This user may have left Wikipedia. Xenophrenic has not edited Wikipedia since 7 December 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
I was just wondering where the February 20th came from in the reference you added. I don't see that date on the webpage and the retrieval date in any case would be today. Thanks in advance for your response. -- Daffydavid ( talk) 01:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, regarding this: indeed, I had misread the text. The article says that Huxley was known for the advocacy, not Stevenson. Sorry, thanks and cheers. - DVdm ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that although footnote 48, the Plebe Summer ... Procedures, is a dead link, there's a valid archive available at Wayback confirming that "Good Night Jane Fonda" calls are expressly prohibited. While the military is often criticized for unnecessary paperwork, it seems unlikely that even they would trouble to so specifically prohibit something that had no significant history of occurring. 2600:1006:B10A:9AF1:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The choice of WP:ANI was a reasonable one to report the IP, but the biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably a better place for issues about defamatory posts. However, I think that, in the specific case, the best option is semi-protection of the article, which I will request in a few minutes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I think that the editor in question has four edits, not six, because I think that the 'banana' vandal was someone else. However, that is not important. We need to prevent the insertion of questionable defamatory material. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
you now understand my consistent positions on BLPs even if sometimes it means "bad guys" don't get buckets of s*** piled into articles? Heck I even edited Kim Jong-un. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You might look at Project for the New American Century moreover - I know we are apt at times to disagree, but I think you might find the discussions interesting. Collect ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect ( talk) 04:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Copied here to facilitate continuation of the discussion.
Hi, MavsFan28 - it's been a while since we chatted. I hope you've been well. I know you left a comment on the
Tom Smith article Talk page, and I do plan to respond to you there, but this is about a different (but related) issue not appropriate for that Talk page. I figured you and IP:100.14.57.197 were the same editor. You made
this edit while logged in and as the IP you made
the identical edit, and you've edit warred to keep that edit as both. Not logging in isn't a big problem in itself, but when you left a comment with an edit summary stating
(See talk page before either of you revert), you implied that the IP user isn't you. If the IP is you, then you have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding abusive
WP:sockpuppetry. Perhaps you were unaware of that policy? If so, please let me know, and we can just overlook it this time. If you tell me that the IP isn't yours, however, I'll be obliged to file a
WP:SPI report as a routine matter. It's a tedious process, so I should apologize for it in advance, but I'd be very interested to know how it could be coincidental that at least
21 of the 30 articles edited by the IP are also edited by you. I see you edit many articles about Pennsylvania politics and sports subjects, and the IP geolocates to Pennsylvania, so I'm sure you can understand my reasoning. Seeing the IP make edits just hours after the MavsFan28 account in obscure areas like the Ken Ham Talk page RfC just further emphasizes the point. Anyway, your input in this matter would be appreciated. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Heyo Xenophrenic. I added the content per this AfD discussion as a possibly searchable term. If not entirely, do mention Ricky Clousing briefly. Cheers, Ya sh ! 17:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You might want to note the similarities in the arguments made by Efliv23 and those of Catsmeow8989. Just something I noticed. GAB Hello! 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed that you had undid my edits on Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, specifically the ones that had included their respective degrees. I've since reverted them, but I'm opening discussion here, in case there's disagreement.
I had felt that the inclusion of the degrees was consistent with that of quite a few other notables ( Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Colin Powell, James Baker, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, the list could go on). Perhaps you may think otherwise?
