Hello, Two kinds of pork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for PRISM (surveillance program). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Capscap (
talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think your edit in the PRISM article was meant to be in the Boundless informant article?? I removed it from prism, but if I'm wrong, feel free to readd it with a source. Thanks! Capscap ( talk) 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was something called Boundless informant. I was reading the prism article from the news section and it doesn't say anything about the name origin which is related to breaking up and reassembling colors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork ( talk • contribs)
(Undid revision 592147600 by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) restoring sourced and relevant opinion, as an objection without a stated reason has no place on wikipedia)
Please attend the on-going discussion at Soundgarden Talk Page [1]. There are very well-reasoned arguments for the edit. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 09:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Why does my user name appear in red while others I see are blue? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to insert the following sentence in the related article :
Susan Lindauer claims to have been arrested under the Patriot Act and held under indictment for five years without trial Targeted for 9/11 Warning, Voting Rights for ‘Some’, Obama’s Mandela Hypocrisy, RT, July 1st, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.52.124 ( talk) 10:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Two kinds of pork,
Instead of just deleting large portions of the article and venting your prejudices against Mr Perry, would you be willing to engage in a constructive discussion about how we can wikify it and bring it into line with WP best practice? Edit wars have a nasty habit of attracting attention. Ortho rhombic, 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Daniel Morgan Perry. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GB fan 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears only one person is fighting over keeping this ridiculous content.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Augustus Dunbier has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Augustus Dunbier with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't vandalism. I removed what appears to be a cut and past job from another sight. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Why am I getting accused of being a vandal by random editors? This makes no sense. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am so sorry. Yes, I see it now. It was totally inadvertent - we were involved in an edit conflict, and although I thought I had preserved the previous comment, obviously I hadn't. Once again, I'm sorry. St Anselm ( talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Is there a formatting tutorial for usernames and highlighting? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You are hereby warned that as Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage is under discretionary sanctions for the duration of the active arbitration case, this notice will serve as warning that your behavior on that talk page (as well as the other 2 pages under DS via the same injunction) from now on can be sanctioned.
Posted in my capacity as Clerk to the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 06:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I saw your Arbcom evidence. I think that since April Arcus has admitted it was in a moment of frustration, apologized, and agreed not to do it again, I think you should let it go. People make mistakes sometimes.--v/r - T P 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I recieved your message, I don't see the problem with my comments, as I do suggest policy reasons why Bradley Manning should stay at Bradeley Manning, and I'm not attacking anyone. Let me know which comments you think are out of line,please. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you're looking for some work to do. Are you interested in helping me rewrite Kenneth Frazier? It was a total BLP catastrophe when I found it. I cleaned it up as best I could, but really it needs an overhaul. I'm compiling notes at Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Notes. When that's done, the writing of new content can begin. My goal for this project is to pass a GA review. DPRoberts534 ( talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
You are engaging in a slow-moving edit war which is not appropriate; please discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. Rs chen 7754 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
For reference, dum dum dum dum. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [2]. Thank you. CFredkin ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. — Frungi ( talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
All that collection of jerks do is threaten me. I tried to come and suggest improvements and I get them calling me names, claiming I misrepresent sources (I DO NOT) and threatening me if I "misrepresent sources" again meaning if I speak and I'm not agreeing with them. This whole place is fucking corrupt.
