Oops -- I forgot about the Talk page. Yeah; still kinda new here...

For future reference: I accepted the verdict of User:SwisterTwister at face value, and have incorporated the product lists into the ongoing overhaul/update of article Washburn Guitars. Though my ego was bruised, very few individual Washburn products (and I speak here as a proud owner) can truly claim to notability, therefore a compendium of models doesn't deserve its own entry. I'll keep using the Draft a bit longer as a workspace (rather than Sandbox) as it's already sitting here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Roland Corporation
 * added links pointing to SH-5, AS-1, AP-2, AP-7 and AG-5

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bot! FWIW, I should note at least here that I didn't actually MAKE those links, but rather edited preexisting links in order to make the article somewhat less of an utter mess. Eventually, perhaps someone will go through and correct the ones that point to disambiguation pages. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multi-instrumentalist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swing. 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) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vocal range into Voice classification in non-classical music. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You have a response.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Washburn Guitars instruments


Hello, Weeb Dingle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Washburn Guitars instruments".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"rampant editorializing"
Good example of this is the user who has vomited all over Talk:Polyamory. --Craig (t|c) 03:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Romance (love), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with this edit but it was not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Polyamory. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Polyamory, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Machine head, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backlash ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Machine_head check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Machine_head?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Open marriage

 * FYI, I also wanted to let you know that I don't think you fully followed attribution requirements while merging. Page histories are legal records of copyright. You may want to re-read above. I already added a note in the page history here. Daask (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A "thank you!" for the acknowledgement for trying to rein in the Open marriage forks. I'd much rather just edit, but this merge so glaringly needed to happen.

As well, "thanks!" for picking up my (wholly unintended) slack. I've been leaning heavily on Merging (particularly "Full-content paste merger"), and, after trying to get it all done in one session, got somewhat burned out by the process. By the time I got to the "Merged-to/Merged-from" part of the checklist, I found that someone had beat me there! Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page sections
I noticed you forgot to create a new section heading for your comment on Talk:Free love. Usually, I click the "New section" button at the top of the page, and there is a "Subject/headline" field at the top for the heading. Alternately, you can create a section heading manually. If you want, the guideline is at Talk page guidelines. I already fixed it for you, but I just wanted to let you know. Sorry if you already know all this and just forgot to fill in the box; I'm just trying to be helpful. Daask (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of multi-instrumentalists for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of multi-instrumentalists 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/List of multi-instrumentalists& 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. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments
This is not appropriate

The user in question works extensively in this topic area. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have made personal attacks here User:Weeb_Dingle. Please remove them. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
 * I have removed the section from your user page which clearly references another editor, even if it doesn't name them. This is a collaborative enviroment; please treat it like one in the future.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Alton Brown Quotes
I'm curious as to why you thought that the Alton Brown quotes that were added to his article surrounding his concern for obesity and his personal take on his alcohol consumption were any less relevant than the information on his motorcycles and his take on religion? Infoupdates36 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe it's my senility kicking in, but upon doing a WTF check of Alton Brown and its History page, I cannot find where I removed ANY quotations. When I go back to 14 Oct 2018 (before I ever touched the article), I find no mention of either obesity or alcohol — maybe the now-defunct complainant should have been explicit about any synonyms. As it's a teapot tempest, I see no reason to dig further for the missing quotes or for the vile fiend who actually deleted them.


 * As the "Infoupdates" handle sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest problem (Food Network? fanboy? Brown's staff or family?), I wish it/he/she/they had taken time to fix AT LEAST ONE of the many unsourced comments in the article. Instead, flipping through the History, I see two edits made to Personal life by defunct AzureCerulean (28 June 2019) … two edits to Personal life by Shahnawaz9051 (23 May 2019), now blocked for marketing … two edits to Personal life by Dewangmakwana (14 Mar 2019), now blocked for spamming … and of course two edits to Personal life by defunct Infoupdates86 (7 January 2019). Hopefully, Brown is not addled enough to have paid for that level of ineptitude. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * B.C. Rich ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/B.C._Rich check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/B.C._Rich?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Joe Perry
 * Bass guitar ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bass_guitar check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bass_guitar?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Ebonol

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Engrish
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Engrish&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 04:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your use of talk pages
As is clear here, here and here, Wikipedia is not your personal website where you can demand things and talk down to people. If you continue to use article talk pages just to rant and demand things, you will find yourself at WP:ANI again. Of course, you won't go there, just like you didn't go there the previous two times your behavior was addressed there, but it's clear you don't have to go there for people to judge your behavior and issue whatever reprimand or sanction. Above, Black Kite told you, "This is a collaborative environment; please treat it like one in the future." That was in December 2018. You still aren't treating this site like a collaborative environment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

repost: from Talk:Home Movies (TV series) (24 August 2019)
Categories are nothing but generalized magnets for useless fancruft, thus encouraging fanboy wankers to sign up for W'pedia just to one-up each other rather than do any actual progressive editing of articles. Like most Lists, Categories depend primarily upon conjecture, original research, and editorial synthesis.