Looking forward to your thoughts. GabeIglesia ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What did I do? What is the difference between these two edits ( [2], [3])? And there is nothing about CREW that is not partisan, btw. Quis separabit? 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've been dealing with that IP-hopping editor from Lancaster, PA for months and months. This guy acts in good faith but is still disruptive and has serious civility and competence issues. What do you think about resuming the semi-prot approach instead of going back to constant reversions? If there's one thing I've learned it's that he never stops. Like the energizer bunny, as soon as the semi-prot expires he's back to junking up articles and talk pages the next day. (P.S. I'm kind of intermittent on WP these days, so please be patient if I don't respond immediately.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
173.67.158.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.40 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.194 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.134 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.216 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.12 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.86 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.197 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.128 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.58 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.60 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.239 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.45 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.81 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.147 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.23 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.173 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.120 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.170 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.192 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.151 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.160 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.205 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.51 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.65 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.211 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.7 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.82 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.110 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.117 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.135 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.136 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.218 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.172.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS),
Here is the photo that was taken of the person in question. This is regards to the edit you made on Sept 1st 2015 that removed all refferences to the flag burning. edit to article, image Here is the link that also references it from the IVAW website. The line quotes is listed on item number 7. This is the link to his resignation from IVAW. meeting minutes
I respectful request that the IVAW article to be amended to include this information. Thank you for your time. Articseahorse ( talk) 00:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The RfC you suggested is now open, here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't wish to get into an edit war, but the individuals that are performing the editing, merely delete documented and factual evidence that has been evolving the past few days. As much as Katie Couric may or may not be a whipping post for the political right, it is newsworthy from a large number of left leaning media sources. I also cannot contact others, as they do not possess a talk page. My belief is that they will not allow any such information to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
1. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only one that was editing the information to be inclusive of the controversy. 2. Couric had not, in fact, specifically responded to the accusations. However, a general statement by the film director and Epix was made public. 3. Couric was the Executive Producer, as well as the Creative Executive/Narrator of the Film. She might have not have physically done the editing, but she certainly had control over the editing. 4. What cited concerns? I wasn't able to locate why the information was being deleted. 5. If I made technical mistakes, why could they have not been communicated for me to correct? 6. The information now on the page, cites the film as a documentary. Clearly that classification is in dispute, by dozens of independent media sources. If such is allowed to stand, without mentioning the controversy surrounding such, then I would argue that such violates policy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for continued edit warring at Forced conversion. ( 1, 2, 3) This appears to be a continuation of the behavior highlighted at the 3RR report. ( 4, 5, 6, 7) Our edit warring policy is quite clear that consensus should be reached or dispute resolution sought instead of reverting to your preferred version. When the block expires, I would encourage you to continue further discussion before making further reverts. If you feel that the discussion is not progressing, I would encourage you to seek further input through dispute resolution or a request for comment. Mike V • Talk 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As explained immediately below (my apologies, but this Unblock Template is giving me grief when I try to provide diffs within it).
Decline reason:
(1) Procedural decline: The block has expired.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (reinstated; at the suggestion of the blocking admin, this template may be left up pending the attention of another editor on the substance of the block)
(2) Firstly, you are no longer blocked, so an unblock isn't what you're asking for. Secondly, I don't see how your latest edits on that page, namely
these, qualify as a self-reversion. You removed content from the page that you didn't agree with, despite objections on the talk page.
Huon (
talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I believe Admin Mike V has misunderstood the present situation and made this block in error. I have made only a single actual edit to the article in the past couple days, and only 3 edits total in the past 8 days (these are the 3 diffs Mike provided as evidence of edit warring): All 3 edits were simple reverts to the pre-dispute BRD article version — as suggested by the involved editors ( see Jobas, and Anupam, and per this agreement here), while our discussion is ongoing. Despite the contentious subject matter, we've actually done fairly well in discussing our concerns, with only those few instances during the past week of editors prematurely declaring they have consensus and reinserting problematic content.
I said Mike may be misunderstanding the situation, and here are some of the reasons why:
I am requesting that the block be lifted, and a brief notation be added to the log summary to indicate the mistaken entry. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
With the block due to expire within the hour, the part of my request to have the block lifted is now moot. The more important part of my request to have an edifying notation added to the block log, however, remains an important and active issue. Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here: you must know that the other party doesn't have to consent to your opening of an RfC. And that if an RfC is seen as reaching a consensus among those who do participate, it is likely to be treated as binding by administrators in case of a later edit war. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the insertion of incorrect information about my father's holiday. While a claim was made that there was a Roman holiday by that name in Allen Salkin's tome, that 2005 book is the first time said claim has ever appeared anywhere in print, and in no list of Roman holidays will that name will be found. I appreciate the deletion: I find this incorrect claim very frustrating. I understand completely this was all done in good faith. Thank you for your time. Best, Dan O'Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanOKeefe ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humanity & Society 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/Humanity & Society 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. Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic. I'll be honest, I didn't check Eliko007's facts, I merely objected to the original tone and presentation. He ask for guidance on my talk page, which is why I ran up the suggested alternative. Thanks for clarifying the facts. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked because an Admin didn't want me editing in "this topic or anything related to it" apparently for personal reasons, rather than for a legitimate blockable offense.
