User talk:Joefromrandb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rel Melissa Scott (pastor)

Thanks for your substantial work on MS, in particular most recently deleting the (unconnected?) church sale info. QUERY: If the consensus winds up being for merge to GS, do you think the broadcast info for MS should stay at the GS article? Paavo273 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly; I think it's too early to tell. There's a lot that's conspicuously absent from Gene Scott's article as well. Gene Scott was nothing if not interesting. Often called "the cussing preacher", he was well known for his fundraising telethons, where Scott swore, smoked, and showed off his bikini-clad models. Unlike other TV preachers, who engaged in scandalous activities behind closed doors while pretending to be pious, Scott made no secrets about his harem of young women, nor his fondness for profanity. On the other hand, he had an impressive knowledge of the scriptures and ancient languages. Unlike so many televangelists who seek to defraud their viewers with their "prosperity gospel" nonsense, when Scott asked his parishioners for money, he claimed that he was a teacher and they should pay him tithes based on the value of what they had been taught. He was something of a "WYSIWYG" preacher. There's a documentary about him that you can probably find on You Tube: "God's Angry Man" by Werner Herzog. I'd like to expand the article to include some of this, but it's hard. There has been so much removed from the Web–not just Wikipedia– about both of the Scotts. It's almost eerie. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, & thanks for the reply. I agree. I saw that one.

As for MS, I have nothing against an article about her on WP, but IMO it's not useful to have a story that says nothing. (Personally, I would rather listen to or watch MS than these self-righteous fundamentalists who post nude stills of her on their websites and then ridicule and condemn her.)

If MS included her past in her ministry, it would IMO and others', make her ministry more interesting. As in what has she learned? How has she evolved? Jesus hung out w/ & ministered to beggars, prostitutes, etc., the down and outers, people who needed a "better song to sing." Who better to talk about Jesus than s.o. who needed redemption? I guess her business calculus or her advisors persuaded her otherwise. IMO the hypocritical Puritan moral culture USA was founded on and the bourgeois Jesus the middle class have created couldn't be further from what he was really all about. But I stray fr. the subject...

QUERY: When you decided MC2009's fate, did you guys discuss its reliability for other less controversial info ('cuz there's lots of great basic facts there, too) and decide it was altogether unworthy, not just for the porn info?

IMO and others', nude modelling is not that controversial in the 21st century (Look at women like Patti McGuire and Heather Kozar and probably a lot of others--most? highly respectable guys in this day and age would love to marry a woman like that.) Even porno acting doesn't have the stigma it used to.

In one situation I would agree with the editor or admin? who blanked all references to porn on the MS talk page: If it were false and she sued MC, then deleting that would have been prudent. There's no indication she did sue; 'seems like an open/shut case. If it were false. Paavo273 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Loud as Fuck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Loud as Fuck''' (stylized as ('''Loud as F@*k''') is a compilation album by the [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your nomination of me

Wow and wow again! What a lovely surprise, Joe (may I call you Joe?). I had no idea Wikipedia did this stuff.

Thank you for nominating me for this. Best news I've had all week. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. You're quite welcome! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's finally arrived!

Hi Joe. I just wanted to thank you again for nominating me for a merchandise giveaway. That was in November 2012. My t-shirt finally arrived yesterday, a mere 15 months later. But it was worth the wait. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! With that long of a wait, they should be giving you a tuxedo! You're very welcome, Jack. You deserve it. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're too kind. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shishaldin

Thanks for removing the AFD archive templates form the page, I was quite confused because I thought it was speedily deleted, however the community hasn't reached a consensus yet. Thanks! --///ECGT Mobile | On the Go 04:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Add me to those confused by that mess. It shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion during an open AfD discussion, especially as the admin who nominated it noted that it qualified for A7 but felt that a discussion was the better way to go. The end-result will likely be a redirect being re-created. As it's an article about a living person being redirected to an article about a non-living entity, it's probably better that the history not be restored. In any case, it shouldn't have been this complicated. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

|}

You dove in. However

I just noticed above that you have excellent tastes in beer. (There are three or more unopened bottles of Chimay cream label here as I write.) Good, good. Now, I'm a little disappointed to find no spirited defence of Dryden's (to me, nutty) proscription, and wondered if you might be a bit down for some reason. If so, buck up! (And if not, well, buck further up!) For the sake of variety, rather than Chimay, here's an Orval. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary here stood out within my watchlist, so I took a look.