Please don't reinstate such rants again. I have no idea why you feel the need to champion those BLP violations--and I'm getting a bit tired of cleaning up the history of that talk page. This is not the first time: please consider this a final warning. Drmies ( talk) 02:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being sane and reasonable. If you get into any difficulty over this with an admin, let me know. Shelly Pixie ( talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw what happened over on the Tara Platt article, and I boldly restored the filmography and biography section since there are still plenty of sources that can verify this information. I personally think it is a good idea to just leave filmography sections as is, and source roles that can be sourced per the policy on WP:V and WP:BLP (it's pretty difficult to find sources confirming a role without using a work's end credits, especially for English dubs where reliable coverage is almost non-existent) but without blanking the whole section. The problem is that blanking or commenting-out a section is just not a good practice because it would remove most of the information on the page. While sources are admittedly very difficult to find, this does not mean that such sections should be removed. If needed, I think that simply citing an official website or the work itself would be enough. In the future, I would recommend that you please do not nuke any filmography sections, but instead just tag them. Please be careful next time. If you have any questions or concerns over my edits to an article, discuss here, on my talk page or on the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Kleuske ( talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Giant Snowman 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Two Kinds. Not sure why you asked on the AfD if someone can just recreate a deleted article? Jasmine Waltz hasn't been deleted/recreated, has it? Therefore I'm answering you here: yes, they can. Or at least, they can create an article with the same name. They mostly can't recreate the deleted content, since only admins can see what it was. But if someone does go to create an article with the same name, they'll get a warning window that points out it was deleted before. That'll discourage some people, not all. However, depending on the reason for the original deletion, the second article is quite likely to be quickly deleted, too. And once that chain reaction has started, some admin is sure to " salt the earth" — protect the name against recreation. It's really simpler than it sounds… ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Awarded for sticking with it! BlueSalix ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
Responding to the message you left on my Talk page. It looks like the major objection(s) to your recent edits is based on WP:WEIGHT rather than whether the Deadspin article you are citing is a reliable source. Dezastru ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As mentioned on the First Opium War talk page, I'm answering your question here:
Your Question: What sort of potential losses? This might be a very useful addition to the article.
corroboration not collaboration Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your good contributions to the project! Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Two kinds of pork. It seems to me that you are up to three reverts on the Eich article. If you revert again it's likely you will be blocked. In my opinion the issue that concerns you won't be accepted as an exception to 3RR. The BLP exception is intended for unsourced defamation, which this is not. At most the Eich matter is a question of WP:UNDUE weight, which needs discussion and consensus and is not a justification for unilateral reverts. My suggestion is that you stay away from reverting others' changes for several days, while discussion continues on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Two kinds of pork. Seeing that you are a relatively new editor, you may not be familiarized with other than the basics of Wikipedia policy. When debating controversial articles, it's important that you focus on the disputes around the article's content, not the behavior of other editors. I'll gladly clarify for you any doubts you may have, about my concerns with the current reporting of the psychotic break, if you're interested in debating about the neutrality and balance of the section.
Please consider that in order to make a constructive contribution to discussion, you are expected to try to understand what point is being raised. Asking another editor to stop participating is against behavioral policy, and frankly quite ineffective; and stating on the talk page that I'm here to "make a point" (rather merely assuming than I'm trying to improve the article) is a personal attack, and you should avoid it. If you don't want to engage in the about neutrality nor make an effort to understand my point, you can simply stop reading the discussion and let others arrive to a consensus. If you're concerned about the quality of the Russell's biography, I expect that you'll agree to collaborate, and help me avoid the inclusion of cheesy descriptions about his psychotic incident. Cheers. Diego ( talk) 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello - please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems unlikely that this is your first Wikipedia account. Could you set my mind at ease and confirm that other accounts you've used (if any) were not blocked, banned, or otherwise subject to sanctions? There's something about your editing that reminds me of a very banned editor, but since I can't crystallize my intuition into diffs I thought I'd just ask you directly rather than beat around the bush. MastCell Talk 21:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you Off2RioRob/Youreallycan? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. Your point about the differentiation between resignation and boycott was spot on, however. -- j⚛e decker talk 05:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to this article and to the talk page were wholly inappropriate. In the article you inserted an unsourced quote and a sentence that wasn't noteworthy and wasn't even well-crafted. On the talk page, you reverted the archiving bot saying stuff was recent. Most of the material was from March. The latest post I believe was from April 30, which is not recent. Worse, having reverted the bot, you left the archive alone, thus not even cleaning up after yourself. I've reverted your edits to both pages. Please try to edit more responsibly in the future.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw you edited the Offside (association football) wiki page so that it claims that offside IS the most confusing rule(etc.) But, in my personal opinion, it's pretty easy to understand. I changed the page so it doesn't say that offside IS confusing(...), rather that it has been CALLED confusing(...)