|
---|
I have given both you and Jobas a block for edit warring. While so far no 3RR violation occurred on any individual article, the overall effect of the edit war between the two of you has the same effect. Your block is longer because of your previous block history for edit warring. Fram ( talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Good morning! My apologies for accidentally reverting your comment on Talk:Daniel Dennett. I have that page on my watchlist and my sensitive mouse clicked the "rollback" button. I hope you are doing well! With regards, Anupam Talk 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I've given Jobas a final warning about all the little edits. Man, sometimes I wonder why this project has so much patience with disruption, whether it's caused by WP:CIR or something else. Could you please let me know if you spot them doing it again, because I may well miss it? Thanks. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
You are still engaged in an edit war on the article Michael Shermer. I am placing you on a restriction to not edit the categories on that page without getting full consensus on the talk page. Currently there is no consensus. Please get a consensus before editing categories on this page again. Failure to do so may result in your being blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, you disregarded my pings and requests that you step in and help defuse the Apollo situation outlined just above, which was unfortunate, as it left me with no recourse but to seek assistance in a more draconian venue. Now I'm pinging you again regarding the restriction you placed upon me at the top of this discussion section. I intend to make an edit to the categories in the article you named, but you have required that I "get a consensus before editing". I've left a Talk page comment expressing my intent, but a few days have passed with no objections - no response at all, in fact. Would you mind giving me the green-light to edit, or more specifically explain your "get a consensus before editing" requirement? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, you've been dealing with a lot. Keep up the good fight. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Stop removing this cat from articles without consensus. You have continually done this over a long period. Please gain a consensus for these removals. If you continue edit warring I will take this to ANI and request a topic ban. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No consensus - with caveats. I came very close to closing this as Delete. I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy. There is something of a consensus for keeping a similar category, but not named as such. The suggestion of Category:Religious persecution by secular governments given below is, I suggest, a good one. I suggest all editors who have commented here work towards moving this category to something approaching that one, because as given, the current title is frankly original research.
To Xenophrenic and the other editor: It's just the editor's personal opinion about the cat inter alia, nothing about the cat being determined via consensus that it is OR. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I will be taking this to ANI since no progress has been made. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Two things about your user message at the top of this page:
Just letting you know. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding your recent conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Swarm
♠ 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Xenophrenic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
(1) Because the block lacked the
required substantiation. The only explanation given in my block log was "Edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing; see ANI report." I've checked that ANI report, and the required "good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" is not present. I do see where the filer of the report states, "For the record, I did not propose a block."
(2) The block is punitive instead of preventative. There was no "disruptive and tendentious editing" at all, and the only diffs provided in support of alleged "edit warring" instead show deliberative editing in conjunction with WP:BRD discussion, policy compliance and a good-faith reading of Talk page consensus, supported by sound arguments from multiple editors.
(3) The blocking Admin appears to have washed his hands of the matter. It is my understanding that "
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So I provided additional information for him to consider, and asked if he would then please review his admin action with me. All I got was silence. So I pinged him again and asked if he would at least give me the courtesy of informing me that he has received my communication. More silence, yet he continues with his other activities on Wikipedia. (I have much more to say about that disturbing behavior, but not in an Unblock Template.)