I am not a member of the usage crowd. I am not ireful. But you're wrong. "Dove" is common. Simply googling for it is of course meaningless: you get mentions of the bird, of the little furniture biz cum church of the Koran-burning nutball, and other irrelevant stuff. Google "he dove" and you're closer, but you get a lot of the old, the poetic, etc. However, google "dove into the manual" and you get plenty of recent, prosaic examples.

Irelessly yours, Hoary (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. You find a ubiquity of sub-standard English in "recent, prosaic examples". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hehe. Joe, are you turning into an old fogey, or were you always one without my noticing? Bishonen | talk 13:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

I think it was Tom Lehrer who said: "I went from adolescence to senility, bypassing maturity". Probably the latter. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And it was Oscar Wilde who said of Max Beerbohm "the gods bestowed on Max the gift of perpetual old age". (And one, two, three.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the misattribution to Churchill. My edit summary: "something up with we shall not put" was intended as reductio ad absurdum. If someone actually used that phrase, I would reject it as ridiculous. I still feel that preposition-stranding should be avoided when practical, and reject completely the argument that Dryden's prescription is "hypercorrect". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's get physical for a moment. "He dove around to the side of the building and looked in a window. He stood for a moment, watching with bulging eyes, half drew a pistol, thought better of the notion and replaced it, and then darted back to the saloon from which he had emerged, croaking hoarsely: 'Fight! fight!" (here). "Blake's face whitened with rage and he dove desperately forward. Smashing a hard fist into Silver Mask's face, he watched the fellow's body go limp" (here). Whew, enough of that. "The Eels also tried to be friendly, and, when he dove to the bottom, called to him to stay and visit with them" (here). ¶ If you reject completely the argument that Dryden's strictures were whimsy centuries ago when he wrote them and mere poppycock now, I hardly know where to start. But I do recommend a reality-based grammar book that reflects study (rather than merely recycling older supersitions). Specifically, this one: it's lucid, reasoned, compact and affordable. Meanwhile, enjoy this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you consider Dryden to be "poppycock", I wouldn't know where to start either. I find the "ignore all rules" approach to grammar to be every bit as unhelpful as the pedantic one. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, have no fear that well-informed grammar is free of rules. Quite the contrary. After all, the Student's Introduction is compact only in terms of its subject matter: rather than the eighteen hundred pages plus of what it summarizes, it has just three hundred pages. And these three hundred have to be filled with something. Rules abound. Pp. 137–139 are devoted to preposition stranding; and aside from the simple matter of style (register), the book gives three each of "syntactic factors that disfavour or exclude the [stranded/non-stranded] version". You want reasons to avoid stranding, you've got them:

• Stranded preposition would be within subject noun phrase: *"This is the safe which the key to was stolen" (fixed: "This is the safe to which the key was stolen")
• Preposition phrase is an adjunct (other perhaps than an adjunct of place): *"I have a lecture ending at two, which I'll be free all day after" (fixed: "I have a lecture ending at two, after which I'll be free all day")
• Certain expressions used as adjuncts can't be divided: *"What way am I annoying you in?" (fixed: "In what way am I annoying you?")

As I've said, there are also three factors pointing the opposite direction; but I'll spare you as I think I've already plagiarized enough. ¶ Now, I have no opinion about Dryden himself, but I do believe that Dryden's condemnation of preposition stranding as "a common fault" and "inadmissible" (see here) was wrong-headed in its day and is poppycock now. However, I also like to think that I'm open minded; so do please explain the rationale for taking it seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been a bit overloaded lately; behind the 8-ball at work, and my father-in-law has been in-and-out of the hospital with some serious (not life-threatening) issues. I hope to compose a spirited reply when time allows. Thanks for the beer! I indeed enjoy Orval. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Joe E. Ross

I like that you're working on that paragraph. I have a concern that merging the marriage and work life sentence makes it sound like a direct argument that he ruined all of his marriages by being difficult (Maybe the women were difficult? Who can say? To tell the truth, I don't even think we have the solidest of sources for his multiple marriages, but that's beside the point). And I'd check out WP:SAY where you changed stated to complained. I would have made some of the changes myself, but I didn't want to futz with what you were writing while you were making other changes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to delve into this right now. I know my changes are far from perfect; please feel free change anything I've done. I'll try to address this in more detail when time allows. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No harm, no hurry. Just a couple of thoughts for later. I didn't want it to look like reverting, while you were working.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