The reference you used was an american source and the world already has enough people who are prejudiced against americans with regard to their understanding of soccer, so I am making this note on your talk page in case you might want to remove that part entirely from the page.
Cheers!
-anon
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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:
I suspect that you are right in that there is a COI editor involved.
If the subject of the article is verifiably in favor of deleting (via the OTRS) and if I remember the sourcing correctly, the only marginal claims of notabilty rest on dropped criminal charges, then I would not be opposed to deletion.
It does not seem to have been picked up widely as one of the iconic misapplications of the War on Terror laws which might be a target for a merge or redirect?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2014 Ferguson unrest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. See
BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection.
It seems that you are edit warring with Cwobeel over minor wording changes. -
Mr
X 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Anyways, thanks for the kind words. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Van Dyke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raps. 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) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the gesture. Yeah, we all get worked up sometimes, but it is nice when we can acknowledge that and move on in a better, more collegial manner. Thank you and happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |
When I first saw your proposal I was suspicious, but since I've taken advice not to read too carefully/focus on/respond to questionable comments, I didn't remember the exact details of your past comments. Only when responding to your comment on " WP:AGF" did I go past your past comments and discover that you actually might have been joking. Since another editor removed the whole thread, including the below, I thought I'd post it here to make sure you saw it.
}} Nevertheless, I did try to assume good faith by putting my original question back. If you are withdrawing the proposal, feel free to do so. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me your support with my work on Wikipedia best of luck to you for the rest of 2014 and the future. -- Smokeyfire ( talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire
I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your comment here. I didn't want to distract from the relevant discussion or potentially embarrass you there, but I wouldn't want you continuing to misunderstand 3rr. The policy states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." So it is the fourth revert that breaks the rule. In this case, the fourth revert lay outside the 24 hour period so there was no 3rr violation. While editors can sometimes be blocked for persistent edit-warring without ever breaking 3rr, I saw no suggestion that this was the case in the situation described. In general I try to avoid blocking good faith editors unless absolutely necessary. So I closed it as "No action". I hope that makes sense and I hope you don't mind me raising it with you here. -- John ( talk) 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the new sig. I can't recall who I got that kind of markup from, but its much more fun than the boring default, yet it doesn't take up too much page space like seems to be more common lately.-- Milowent • has spoken 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
‑Scottywong
| express _ 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Seems to me this was an unintended mistake by TKOP, and a block is unnecessary. Blocks are not punitive and my reading of the above shows that the user understands the mistake. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, but it was the fight over the comments that caused the block to be issued. SPECIFICO has the situation pegged quite well. I'm afraid Scott came to the wrong conclusion after reading the page history. Hopefully something good will come of this;the bad faith comments will cease or their author will dealt with accordingly. Once again, thanks for the support. But I would apppreciate if everyone just let this go and I'll see you all tomorrow. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for standing up to harrassment [ [5]], I appreciate the fact that I'm not the only one! Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 07:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know I was discussing an episode of harrassment by User:Neotarf, as it seems you may be heading to arb anyways you may wish to wait that out but since I aqm mentioning you here's your notice [ [6]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware, but the Belle Knox AFD has been relisted. As you are the only !vote remaining from the original AFD , you may wish to review things to either change your !vote, or confirm that you still think that !vote is correct. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I must say Porky, your input into a lot of the silly heated debates is very welcome here. The voice of reason for the normal person on here. You're like the orange-scented Febreze of wiki stinky situations LOL. I feel like I know you but don't recognize the name. Keep up the great stuff! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
That bad eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You have false information in there that is no supported by any diffs. (No, I don't have time to tell you what.)
[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]] applies to talk pages and sand boxes. Putting up a draft with adequate diffs like that a day or two before you put it on the Arbitration page would not be a big deal. Putting up unproved charges against other editors and letting them sit for weeks is a well-known no no.