(4) Because it is preventing me from editing Wikipedia. The improper block serves no purpose, and after 100% radio silence during the several days I patiently waited for the blocking admin, it is time to remove it. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 03:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. The block has run out, there's nothing to be reviewed any more. If you want to argue that the admin who blocked you abused their powers, the appropriate place to raise the issue is WP:AN. I'm sorry we didn't get to reviewing the block earlier, but at this point the {{ unblock}} template is no longer appropriate, it's only for blocked users. Huon ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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 secret or unpublished method to having an Admin explain an administrative action, or to having a Block Review request addressed? Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I just learned that the "Thank" option no longer appears as an option when you are blocked. I do, however, still wish to thank a few astute editors for their comments:
Your note at ANI unintentionally created a privacy issue, so I quietly removed it. Obviously there was no ill-intent from your end! Feel free to blank this once read.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at AN regarding our recent interactions on my user talk page. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I`m new, and not extremely technically-minded. I cannot determine whether or not ```persistent spammer``` (or wikipedia contributors) IPs are to be referred to DNS, and if so, who is the "Responsible Person". It is odd, methinks, ignoring certifiable records, by calling it ```unverifiable```, compiling lists of IPs to be sent to a Responsible person to creat verifiability on the very DNS that is being portrayed as unverifiable. Dunno if that makes sense. There is talk on the DNS TTL, if that helps. Ta 126.209.0.225 ( talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I removed a paragraph your recently inserted at the Positive and Negative atheism article because there was no source. Can you provide one? Thanks. Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That was my fault, sorry. The editor who added it created articles and added to other articles by adding various chunks from other articles without attribution. Warnings didn't work and they're temporarily blocked. They've created quite a mess, including copying text with refs whose detail wasn't brought over so you can't figure out what they are. I'm hoping they'll clear it up but I'm pretty sure they no longer know where they got it all from. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trevor Potter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I notice you have contributed to the Edward S. Herman page. Would it be possible for you to help build a POV consensus on the page? There is currently an NPOV dispute. Prop9 ( talk) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to revert because the quote was about USAID and Soros, not about OSF at all. But thanks for reverting. I'll warn the editor. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Shareholder Protection Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Notability not established for failed bill that did not advance
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Reywas92
Talk 00:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Xenophrenic has not edited Wikipedia since 7 December 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
I was just wondering where the February 20th came from in the reference you added. I don't see that date on the webpage and the retrieval date in any case would be today. Thanks in advance for your response. -- Daffydavid ( talk) 01:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, regarding this: indeed, I had misread the text. The article says that Huxley was known for the advocacy, not Stevenson. Sorry, thanks and cheers. - DVdm ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that although footnote 48, the Plebe Summer ... Procedures, is a dead link, there's a valid archive available at Wayback confirming that "Good Night Jane Fonda" calls are expressly prohibited. While the military is often criticized for unnecessary paperwork, it seems unlikely that even they would trouble to so specifically prohibit something that had no significant history of occurring. 2600:1006:B10A:9AF1:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The choice of WP:ANI was a reasonable one to report the IP, but the biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably a better place for issues about defamatory posts. However, I think that, in the specific case, the best option is semi-protection of the article, which I will request in a few minutes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I think that the editor in question has four edits, not six, because I think that the 'banana' vandal was someone else. However, that is not important. We need to prevent the insertion of questionable defamatory material. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
you now understand my consistent positions on BLPs even if sometimes it means "bad guys" don't get buckets of s*** piled into articles? Heck I even edited Kim Jong-un. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You might look at Project for the New American Century moreover - I know we are apt at times to disagree, but I think you might find the discussions interesting. Collect ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect ( talk) 04:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Copied here to facilitate continuation of the discussion.