As far as I can tell, including the birth years of a non-notable person doesn't go against WP:BLP at all. In the case of Mayim Bialik, it is beneficial for readers, particularly for those who would otherwise not know that her sons were born within her marriage to Michael Stone. Some might ask "was ____ born before they got married?" or "was _____ born after they separated?" if birth years are not included. I understand not going with full birth dates, but for the sake of readers I would include birth years. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable person, no; non-notable minor, yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of age, it helps to include birth year, and being a minor doesn't go against BLP in this instance. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

When you usurp Jimbo's throne you can unilaterally decide Wikipedia policy. Until then you don't get to decide that something "doesn't go against BLP" when there is long-standing consensus that it does. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I was saying that I found nothing in WP:BLP that suggested not to include birth years, even if person is a minor. Besides, there are many FA's that list the birth year of non-notable minors (i.e. Barack Obama). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Obama case is an anomaly, and the girls' DOB's were intentionally omitted for years. In any case, I'm only one guy; take it to the BLP-noticeboard if you want to change the policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, I can't find anything in WP:BLP that says not to include birth years for non-notable minors..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SJB

Welcome to bizarro world, where SB, wife of former PM, appointed director of Harrods is a title format used by dozens of reliable sources with nary a complaint, and SB, the wife of GB, today spoke at a meeting... regularly the first sentence of a lede for RS articles about her, but SB (wife of GB) as a title is a steaming pile of misogynistic crap, mostly to a few lads on Wikipedia who are over eager in their defense of women's rights. If you'd like to participate in brainstorming new titles you are most welcome, I just suggest that you ignore the troll.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. While I've never been particularly fond of that user, I can't say that I've ever thought of him as a "troll" before today; that's actually a very interesting observation. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

you probably missed the part where he trolled the whole Bradley Manning discussion. Actually hurt real people's feelings, ostensibly to demonstrate bias in Wikipedia and see how much of a shit he could be. Then he apologized for the whole thing. Troll is the best description I can think of, one because he had admittedly trolled in the not-so-distant past, and second because he uses language and hurtful insults mainly to rile up a debate, not in order to advance a discussion. I checked the logs and was stunned that he reverted the first move request, which was simply to 'Sarah Brown' (an option I liked per IAR), calling it misogynistic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I had composed a detailed response, but deleted it before saving; as I understand it, he's topic-banned from that subject and I felt it would be unfair to discuss him in an avenue where he isn't permitted to respond. I am familiar with it, but I'll leave it at that. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ah yes, I had forgotten about the ban. Fair enough. Anyway, I do welcome your participation and hope you will help us think of new/better ways to name this article - thanks again for your input. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yusuf Estes

Thank you. I was mostly bothered that Skip probably wasn't a real name, but a nickname. Regards and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was on my way to your page to apologize to you; I misunderstood what you were doing. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
	Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Gerald Shields! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Moratorium discussions

Per this edit, was your thought that we discuss the Genesis creation narrative moratorium at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, and the validity of admins imposing moratoriums at WP:AN? I could live with having both discussions, but I doubt people will stay on topic, even if it were made very clear what the two discussions are supposed to be about. Otherwise, we should close the article one, and just encourage people to post at WP:AN. StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just opposed to an editor closing a discussion in which he was involved. You're probably right about people staying on topic though. FWIW, I too favor "Genesis creation narrative". It's the abuse–no doubt completely unintentional in this case– of administrative authority I oppose. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

By what definition was I involved? I mentioned that it ought to be closed then I closed it. If that makes me involved then that also means that I'm from Kansas because I passed through there once. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Given your block log history of edit warring and disruptive editing is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring ( & )? Given that the best course of action when disputing closures is to take the dispute to WP:AN or discuss it in a new sub-section on the talk page and that once reverted you shouldn't make exactly the same revert (particularly on a talk page) is there a reason you shouldn't be blocked? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to take your question seriously when you're not asking the same question of the user who performed six reverts on that page (you know, the one who actually broke WP:3RR). I assume this is just the ubiquitous admin-phallus rearing its glans to demand I show due reverence to our benevolent administrators. I also question the degree to which you've examined my block-log. I've only been blocked twice for "edit warring and disruptive editing"–the other three blocks were from admins who don't like me getting even because I dared to question their infallibility. As to "reasons I shouldn't be blocked", you could start with: "it would be punitive", and "it would violate WP:INVOLVED", to name just two. Then again, you people have never let trivial things like policy get in the way of doling out blocks to those who fail to "bow our heads with great respect and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