How is this both 1999 American television series debuts and 2001 American television series debuts? It jumped to another network, so I also don't see how it fits American television series revived after cancellation.

I've only seen maybe half the episodes, and can't see where it belongs with Television shows set in the United States. It could be Canada, or Germany (or, really, suburban Tokyo). Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

example: how to (maybe) control a List (repost from Talk:List of multi-instrumentalists, 5 July 2019)

 * A multi-instrumentalist is a musician who plays two or more musical instruments at a professional level of proficiency.

So, briefly, some points reiterated: I hope that is clear enough. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * a person without an article is not notable enough to be in a List — period
 * it is not sufficient to cite the article of an ensemble/band
 * any "multi-instrumentalist" claims in an article MUST be supported explicitly by a credible source (not some fan blog or whatever)
 * being able to create a few notes or chords DOES NOT make one proficient at an instrument — being able to strum a few chords does not make one "a guitar player" let alone "a guitarist"
 * and seeing as so many frontmen play harmonica (Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, Ian Anderson, Neil Young) without distinctive proficiency (compare Magic Dick or Little Walter), it does not count
 * instruments that can be picked up by just about anyone (claves, slide whistle, kazoo, handclaps) do not count at all
 * vocals are not an instrument
 * for the purposes of this List, it is established that 99%+ of the time similar instruments are the same — e.g., untuned percussion (trap set, congas, timbales), frets (guitar, bass, banjo, mandolin, lute), and keyboards (piano, synth, Hammond) form distinct groupings with little barrier to crossing over
 * yes, exceptions exist — that's why they're exceptions — for instance, Marty Stuart has a long career as a pro on fiddle AND mandolin AND electric guitar; Thijs van Leer was classically trained in piano AND flute AND organ (and recorded frequently with all); and someone who's proficient on harpsichord AND portative organ (both quirky instruments) would also likely belong
 * if it's at all debate-able, then the answer is clearly "NO, THAT PERSON DOES NOT BELONG HERE"

why "community" is NOT a good encyclopedic word (repost from Talk:List of polyamorists, 27 April 2019)
Not all men who sexually express themselves primarily with other men identify themselves as "gay," and not all gay-identified men see themselves as part of "the gay community" in any real sense. Not everyone who's queer-identified wants to be associated with (much less associate with) everyone else who's queer-identified.

Then, there's the not-insignificant begged question of w.t.f. "community": Community, Community of practice, Community of place, Community of interest?

There's even less "poly community" than "LGBTQ community": there's certainly no official Poly Pride Day, and few practicing polyfolk will march in any parade much less protest in front of City Hall. As well, LGBTQ has been variously estimated to (depending how you define the terms) include 10%-25% of the general population; by contrast, people who at some point have even vaguely fulfilled the requirements to experience polyamory has been estimated at <1%. The few poly-centric real-world events are scattered quite thinly — and almost entirely confined to major urban centers, thus excluding (say) a single suburban mother holding down two part-time jobs: she might be in "the community of interest" while highly unable to participate in "the community of place" or even "of practice," so is she part of "the poly community" or not? Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