Just noticed Worm that Turned comment "From my point of view, everything in the Sandbox is unacceptable without diffs" and that is what he was talking about. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just so I don't have to waste my time replying, here's two obvious errors.
Why you have trimmed the lead? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you've already seen, but there are new FoF/Remedies up involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them. Regards, NativeForeigner Talk 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Those bastards didn't have anything pork lol. Happy holidays, here's a holiday laugh [ [8]] Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 11:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
I've left a response with a link to a 2000 commentary on Canon Law in the thread on the humanities desk. μηδείς ( talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Two kinds of pork! Related to your recent edits of the Grateful Dead article, feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Grateful Dead#2015 reunion concerts: Grateful Dead?. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy, such as
Draft:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Pretty sure everybody is aware, but may as well make sure. Strongjam ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's actually the start of one of your edit summaries at User talk:Beeblebrox. Unfortunately, despite his having basically come just short of directly telling you to stop posting on his page regarding this matter, you don't seem to apparently have the self-control to do so. If you really believe that there are issues regarding the arbcom case involved, then feel free to post them to the arbcom case pages. But, as it seems rather extremely obvious that Beeblebrox does not want you to post anymore to his user talkpage regarding this topic, you probably should stop doing so. John Carter ( talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there- when reverting my edit, you claimed that my language was unneutral. I don't see how, but I invite you to discuss this at the talk page for Gamergate Controversy. If you'd rather not discuss it, that's okay, but in the event that I don't understand why my edit was unneutral I'm going to reinstate it. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver is female. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sexism is discrimination based on gender, often incorporating the belief that one gender is better than the other. Misogyny is simply hating women -- you can be both misogynist and misandrist if you hate women for being women, and hate men for being men, without technically being sexist because you're not biased toward one or the other. There is a small, but existing nuance. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Botulism. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised that the arbs will speak without actually knowing the background. You've been asked to provide evidence (again) to your claims about Lightbreather...how many times do we have to show her the evidence? I posted quite a bit and you are free to copy and paste it if you need to it covers everything you said. I asked Thyrdullf to look at the substance. I'm pretty flabbergasted the amount of problems one user can stir up. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Keilana|
Parlez ici 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)@ Keilana: Would you please explain how my edit, even broadly construed is related to the GGTF? AFAIA LB's little experiment doesn't even mention the GGTF, nor gender gap. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Milowent: It's DrudgeReport on steroids. I didn't find much TBH Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Sitush: Oh no you didint! Don't you realize that if you tell this lot they can't do something, they will smugly say "Challenge accepted!" Just write down the votes and confront them at the next election. And a simple litmus test for would be arbs. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
are you willing to?
Hell in a Bucket (
talk) 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WOW indeed - see this. No idea why Tkop has not been notified - maybe my eyesight is failing and it is somewhere above. - Sitush ( talk) 07:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
|
TWOP. This is to inform you that you are the subject of a motion to site-ban you for a minimum period of twelve months. For your information, the motion is here. As your talk page access has been withdrawn, if you wish to comment on the motion, or provide reasons why it should not be passed, you should email the committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity. I will also send you this notice by email. Roger Davies talk 07:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Two kinds of pork, just letting you know I've archived an arbitration motion involving you. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We from WP:RETENTION, await your return. You've not been forgotten. GoodDay ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back, TKOP. GoodDay ( talk) 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) The Wookieepedian ( talk) 07:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smokey and the Bandit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg. 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) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. So, congratulating someone for enjoying their studies in engineering is considered harrassment? Please elaborate. I doubt GW felt threatened, nor was it my goal. In fact you can see where I acknowledged that nothing I could do really matters, so your circling the wagons here to "protect one of your own" is downright silly. Furthermore this is a punitive block, because my edit summary says "adieu" -- which of course you know heat that means. : Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you believe the block was made in error, you may make an unblock request and it will be attended to by an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I don't see this thread going anywhere productive. L Faraone 17:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GotNews 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GotNews until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MelanieN ( talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Gotnews logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Diff lookup service, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Diff lookup service and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Diff lookup service during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Two kinds of pork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for PRISM (surveillance program). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Capscap (
talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think your edit in the PRISM article was meant to be in the Boundless informant article?? I removed it from prism, but if I'm wrong, feel free to readd it with a source. Thanks! Capscap ( talk) 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was something called Boundless informant. I was reading the prism article from the news section and it doesn't say anything about the name origin which is related to breaking up and reassembling colors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork ( talk • contribs)
(Undid revision 592147600 by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) restoring sourced and relevant opinion, as an objection without a stated reason has no place on wikipedia)
Please attend the on-going discussion at Soundgarden Talk Page [1]. There are very well-reasoned arguments for the edit. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 09:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Why does my user name appear in red while others I see are blue? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to insert the following sentence in the related article :
Susan Lindauer claims to have been arrested under the Patriot Act and held under indictment for five years without trial Targeted for 9/11 Warning, Voting Rights for ‘Some’, Obama’s Mandela Hypocrisy, RT, July 1st, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.52.124 ( talk) 10:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Two kinds of pork,
Instead of just deleting large portions of the article and venting your prejudices against Mr Perry, would you be willing to engage in a constructive discussion about how we can wikify it and bring it into line with WP best practice? Edit wars have a nasty habit of attracting attention. Ortho rhombic, 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Daniel Morgan Perry. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GB fan 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears only one person is fighting over keeping this ridiculous content.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Augustus Dunbier has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Augustus Dunbier with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dusti *Let's talk!* 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't vandalism. I removed what appears to be a cut and past job from another sight. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Why am I getting accused of being a vandal by random editors? This makes no sense. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am so sorry. Yes, I see it now. It was totally inadvertent - we were involved in an edit conflict, and although I thought I had preserved the previous comment, obviously I hadn't. Once again, I'm sorry. St Anselm ( talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Is there a formatting tutorial for usernames and highlighting? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You are hereby warned that as Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage is under discretionary sanctions for the duration of the active arbitration case, this notice will serve as warning that your behavior on that talk page (as well as the other 2 pages under DS via the same injunction) from now on can be sanctioned.
Posted in my capacity as Clerk to the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 06:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I saw your Arbcom evidence. I think that since April Arcus has admitted it was in a moment of frustration, apologized, and agreed not to do it again, I think you should let it go. People make mistakes sometimes.--v/r - T P 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I recieved your message, I don't see the problem with my comments, as I do suggest policy reasons why Bradley Manning should stay at Bradeley Manning, and I'm not attacking anyone. Let me know which comments you think are out of line,please. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you're looking for some work to do. Are you interested in helping me rewrite Kenneth Frazier? It was a total BLP catastrophe when I found it. I cleaned it up as best I could, but really it needs an overhaul. I'm compiling notes at Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Notes. When that's done, the writing of new content can begin. My goal for this project is to pass a GA review. DPRoberts534 ( talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
You are engaging in a slow-moving edit war which is not appropriate; please discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. Rs chen 7754 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
For reference, dum dum dum dum. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [2]. Thank you. CFredkin ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. — Frungi ( talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
All that collection of jerks do is threaten me. I tried to come and suggest improvements and I get them calling me names, claiming I misrepresent sources (I DO NOT) and threatening me if I "misrepresent sources" again meaning if I speak and I'm not agreeing with them. This whole place is fucking corrupt.