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 [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Hi Joe,

I am glad to hear that you are interested in developing the Józef Kowalski (supercentenarian) article further. I am not convinced that the priest of the same name is not notable enough to have his own article. If you disagree, you are welcome to start an AfD for Józef Kowalski (priest) following the process explained here. I don't see that the supercentenarian is more notable than the priest, but if you believe that the article about the supercentenarian should be located at the undisambiguated title, you are welcome to initiate a move according to the steps outlined here. In the future, if you believe a move to be uncontroversial, it is better to request the move here than to ask an individual administrator to perform the move. I hope you find the above information useful.

Neelix (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

PS - You may find it beneficial to archive your talk page so that users with slow computers will be able to communicate with you more easily. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked you ("an individual administrator") as you were the one who moved the disambiguation page. A user unilaterally and without discussion moved the original article. I should be able to follow WP:BRD, and move it back to it's long-standing title. The user who originally moved it could then file a move-request. I cannot do so because of a technical restriction. You didn't initiate a discussion before reverting the move of the disambiguation page, but I need to initiate one to get an un-discussed move undone? Administrative infallibility at its finest! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Dewey Bunnell article

I don't know how you did it, but somehow you submitted a version of the Dewey Bunnell article that wasn't redirected back to the America band wikipedia page. WOW!! I am very appreciative and grateful. A few years ago, I tried numerous times to get the article to stick. I even rewrote it and took it to arbitration and it was voted down. ( I just looked at the talk page and it looks like the old discussions I was involved in were taken down?). Maybe they were either archived, deleted, or this is a new Bunnell page. Again, thank you. It has annoyed me for years that there was such pettiness as to justify not allowing this singer and songwriter to have his own page because it didn't meet notability standards. Christian Roess (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that he clearly does meet notability standards. The editor who redirected the article was using a ridiculous interpretation of WP:BLP1E. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a small, but vocal group of editors who feel that the best way to spread "the sum of all human knowledge" is to keep as much information as possible out of the encyclopedia. As the article has stood as a standalone for several months now, it would require a clear consensus (or an administrator willing to supervote) to move it back to a redirect. It should be okay now. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you. And a big thanks for your attention to detail in your response to me here. And yes, indeed: such a ridiculous interpretation it was of BLP, a form of madness really; and when I was dealing with that small vocal group you mentioned (so self-important! Many of them wearing it on their sleeves like it was a badge of honor), it felt like I was walking in "vicious" circles, or I had weights tied around my ankles. And so all I could manage to do was shuffle around inside a fun-house hall of mirrors, and drool. Anyhow, I take my hat off to you for wading into these edit wars. My best to you.Christian Roess (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

GOCE June 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone! Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here. Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing banners indicating ongoing disputes

Stop removing the {{notability}} tag from Joaquín_Santiago. The notability of the subject is under dispute. You're free to not participate in this discussion. But don't prevent other readers to know about it. --damiens.rf 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

BZZZT. ERROR. Nice try, though. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand that. What did you mean? --damiens.rf 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When someone disagrees with a tag you add to a page, you don't get to keep adding it ad infinitum just because you want it there. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Obviously you are unaware that socking claims are to be backed up by a report. Gather your evidence & file and until then be quiet. I would advise you that your time would be more productively employed searching for much needed sources with a microfiche and then adding them to the sorely deficient Joaquin Santiago. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like the report you filed about the creator of the article? Go troll somewhere else, IP-sock. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC in Dave Brat

As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Your father

Thank you Joefromrandb, for your support. You know, my father was not a "hoax" as the nomination started out. I really didn't pay much much attention to the article since I figured the creator of it must have known what he/she was doing, but when I re-read the article the last time I began to suspect that the creator got something wrong. Well, that's life my friend. You take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentors (band)

you keep changing the Mentors members on the Mentors Wikipedia page ended discography. I am in the band and the other members of the band are updating it with me. Do you feel that there's false information on there? If so please tell me what you think is wrong. The original three members of the Mentors had a contract together and never has anybody officially left the band until the death of El Duce.