example II: how to (maybe) control a List (repost from Talk:List of polyamorists, 19 Apr 2019)
As with so many W'pedia List pages, the best argument for the continued existence of this is that it's an excellent means to keep fanboy trivia and ephemera from clogging up the actual, useful, credible information — here, Polyamory. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merely because one person acts in a polyamorous manner DOES NOT mean that all that person's sexual/emotional connections (however deep) are "poly," and further DOES NOT mean that it's somehow "a poly relationship," and DOES NOT mean that everyone connected to a nonmonogamous person is therefore nonmonogamous, let alone "poly." For instance, one person could have two dozen recurrent intimate partners, NONE of whom wants/claims to be poly, and are each therefore fundamentally monogamous in belief and practice, simply non-possessive.
 * There's no indication that everyone who acts in a clearly polyamorous manner WANTS to "join the club," so foisting the label on them is not only highly questionable, but (if they are living) is a clear BLP violation.
 * It's basically impossible for someone to have "been polyamorous" before the invention of the concept. As such creation was a sort of on-the-fly situation, an approximation of the concept's birth would substitute, so 1990. (I've never seen the argument made that "polyamory" was at all intended in some evolutionary manner, though I would truly enjoy reading any contemporaneous account.) Dragging up some corpse in order to paste on a label is clearly synthesis and probably original research.
 * An analogy: Nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, even if she had been around Hubbard since he created Dianetics (1930s, maybe earlier) and remained highly placed in CoS for the rest of her life.
 * The argument will likely be made that previous terminology such as responsible nonmonogamy somehow weasels this in. If so, then the instant that claim is made, the article's name will become List of responsibly nonmonogamous people; lacking that, please don't even make the claim.
 * In order for someone to be (or have been) polyamorous, they must at some point have figuratively stood up and said "I am polyamorous." Lacking that, they must have claimed to accept (if not willingly and actively perform) the tenets and practices that define the concept polyamory. Lacking even that, the individual IS NOT polyamorous.
 * Each name on this list must point to a Wikipedia article. Either that article must clearly state the person was/is polyamorous (not merely nonmonogamous) or the list entry must point to a credible outside source that makes such a statement. In either case, particularly due to BLP policy, the cited source needs to be highly objective, rather than some "pro-poly" publication or an opinion piece or a blog.
 * An open relationship IS NOT THE SAME AS a polyamorous relationship. A couple can be "open" with one or both actively cheating, and an agreement (tacit or explicit) to "ignore" it so long as the home situation continues along satisfactorily, what is sometimes called a DADT (don't ask, don't tell) agreement; there is no commitment to mention their encoupled status to their hookups, therefore (FFI see below) it's not polyamory, Q.E.D..
 * Per the stated premise of List of polyamorists, in casual hookups there's no "strong, deep, close and true loving, romantic, and/or intimate relationship," and in DADT there's no inherent "full knowledge and consent of all involved."
 * In like manner, being inarguably polyamorous DOES NOT mean that the relationship is open. Since there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, we're stuck with popular conceptions and media reports, which heavily spread the belief that MOST polyamorous people are involved in a three-person CLOSED triad (almost always FMF). Portrayals are more marriage with more people (extending the premises of monogamy and marriage, as polygamy/polyandry), a highly circumscribed form of non-monogamy.

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-monogamy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ENM and CNM ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Non-monogamy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Non-monogamy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, dammit. Yeah, those were meant as bookmarks, intending to dig further into W'pedia to determine whether the terms are actually defined (or even mentioned) anywhere else.


 * Personally, I hold great disdain for trendy trite neologisms, particularly in a setting such as WP where (like mildew) a single instance — almost always with very poor or nonexistent sourcing — gives a basis for slipping it into related articles, until It's A Thing Now, You Know… and its widespread use on Wikipedia is held up as prime evidence. (CNM presently pops up in seven other articles.) That is to say, citogenesis, which is apparently frowned upon hereabouts. Rather than be left IRL where most such brainfarts will eventually disperse, they are instead preserved here, forever and apparently timeless, to be smelled for decades to come.