Please don't reinstate such rants again. I have no idea why you feel the need to champion those BLP violations--and I'm getting a bit tired of cleaning up the history of that talk page. This is not the first time: please consider this a final warning. Drmies ( talk) 02:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being sane and reasonable. If you get into any difficulty over this with an admin, let me know. Shelly Pixie ( talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw what happened over on the Tara Platt article, and I boldly restored the filmography and biography section since there are still plenty of sources that can verify this information. I personally think it is a good idea to just leave filmography sections as is, and source roles that can be sourced per the policy on WP:V and WP:BLP (it's pretty difficult to find sources confirming a role without using a work's end credits, especially for English dubs where reliable coverage is almost non-existent) but without blanking the whole section. The problem is that blanking or commenting-out a section is just not a good practice because it would remove most of the information on the page. While sources are admittedly very difficult to find, this does not mean that such sections should be removed. If needed, I think that simply citing an official website or the work itself would be enough. In the future, I would recommend that you please do not nuke any filmography sections, but instead just tag them. Please be careful next time. If you have any questions or concerns over my edits to an article, discuss here, on my talk page or on the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Kleuske ( talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Giant Snowman 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Two Kinds. Not sure why you asked on the AfD if someone can just recreate a deleted article? Jasmine Waltz hasn't been deleted/recreated, has it? Therefore I'm answering you here: yes, they can. Or at least, they can create an article with the same name. They mostly can't recreate the deleted content, since only admins can see what it was. But if someone does go to create an article with the same name, they'll get a warning window that points out it was deleted before. That'll discourage some people, not all. However, depending on the reason for the original deletion, the second article is quite likely to be quickly deleted, too. And once that chain reaction has started, some admin is sure to " salt the earth" — protect the name against recreation. It's really simpler than it sounds… ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Awarded for sticking with it! BlueSalix ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
Responding to the message you left on my Talk page. It looks like the major objection(s) to your recent edits is based on WP:WEIGHT rather than whether the Deadspin article you are citing is a reliable source. Dezastru ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As mentioned on the First Opium War talk page, I'm answering your question here:
Your Question: What sort of potential losses? This might be a very useful addition to the article.
corroboration not collaboration Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your good contributions to the project! Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Two kinds of pork. It seems to me that you are up to three reverts on the Eich article. If you revert again it's likely you will be blocked. In my opinion the issue that concerns you won't be accepted as an exception to 3RR. The BLP exception is intended for unsourced defamation, which this is not. At most the Eich matter is a question of WP:UNDUE weight, which needs discussion and consensus and is not a justification for unilateral reverts. My suggestion is that you stay away from reverting others' changes for several days, while discussion continues on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Two kinds of pork. Seeing that you are a relatively new editor, you may not be familiarized with other than the basics of Wikipedia policy. When debating controversial articles, it's important that you focus on the disputes around the article's content, not the behavior of other editors. I'll gladly clarify for you any doubts you may have, about my concerns with the current reporting of the psychotic break, if you're interested in debating about the neutrality and balance of the section.
Please consider that in order to make a constructive contribution to discussion, you are expected to try to understand what point is being raised. Asking another editor to stop participating is against behavioral policy, and frankly quite ineffective; and stating on the talk page that I'm here to "make a point" (rather merely assuming than I'm trying to improve the article) is a personal attack, and you should avoid it. If you don't want to engage in the about neutrality nor make an effort to understand my point, you can simply stop reading the discussion and let others arrive to a consensus. If you're concerned about the quality of the Russell's biography, I expect that you'll agree to collaborate, and help me avoid the inclusion of cheesy descriptions about his psychotic incident. Cheers. Diego ( talk) 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello - please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems unlikely that this is your first Wikipedia account. Could you set my mind at ease and confirm that other accounts you've used (if any) were not blocked, banned, or otherwise subject to sanctions? There's something about your editing that reminds me of a very banned editor, but since I can't crystallize my intuition into diffs I thought I'd just ask you directly rather than beat around the bush. MastCell Talk 21:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you Off2RioRob/Youreallycan? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. Your point about the differentiation between resignation and boycott was spot on, however. -- j⚛e decker talk 05:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to this article and to the talk page were wholly inappropriate. In the article you inserted an unsourced quote and a sentence that wasn't noteworthy and wasn't even well-crafted. On the talk page, you reverted the archiving bot saying stuff was recent. Most of the material was from March. The latest post I believe was from April 30, which is not recent. Worse, having reverted the bot, you left the archive alone, thus not even cleaning up after yourself. I've reverted your edits to both pages. Please try to edit more responsibly in the future.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw you edited the Offside (association football) wiki page so that it claims that offside IS the most confusing rule(etc.) But, in my personal opinion, it's pretty easy to understand. I changed the page so it doesn't say that offside IS confusing(...), rather that it has been CALLED confusing(...)