Please let me know thank you.

Marc mad dog

Well, unfortunately it's not quite that simple. If you can post the changes you wish to make at Talk:Mentors (band), preferably with references that back up these proposed changes I'm fairly sure we can work something out. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Sign up for the July 2014 Backlog elimination drive Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Tilden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:World No. 1 tennis players]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Hi Joefromrandb.

This is Raymarcbadz from WikiProject:Olympics. I just noticed that you removed the links of those who don't have existing articles yet, and you refuse to accept my tip. My question is why rowing? Isn't this unfair to the other sections and nations articles? I think you should set up a centralized discussion with the project to avoid prejudices and isolation. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not ask a Wikiproject for their permission to observe site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT exists primarily for WP:BLP reasons, and it most certainly trumps the preferences of any Wikiproject's members. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Old Horvitz AFD

That was only closed because the nominator was another sockpuppet/meatpuppet of David Horvitz who was trying to get the page deleted for some art installation he was doing rather than one on notability. After all the dust has settled, plenty of people are beginning to question his notability. Keep the tag on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Derek and the Dominos. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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.
Please provide evidence for your claim that WP:MOSQUOTE says not to use wikilinks within quotes. Radiopathy •talk• 13:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not troll my talk page again. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Walter Winchell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He made his radio debut over WABC in New York, a CBS affiliate, on May 12, 1930.<ref>(John Dunning, Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio, p.&nbsp;708</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

NPA

Don't you ever call me a meatpuppet again. WP:NPA. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't engage in meatpuppetry, and I guarantee I won't call you one. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop removing legitimate redlink to George Waters (MP) from relevant articles. BLP does NOT apply as he is long dead (as is obvious from the dates he was politically active. I note that you are not removing other redlinked individuals from the same articles, so wonder if you really are applying your own interpretation of policies and guidelines, or simply out to disrupt another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See how easy that was? Rather that continuing to troll and meatpuppet, you did something productive. Well done! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: this - it hasn't got the same tag twice! And please stop swearing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it did have the same tag for no categories twice. The tag is at the bottom of the page....William 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring report

Please see WP:AN3#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Boleyn (Result: ), which concerns a dispute at George Waters (disambiguation). You may respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, you certainly violated Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but I'm over it now. No need to report yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please strike / retract your accusations of trolling and meatpuppetry (above). NE Ent 14:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider your opposing towards "Wonder Pets!" renaming

Why should shows like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, Go, Diego, Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba!, etc. have the exclamation mark when Wonder Pets! strangely does not include the mark in its page title? It doesn't make sense for the page not to have it if it actually has it in the title. Momsandy (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They shouldn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy. 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) 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Results of the August Blitz and September Drive A few changes around the Guild's pages Sign up for the October Blitz Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet

Hi Joe. You and I have had a sort of feud for several years now. You've politely and maturely stayed away from me and I've tried to do the same for you. Our edits have rarely ever overlapped. I think it's time we bury the hatchet. What do you think?--v/r - TP 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these kind words; you're clearly "being the bigger man" here, something I've rarely been able to do. I have to admit that I remain troubled by your block of me long ago–I feel it violated WP:INVOLVED, among other things. I feel your mantra of, "if you've come here to change my mind, be prepared to change yours as well" is quite perspicacious. Although it may not have seemed that way, I've been (and remain) prepared to change my mind about the validity of that block. I've rethought it many times over the years, and I remain of the mindset that it wasn't kosher. As you've always struck me as a highly principled individual, it both perplexed and frustrated me that you've always stood behind it. While we'll likely have to agree to disagree as far as that's concerned, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for my conduct after the block, which was so over the top it was outrageous. Again, thanks. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again and again

Grognard Mirabilaire
Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a "content-contributor" and an admin with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 284th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - repeating also: yes, it's still on this page, but so far up, no prize for archiving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda. It's even sweeter the third time around! Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank those who changed the font (I thought it was an April Fool thing), making the image unaligned, - I had planned to repeat only once, but you would deserve more, for going after the lost who don't want to be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

	My apologies
	My apologies for not providing a source, it is just that I thought it would seem obvious that the band considered themselves active while making The Endless River. Please accept my apologies. Cm09181992 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's original research, not bad-faith editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This is a little overdue, because I saw the message a month ago. For burying the hatchet with TParis. ...William 20:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Review the election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2015. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