Hi, MavsFan28 - it's been a while since we chatted. I hope you've been well. I know you left a comment on the
Tom Smith article Talk page, and I do plan to respond to you there, but this is about a different (but related) issue not appropriate for that Talk page. I figured you and IP:100.14.57.197 were the same editor. You made
this edit while logged in and as the IP you made
the identical edit, and you've edit warred to keep that edit as both. Not logging in isn't a big problem in itself, but when you left a comment with an edit summary stating
(See talk page before either of you revert), you implied that the IP user isn't you. If the IP is you, then you have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding abusive
WP:sockpuppetry. Perhaps you were unaware of that policy? If so, please let me know, and we can just overlook it this time. If you tell me that the IP isn't yours, however, I'll be obliged to file a
WP:SPI report as a routine matter. It's a tedious process, so I should apologize for it in advance, but I'd be very interested to know how it could be coincidental that at least
21 of the 30 articles edited by the IP are also edited by you. I see you edit many articles about Pennsylvania politics and sports subjects, and the IP geolocates to Pennsylvania, so I'm sure you can understand my reasoning. Seeing the IP make edits just hours after the MavsFan28 account in obscure areas like the Ken Ham Talk page RfC just further emphasizes the point. Anyway, your input in this matter would be appreciated. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Heyo Xenophrenic. I added the content per this AfD discussion as a possibly searchable term. If not entirely, do mention Ricky Clousing briefly. Cheers, Ya sh ! 17:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You might want to note the similarities in the arguments made by Efliv23 and those of Catsmeow8989. Just something I noticed. GAB Hello! 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed that you had undid my edits on Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, specifically the ones that had included their respective degrees. I've since reverted them, but I'm opening discussion here, in case there's disagreement.
I had felt that the inclusion of the degrees was consistent with that of quite a few other notables ( Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Colin Powell, James Baker, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, the list could go on). Perhaps you may think otherwise?
Looking forward to your thoughts. GabeIglesia ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What did I do? What is the difference between these two edits ( [2], [3])? And there is nothing about CREW that is not partisan, btw. Quis separabit? 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've been dealing with that IP-hopping editor from Lancaster, PA for months and months. This guy acts in good faith but is still disruptive and has serious civility and competence issues. What do you think about resuming the semi-prot approach instead of going back to constant reversions? If there's one thing I've learned it's that he never stops. Like the energizer bunny, as soon as the semi-prot expires he's back to junking up articles and talk pages the next day. (P.S. I'm kind of intermittent on WP these days, so please be patient if I don't respond immediately.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
173.67.158.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.40 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.194 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.158.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.134 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.159.216 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.12 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.86 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.160.197 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.161.128 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.58 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.60 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.162.239 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.45 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.81 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.147 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.163.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.23 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.173 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.164.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.120 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.170 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.165.192 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.151 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.160 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.166.205 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.51 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.65 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.167.211 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.7 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.168.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.82 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.110 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.111 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.117 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.135 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.136 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.169.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.171.218 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.67.172.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS),
Here is the photo that was taken of the person in question. This is regards to the edit you made on Sept 1st 2015 that removed all refferences to the flag burning. edit to article, image Here is the link that also references it from the IVAW website. The line quotes is listed on item number 7. This is the link to his resignation from IVAW. meeting minutes
I respectful request that the IVAW article to be amended to include this information. Thank you for your time. Articseahorse ( talk) 00:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The RfC you suggested is now open, here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't wish to get into an edit war, but the individuals that are performing the editing, merely delete documented and factual evidence that has been evolving the past few days. As much as Katie Couric may or may not be a whipping post for the political right, it is newsworthy from a large number of left leaning media sources. I also cannot contact others, as they do not possess a talk page. My belief is that they will not allow any such information to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
1. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only one that was editing the information to be inclusive of the controversy. 2. Couric had not, in fact, specifically responded to the accusations. However, a general statement by the film director and Epix was made public. 3. Couric was the Executive Producer, as well as the Creative Executive/Narrator of the Film. She might have not have physically done the editing, but she certainly had control over the editing. 4. What cited concerns? I wasn't able to locate why the information was being deleted. 5. If I made technical mistakes, why could they have not been communicated for me to correct? 6. The information now on the page, cites the film as a documentary. Clearly that classification is in dispute, by dozens of independent media sources. If such is allowed to stand, without mentioning the controversy surrounding such, then I would argue that such violates policy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked your account for continued edit warring at Forced conversion. ( 1, 2, 3) This appears to be a continuation of the behavior highlighted at the 3RR report. ( 4, 5, 6, 7) Our edit warring policy is quite clear that consensus should be reached or dispute resolution sought instead of reverting to your preferred version. When the block expires, I would encourage you to continue further discussion before making further reverts. If you feel that the discussion is not progressing, I would encourage you to seek further input through dispute resolution or a request for comment. Mike V • Talk 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As explained immediately below (my apologies, but this Unblock Template is giving me grief when I try to provide diffs within it).