The reference you used was an american source and the world already has enough people who are prejudiced against americans with regard to their understanding of soccer, so I am making this note on your talk page in case you might want to remove that part entirely from the page.
Cheers!
-anon
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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:
I suspect that you are right in that there is a COI editor involved.
If the subject of the article is verifiably in favor of deleting (via the OTRS) and if I remember the sourcing correctly, the only marginal claims of notabilty rest on dropped criminal charges, then I would not be opposed to deletion.
It does not seem to have been picked up widely as one of the iconic misapplications of the War on Terror laws which might be a target for a merge or redirect?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2014 Ferguson unrest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. See
BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection.
It seems that you are edit warring with Cwobeel over minor wording changes. -
Mr
X 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Anyways, thanks for the kind words. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Van Dyke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raps. 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) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the gesture. Yeah, we all get worked up sometimes, but it is nice when we can acknowledge that and move on in a better, more collegial manner. Thank you and happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |
When I first saw your proposal I was suspicious, but since I've taken advice not to read too carefully/focus on/respond to questionable comments, I didn't remember the exact details of your past comments. Only when responding to your comment on " WP:AGF" did I go past your past comments and discover that you actually might have been joking. Since another editor removed the whole thread, including the below, I thought I'd post it here to make sure you saw it.
}} Nevertheless, I did try to assume good faith by putting my original question back. If you are withdrawing the proposal, feel free to do so. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me your support with my work on Wikipedia best of luck to you for the rest of 2014 and the future. -- Smokeyfire ( talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire
I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your comment here. I didn't want to distract from the relevant discussion or potentially embarrass you there, but I wouldn't want you continuing to misunderstand 3rr. The policy states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." So it is the fourth revert that breaks the rule. In this case, the fourth revert lay outside the 24 hour period so there was no 3rr violation. While editors can sometimes be blocked for persistent edit-warring without ever breaking 3rr, I saw no suggestion that this was the case in the situation described. In general I try to avoid blocking good faith editors unless absolutely necessary. So I closed it as "No action". I hope that makes sense and I hope you don't mind me raising it with you here. -- John ( talk) 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the new sig. I can't recall who I got that kind of markup from, but its much more fun than the boring default, yet it doesn't take up too much page space like seems to be more common lately.-- Milowent • has spoken 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
‑Scottywong
| express _ 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Seems to me this was an unintended mistake by TKOP, and a block is unnecessary. Blocks are not punitive and my reading of the above shows that the user understands the mistake. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, but it was the fight over the comments that caused the block to be issued. SPECIFICO has the situation pegged quite well. I'm afraid Scott came to the wrong conclusion after reading the page history. Hopefully something good will come of this;the bad faith comments will cease or their author will dealt with accordingly. Once again, thanks for the support. But I would apppreciate if everyone just let this go and I'll see you all tomorrow. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for standing up to harrassment [ [5]], I appreciate the fact that I'm not the only one! Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 07:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know I was discussing an episode of harrassment by User:Neotarf, as it seems you may be heading to arb anyways you may wish to wait that out but since I aqm mentioning you here's your notice [ [6]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware, but the Belle Knox AFD has been relisted. As you are the only !vote remaining from the original AFD , you may wish to review things to either change your !vote, or confirm that you still think that !vote is correct. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I must say Porky, your input into a lot of the silly heated debates is very welcome here. The voice of reason for the normal person on here. You're like the orange-scented Febreze of wiki stinky situations LOL. I feel like I know you but don't recognize the name. Keep up the great stuff! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
That bad eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You have false information in there that is no supported by any diffs. (No, I don't have time to tell you what.)
[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]] applies to talk pages and sand boxes. Putting up a draft with adequate diffs like that a day or two before you put it on the Arbitration page would not be a big deal. Putting up unproved charges against other editors and letting them sit for weeks is a well-known no no.