September 2014

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page George Waters (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Be familiar with the guidelines and style
• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Hi Joefromrandb, here's some links that may help you understand the reasoning for the dab edits - including the primary topic format . Sorry to template a regular, but maybe this will help. Regards Widefox; talk 00:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to Boleyn, the desires of your Wikiproject do not trump site-wide guidelines. WP:REDNOT supersedes any preferences you people folks may have as to which red links you do or don't want on your pages. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry late reply. We just mirror the articles, so how's that out of line with REDNOT? Widefox; talk 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone! Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

There's a request for comment opened on the "Involuntary Celibacy" article, with the same editor trying to restore it as the one who tried to do so previously with the latest Deletion Review. I thought you might be interested in this because of your previous involvement in the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason.

Your !vote might be discounted because you didn't give a reason. If you want your vote to be counted, can you please provide a reason here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Everest without oxygen

Hello,

According to National Geographic, 95% of all climbers who have reached the summit of Everest have used supplemental oxygen, according to this article on oxygen use. Do you have a source that says something different? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your figures are correct. You consider that to be an "overwhelming majority"? I suppose that's debatable. Serious climbers not only eschew oxygen, but most consider it's use to be "cheating"; in fact, many of them want non-emergency oxygen banned. While I suppose 95% could be considered an "overwhelming majority", it's misleading. Something should explain to the reader that the numbers are inflated by the thousands of hacks who have been ushered to Everest's summit. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you consider Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay and a large majority of professional Sherpa guides "hacks" then? Please name the Everest climbers who advocate banning supplemental oxygen for routine use. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. By "thousands of hacks" I couldn't have meant people like Dick Bass, et. al. I was obviously referring to Hillary and Norgay. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And the vast majority of contemporary high-altitude Sherpas, the people who.know the mountain best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the ones who worship it as a god? The ones who believe storms and avalanches result when people invoke Sagarmatha's ire by fornicating on the mountain? Thanks for stopping by. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Romano

Having previously edited an ER article, you may be interested in the above discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger Waters/anti-semitism accusations

With all due respect, I don't see any prior discussion about this on Waters' talk page. Please start the discussion there before reverting my edit to the article.--Scaleshombre (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Look again. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing disambiguation links is a WP goal, not personal

Just to let you know, fixing links to disambiguation pages from articles is a guideline, not a personal goal. To quote the disambiguation guideline Disambiguation:

With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

and the exceptions are listed in WP:FURTHERDAB:

The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are:

• Disambiguation hatnotes: Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, which carries a hatnote linking to Watergate (disambiguation) for other uses.
• Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation.
• Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to Laing (disambiguation).
• Exceptionally, in a "See also" list of interesting internal links where several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page.
• In a redirect page (below)

So, the links on Mount Everest should be red, not link to the dab page. If you find the red links offensive (which certainly should not be the case in general, see WP:RED), you can always remove them.

Shall I restore the links? —hike395 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Red links are fine, but not red-linking personal names. Personal names shouldn't be red-linked anywhere in article-space; this is primarily due to potential WP:BLP-issues–see WP:REDNOT for more information about this. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm. I hadn't carefully read through WP:RED for a number of years: this guideline was put in place in 2011. I guess there's always new stuff to learn. I'll see if I can find some info about this fellow (who should be notable), and make a quick stub. —hike395 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Janov

Joefromrandb, if you would read the article Sexual orientation change efforts, you would see that Arthur Janov is discussed there. Hence, the link to Sexual orientation change efforts is relevant, and you should not be removing it. Also, it might help to read WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you have removed the link again, this time on the grounds that it is a BLP violation. If you believe that the link is a BLP violation, then feel free to take up the issue at the BLP noticeboard, or even ANI if you wish. As far as I am concerned, the link is not a BLP violation in any way. I have every intention of restoring it. I note again that you cannot continue to endlessly make reverts at that article without seeking dispute resolution or discussing the matter on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now started a thread about this at WP:BLPN. It would be appropriate for you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Sexual orientation change efforts shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Closedmouth (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And you, an administrator. Although I cower in the presence of your most awesome infallibility, stamping generic templates on my talk page is far from ideal. This is a BLP-situation, and as such, my reverts DO NOT constitute edit-warring. I won't insult your intelligence by blue-linking to 3RRNO; I assume you know it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If Closedmouth is warning you for edit warring, maybe that's because he doesn't agree with your view that you are removing BLP-violating material? He is free to explain his position on that issue, if he has one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to resolve a content dispute, I simply wanted you guys to stop edit-warring before you both ended up blocked. Have a discussion on the talk page. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to resolve anything, Closedmouth - only noting that some kind of comment (any kind of comment) on the content issue would have been welcome. As you can see, I have certainly tried to discuss matters on the talk page, but Joefromrandb has consistently refused to do this, despite being told repeatedly that this is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Pai gow poker