 * I regret forgetting my bookmarks, and have delinked them until the depressing day that a stub — or two — appears. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual Politics: some thoughts toward improvement
I've recently reread Sexual Politics. It now seems much less "radical" than back in the day, very thoughtfully crafted, and voluminously researched. There are significant portions that are overlooked in the article, or touched upon but misleadingly incomplete. Apologies for going so long, but explanation is necessary. Yah, too verbose for an article Talk page. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Though widely treated as a political tract, Sexual Politics is in fact a work of literary criticism. That it was written as a thesis keeps polemical content minimal (though some of her asides are a bit gratuitous).
 * To argue her case, Millett first needed to set out the parameters of the conflict she wished to address, then to define her terms and defend her approach. Basically, much of the volume is foundation for the final four chapters ("III: The Literary Reflection").
 * Millett makes clear that little of her historical overview is novel, as well that her observations depend from many sources, but her strategy may well be original.
 * Superlatives are often just marketing hype, and for WP purposes should generally be avoided, while those that remain should be tightly associated to the well-documented opinions of credible sources. When the first pocket edition came out in 1978, its cover proclaimed it THE FEMINIST CLASSIC (which seems unlikely), so parroting that catchphrase (twice, yet) needs much more than vaguely pointing toward one 1994 sociology thesis — better to mention statements made by widely known post-1969 feminists and scholars.
 * Also, "it was extremely controversial" needs at least one source to verify it, though "extremely" must have a quotation. Merely pissing Mailer off is insufficient.
 * My impression has been that very few people who cite the book have actually read it cover-to-cover, essentially "retweeting" the pithy parts mentioned by others; this makes me wonder whether Mailer ever saw her criticisms in context, or just egoscanned for his surname.
 * Somewhat opinion, but I disliked her lionizing of Genet in the early chapters. The last chapter is an excellent examination of how his career evolved and matured, and I then could appreciate his influence on Millett's approach.
 * Millett's "criticism" of Freud is overblown. Not only does she take much of her analysis of him from other sources (not least Horney), but at one point states that Freud himself would have been horrified to see how his theories would be twisted to support various popular prejudices and political agendas. Here, I find Millett much more credible than those who rush to keep spotless the old man's sainthood. And while she takes some time on Freud, he is not one of the four authors Millett confronts in depth.
 * Widely overlooked is Millett's deconstruction of "revolution" as widely abused in the glib term "The Sexual Revolution." She lays out the case that the actual revolutionary era occurred 1830-1930, and was only the first phase.
 * I don't know where she got it from, but Millett wrote that a revolutionary swing leads to reform: in a position to realize some long-overdue improvements, the revolutionaries dial back their struggle and allow themselves to be co-opted and begin accepting compromises, though the changes are nowhere so widespread or thorough as demanded. The old order gives some ground, but generally reestablishes itself.
 * Per Millett, the period 1930-1960 was then counter-revolutionary, with women widely stripped of rights and autonomy in support of "the War" then a peacetime desire to return to an imaginary "good old days" that was more Regency era than 20th century. One result was the enshrinement of the nuclear family, a married couple and 2-3 children but none of the servants or neighborhood or community or extended family of earlier times.
 * She states that innovations in contraception and reforms of marriage law set the stage for renewal of the revolutionary impulse in what's often now called The Sexual Revolution.
 * Having also recently revisited Ashley Montagu's The Natural Superiority of Women (4th edition, specifically), I find that many of the same topics are shared, not least being dubious about Freud's conclusions. This edition was published 1974, but Montagu early says he has not read the new wave of feminist studies. That would leave us with the possibilities that either Millet had borrowed (uncredited) from Montagu, or that both were influenced by the times and similar study. In any case, Millet's version is indicated to be "controversial" yet Montagu's seems to have entered the marketplace of ideas with little opprobrium.

My attempt at a correction of the issues present within Fourth International's lede section
Hello, this is Kaltionis. I just wanted to let you know that I have corrected the issues you have listed on Talk: Fourth International regarding said article's lead section, and likewise, I have subsequently removed the notice template after I have done my corrections. Feel free to verify it yourself in case I have overlooked something. Kaltionis (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Adlam_script
Thanks for your comments on Talk:Adlam_script. I broke your comment into 3 sections and copied your signature onto each piece. Hope that's alright. I think you had a few different actionable points so I wanted to break them into topics and respond accordingly. --Hurtstotouchfire (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Guy (help!) 17:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the other account? Isn't that usually recorded for sock-blocks like this, so other editors don't confuse the multi-account posts for being two different people? (Or was this pursuant to a WP:Clean start?)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Re. Useless "Editors"
High Weeb Dingle, from Talk:Stomp box I came to your page and talk page. There I followed a link and didn't understand the complaint. Therefore I checked it in your history; there it became clear. I completely understand your anger. As far as I can see, you were perfectly right with your critique on the matter. But you should have known that they would not let this go through. When he demanded to "remove them" (your personal attacks), as far as I see, it would have been enough to remove the "(someone) who has bafflingly been able to gain editing powers" and the "idiot", not the whole chapter. Did you forget that every one has editing rights (after 24 hours or so)? I think you should have called the attention of the Admins to this "dingus" by calling his "editing" vandalism -- he (this "editor") should have been blocked.

But everything has its good sides.

I have read that last chapter on your talk page, but maybe "someone else" would like to answer me.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)