Decline reason:
(1) Procedural decline: The block has expired.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (reinstated; at the suggestion of the blocking admin, this template may be left up pending the attention of another editor on the substance of the block)
(2) Firstly, you are no longer blocked, so an unblock isn't what you're asking for. Secondly, I don't see how your latest edits on that page, namely
these, qualify as a self-reversion. You removed content from the page that you didn't agree with, despite objections on the talk page.
Huon (
talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I believe Admin Mike V has misunderstood the present situation and made this block in error. I have made only a single actual edit to the article in the past couple days, and only 3 edits total in the past 8 days (these are the 3 diffs Mike provided as evidence of edit warring): All 3 edits were simple reverts to the pre-dispute BRD article version — as suggested by the involved editors ( see Jobas, and Anupam, and per this agreement here), while our discussion is ongoing. Despite the contentious subject matter, we've actually done fairly well in discussing our concerns, with only those few instances during the past week of editors prematurely declaring they have consensus and reinserting problematic content.
I said Mike may be misunderstanding the situation, and here are some of the reasons why:
I am requesting that the block be lifted, and a brief notation be added to the log summary to indicate the mistaken entry. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
With the block due to expire within the hour, the part of my request to have the block lifted is now moot. The more important part of my request to have an edifying notation added to the block log, however, remains an important and active issue. Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your comment here: you must know that the other party doesn't have to consent to your opening of an RfC. And that if an RfC is seen as reaching a consensus among those who do participate, it is likely to be treated as binding by administrators in case of a later edit war. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the insertion of incorrect information about my father's holiday. While a claim was made that there was a Roman holiday by that name in Allen Salkin's tome, that 2005 book is the first time said claim has ever appeared anywhere in print, and in no list of Roman holidays will that name will be found. I appreciate the deletion: I find this incorrect claim very frustrating. I understand completely this was all done in good faith. Thank you for your time. Best, Dan O'Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanOKeefe ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humanity & Society 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/Humanity & Society 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. Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic. I'll be honest, I didn't check Eliko007's facts, I merely objected to the original tone and presentation. He ask for guidance on my talk page, which is why I ran up the suggested alternative. Thanks for clarifying the facts. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked because an Admin didn't want me editing in "this topic or anything related to it" apparently for personal reasons, rather than for a legitimate blockable offense.
|
---|
I have given both you and Jobas a block for edit warring. While so far no 3RR violation occurred on any individual article, the overall effect of the edit war between the two of you has the same effect. Your block is longer because of your previous block history for edit warring. Fram ( talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Good morning! My apologies for accidentally reverting your comment on Talk:Daniel Dennett. I have that page on my watchlist and my sensitive mouse clicked the "rollback" button. I hope you are doing well! With regards, Anupam Talk 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I've given Jobas a final warning about all the little edits. Man, sometimes I wonder why this project has so much patience with disruption, whether it's caused by WP:CIR or something else. Could you please let me know if you spot them doing it again, because I may well miss it? Thanks. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
You are still engaged in an edit war on the article Michael Shermer. I am placing you on a restriction to not edit the categories on that page without getting full consensus on the talk page. Currently there is no consensus. Please get a consensus before editing categories on this page again. Failure to do so may result in your being blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, you disregarded my pings and requests that you step in and help defuse the Apollo situation outlined just above, which was unfortunate, as it left me with no recourse but to seek assistance in a more draconian venue. Now I'm pinging you again regarding the restriction you placed upon me at the top of this discussion section. I intend to make an edit to the categories in the article you named, but you have required that I "get a consensus before editing". I've left a Talk page comment expressing my intent, but a few days have passed with no objections - no response at all, in fact. Would you mind giving me the green-light to edit, or more specifically explain your "get a consensus before editing" requirement? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, you've been dealing with a lot. Keep up the good fight. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Stop removing this cat from articles without consensus. You have continually done this over a long period. Please gain a consensus for these removals. If you continue edit warring I will take this to ANI and request a topic ban. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No consensus - with caveats. I came very close to closing this as Delete. I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy. There is something of a consensus for keeping a similar category, but not named as such. The suggestion of Category:Religious persecution by secular governments given below is, I suggest, a good one. I suggest all editors who have commented here work towards moving this category to something approaching that one, because as given, the current title is frankly original research.