Hi, I've restored the article's infobox with sources. You were correct there was some incorrect information and OR, but that could be corrected with sources. Please let me know if there are any issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anaconda

I changed the category of Anaconda (poker) from Category:stud poker to Category:draw poker to match the lede, which referred to it as a form of draw poker. Disagree if you like (frankly, either category is an awkward fit), but was it really necessary to call me a clown in the edit summary of your revert? Is there a reason you thought my edit was not in good faith? — Gwalla | Talk 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a "clown". I was reverting an anon's (said clown) change of the word "fuck" to "f**k". I made a separate edit changing "draw" to "stud", and left a non-offensive summary. Not sure why you thought I was referring to you, but sorry for the confusion. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, "stud" seems fairly clear to me. While discards are indeed passed, these are chosen by the player discarding (hence the nickname "fuck your neighbor"). It lacks the randomness of the recipient drawing from a shuffled deck. YMMV–let me know if you have a different take on it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes! May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography. Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 20,000 Challenge, aiming for 20,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Joefromrandb. 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)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful! >>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<< Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating! September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words). October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page. Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

erasing sourced info using uncivil language

erasing sourced info on Coughlin from major media using uncivil language is against Wiki policy. If you actually have a position you need to state it here on talk page. TIME's Person of year cover story for example is one of the most important news articles of the year. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Hello, Joe, could you please look at the guidelines at CIVIL? From your messages to me and others here you are repeatedly swearing and insulting. There really isn't any need for it - we're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care about Wikipedia's "civility" guidelines, but I do understand your point. What I mean to say is that as a grown man, it shouldn't take a Wikipedia guideline for me to know I shouldn't be an asshole to people. I'm sorry. My wife isn't around to keep me in check anymore. I was enough of an asshole when she was alive, but knowing that it hurt her when I was disrespectful to others made me make an effort not to engage in such behaviors. Since her death, I can't say that I've done that. That's unacceptable, and I'm dishonoring her memory when I act like that. It won't happen overnight, but I will make it a point to keep this in mind going forward. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullfighting

Hi there, another editor has reverted an edit you recently made at Bullfighting. Looks like it had to do with a conclusion being drawn about the practice not being considered a sport because it lacks elements of competition. If this is something you feel strongly about, may I please encourage you to consider opening a discussion on the article's talk page? I'm trying to get them to do the same thing, since their initial reversion was not properly explained. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're making my job needlessly difficult at Bullfighting. Your opponent feels there is nothing to discuss, you apparently feel there's nothing to discuss, but revert warring ain't how we resolve disputes, so please, either discuss, or drop the stick. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter! >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part. January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words). February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive. Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated! Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone." Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As requested....

...Here I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I might have taken too long. Probably just as well, headed to bed now I think. I'll pop by tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. I got sidetracked with a phone call of my own. Anyway, this has gotten to the point where something needs to be done about it. I'm talking, of course, about a certain user that's been hounding, stalking, and yes, trolling me for some time now. I used to find him amusing, but not so much anymore. In practice, a 2-way interaction ban would work just fine. I completely avoid that user, ignore any conversations where he mentions me, and revert his edits to my user-space without response. These are largely the same reasons that I have some slight reservations about that solution in theory–the whole "pox on both houses" concept. I'm no angel on- or off-Wiki, but this is one situation where I can truly say I'm blameless. I take egregious pains to avoid that user completely, while his behavior is exactly the opposite. Is such a solution (or any other) within your remit as an administrator to impose? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to look at this thoroughly yet, so this response assumes for the sake of argument that you've described the situation accurately. Don't interpret it as something I'm actually willing to do until I've had a chance to make sure you haven't been doing your fair share.