Just noticed Worm that Turned comment "From my point of view, everything in the Sandbox is unacceptable without diffs" and that is what he was talking about. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just so I don't have to waste my time replying, here's two obvious errors.
Why you have trimmed the lead? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you've already seen, but there are new FoF/Remedies up involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them. Regards, NativeForeigner Talk 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Those bastards didn't have anything pork lol. Happy holidays, here's a holiday laugh [ [8]] Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 11:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
I've left a response with a link to a 2000 commentary on Canon Law in the thread on the humanities desk. μηδείς ( talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Two kinds of pork! Related to your recent edits of the Grateful Dead article, feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Grateful Dead#2015 reunion concerts: Grateful Dead?. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy, such as
Draft:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Pretty sure everybody is aware, but may as well make sure. Strongjam ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's actually the start of one of your edit summaries at User talk:Beeblebrox. Unfortunately, despite his having basically come just short of directly telling you to stop posting on his page regarding this matter, you don't seem to apparently have the self-control to do so. If you really believe that there are issues regarding the arbcom case involved, then feel free to post them to the arbcom case pages. But, as it seems rather extremely obvious that Beeblebrox does not want you to post anymore to his user talkpage regarding this topic, you probably should stop doing so. John Carter ( talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there- when reverting my edit, you claimed that my language was unneutral. I don't see how, but I invite you to discuss this at the talk page for Gamergate Controversy. If you'd rather not discuss it, that's okay, but in the event that I don't understand why my edit was unneutral I'm going to reinstate it. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver is female. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sexism is discrimination based on gender, often incorporating the belief that one gender is better than the other. Misogyny is simply hating women -- you can be both misogynist and misandrist if you hate women for being women, and hate men for being men, without technically being sexist because you're not biased toward one or the other. There is a small, but existing nuance. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Botulism. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat surprised that the arbs will speak without actually knowing the background. You've been asked to provide evidence (again) to your claims about Lightbreather...how many times do we have to show her the evidence? I posted quite a bit and you are free to copy and paste it if you need to it covers everything you said. I asked Thyrdullf to look at the substance. I'm pretty flabbergasted the amount of problems one user can stir up. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Keilana|
Parlez ici 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)@ Keilana: Would you please explain how my edit, even broadly construed is related to the GGTF? AFAIA LB's little experiment doesn't even mention the GGTF, nor gender gap. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Milowent: It's DrudgeReport on steroids. I didn't find much TBH Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Sitush: Oh no you didint! Don't you realize that if you tell this lot they can't do something, they will smugly say "Challenge accepted!" Just write down the votes and confront them at the next election. And a simple litmus test for would be arbs. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
are you willing to?
Hell in a Bucket (
talk) 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WOW indeed - see this. No idea why Tkop has not been notified - maybe my eyesight is failing and it is somewhere above. - Sitush ( talk) 07:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
|
TWOP. This is to inform you that you are the subject of a motion to site-ban you for a minimum period of twelve months. For your information, the motion is here. As your talk page access has been withdrawn, if you wish to comment on the motion, or provide reasons why it should not be passed, you should email the committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity. I will also send you this notice by email. Roger Davies talk 07:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Two kinds of pork, just letting you know I've archived an arbitration motion involving you. For the Arbitration Committee, -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We from WP:RETENTION, await your return. You've not been forgotten. GoodDay ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back, TKOP. GoodDay ( talk) 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) The Wookieepedian ( talk) 07:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smokey and the Bandit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg. 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) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. So, congratulating someone for enjoying their studies in engineering is considered harrassment? Please elaborate. I doubt GW felt threatened, nor was it my goal. In fact you can see where I acknowledged that nothing I could do really matters, so your circling the wagons here to "protect one of your own" is downright silly. Furthermore this is a punitive block, because my edit summary says "adieu" -- which of course you know heat that means. : Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you believe the block was made in error, you may make an unblock request and it will be attended to by an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I don't see this thread going anywhere productive. L Faraone 17:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GotNews 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GotNews until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MelanieN ( talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Gotnews logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Diff lookup service, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Diff lookup service and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Diff lookup service during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)