To Xenophrenic and the other editor: It's just the editor's personal opinion about the cat inter alia, nothing about the cat being determined via consensus that it is OR. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I will be taking this to ANI since no progress has been made. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Two things about your user message at the top of this page:
Just letting you know. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding your recent conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Swarm
♠ 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Xenophrenic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
(1) Because the block lacked the
required substantiation. The only explanation given in my block log was "Edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing; see ANI report." I've checked that ANI report, and the required "good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" is not present. I do see where the filer of the report states, "For the record, I did not propose a block."
(2) The block is punitive instead of preventative. There was no "disruptive and tendentious editing" at all, and the only diffs provided in support of alleged "edit warring" instead show deliberative editing in conjunction with WP:BRD discussion, policy compliance and a good-faith reading of Talk page consensus, supported by sound arguments from multiple editors.
(3) The blocking Admin appears to have washed his hands of the matter. It is my understanding that "
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So I provided additional information for him to consider, and asked if he would then please review his admin action with me. All I got was silence. So I pinged him again and asked if he would at least give me the courtesy of informing me that he has received my communication. More silence, yet he continues with his other activities on Wikipedia. (I have much more to say about that disturbing behavior, but not in an Unblock Template.)
(4) Because it is preventing me from editing Wikipedia. The improper block serves no purpose, and after 100% radio silence during the several days I patiently waited for the blocking admin, it is time to remove it. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 03:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. The block has run out, there's nothing to be reviewed any more. If you want to argue that the admin who blocked you abused their powers, the appropriate place to raise the issue is WP:AN. I'm sorry we didn't get to reviewing the block earlier, but at this point the {{ unblock}} template is no longer appropriate, it's only for blocked users. Huon ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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 secret or unpublished method to having an Admin explain an administrative action, or to having a Block Review request addressed? Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I just learned that the "Thank" option no longer appears as an option when you are blocked. I do, however, still wish to thank a few astute editors for their comments:
Your note at ANI unintentionally created a privacy issue, so I quietly removed it. Obviously there was no ill-intent from your end! Feel free to blank this once read.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at AN regarding our recent interactions on my user talk page. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I`m new, and not extremely technically-minded. I cannot determine whether or not ```persistent spammer``` (or wikipedia contributors) IPs are to be referred to DNS, and if so, who is the "Responsible Person". It is odd, methinks, ignoring certifiable records, by calling it ```unverifiable```, compiling lists of IPs to be sent to a Responsible person to creat verifiability on the very DNS that is being portrayed as unverifiable. Dunno if that makes sense. There is talk on the DNS TTL, if that helps. Ta 126.209.0.225 ( talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I removed a paragraph your recently inserted at the Positive and Negative atheism article because there was no source. Can you provide one? Thanks. Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That was my fault, sorry. The editor who added it created articles and added to other articles by adding various chunks from other articles without attribution. Warnings didn't work and they're temporarily blocked. They've created quite a mess, including copying text with refs whose detail wasn't brought over so you can't figure out what they are. I'm hoping they'll clear it up but I'm pretty sure they no longer know where they got it all from. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trevor Potter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I notice you have contributed to the Edward S. Herman page. Would it be possible for you to help build a POV consensus on the page? There is currently an NPOV dispute. Prop9 ( talk) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to revert because the quote was about USAID and Soros, not about OSF at all. But thanks for reverting. I'll warn the editor. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Xenophrenic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Shareholder Protection Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Notability not established for failed bill that did not advance
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Reywas92
Talk 00:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)