I do see the recent interaction not initiated by you at your talk page, his ping and comment about it at his talk page, and his following you to the page you were all 3 reverting on that User:El C is involved in. If that's all there is, it probably isn't enough. If it's part of a longer-term pattern, then it probably is.

If you're both sniping at each other, and both at fault, then I wouldn't really care about how miserable you two are making each other, but an IBAN might help the community not have to deal with the fighting. That would probably require a trip to AN/ANI. If I tried to do it unilaterally, whichever one of you didn't like it would just appeal there anyway.

If it really is one-sided, then I can tell the other user that they are harassing you, and if they initiate unwanted contact again, they'll be blocked for it. By definition this would mean you couldn't really initiate anything yourself. So it would have the same effect as a mutual IBAN, but wouldn't be logged anywhere, and wouldn't need some kind of community discussion first; admins unilaterally warn editors not to harass other editors all the time.

Save me some time: if I look into this, am I going to find recent cases where you picked the fight? If so, I'd suggest going straight to AN/ANI with an IBAN request. If not (if it never happened, fine; if it last happened a while ago, about when was that?), then I'll look into it further and act accordingly. Might be some delay before I can do that. In the mean time, using the "troll" word needlessly complicated matters, even if done as a reaction rather than an initiation. You should stop that. A simple rollback achieves the same thing. Except for the warm feeling of righteous revenge it gives you, which is probably not healthy...

I guess I'm doomed to handle this in two places now, here and on my talk page. A bit of a bother, but better than you two interacting, so let's keep it this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you will not find any recent instances where I "picked the fight". I don't pick fights at all. I'm a counter-puncher, something I've admittedly taken to hideous extremes in the past (e.g. Floquenbeam, TParis). That's what makes this situation all the more egregious–I haven't counter-punched; I've ignored. The whole two-pages problem is due to my own stupidity, and I'm sorry if it's causing you additional stress. I should have just pinged you from this page instead of going to your page and asking you to come here. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Rereading my post, I could easily see my exempli gratia being interpreted as some kind of J'accuse! against you & Tom–it was meant, rather, as contrition as the product of self-study. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.

Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL earlier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.

I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.

I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initiates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.

This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.

In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add one more thing: I really, really think you should consider Gerda's personal 1RR limitation. 90 times out of 100, that's what's getting you in trouble. If you did that, and just banished the word "troll" from your keyboard, you'd be in pretty good shape. After El C's unblock, future edit warring is going to be problematic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Floq. The end result of your work may look short-and-sweet, but I know I sent you into the trenches of Ypres. My apologies for any stress that has caused you, and my thanks for taking the time to sort through all of this (not to mention being more-or-less forced to carry on largely the same discussion across three separate pages). I will indeed consider your suggestion. I'll consider it seriously. At the same time, I'll refrain from promising to honor it–not because it isn't an excellent suggestion, but because I'd be setting myself up for failure. As this page, and others will show, I've told numerous people here that I would make an effort to dial back personal invectives and use less profanity. Similarly, I've been careful to avoid any pledges of complete abstention (I think it was Neil Dellacroce who said: "I can't curse, I can't talk"). If you look at the time since El C reversed his block, you'll see that while I haven't restricted myself to 1RR, I have removed myself from situations where previously I would have almost certainly continued, as well as escalated. Far from perfect, but a start. Baby steps. Thanks again. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam Christ, I'm sorry. I should have just pinged you on this fucking page in the first place. I honestly didn't see that coming. I'm sure I should have, but whatver. I obviously will not be making any further posts at the thread I began on your page. Sorry for yet more two-page bullshit. A simple "da" or "nyet" from you here will be just fine, after which time I will either make my post or not, speaking no more of it in either case. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam Fuck it. I just went ahead and did it. Alea iacta est, I suppose. I realized that my attempt to err on the side of caution was only going to exacerbate things, and I just wanted to be done with it. If I'm in violation, I'll accept whatever action you take without complaint. If I'm good to go, then you needn't even respond (although you're certainly welcome to do so). My thanks, my apologies, and all that happy horseshit. What a fucking ordeal! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam: Thank you. FWIW, yes, it was covered, you're right. I decided to err on the side of caution as a show of respect. In a situation where no one would have found fault had you broken out the flamethrower, you used the mop. I've no doubt the latter took an inordinate amount of time longer than the former, and wanted you to know that I appreciated it; took it sincerely. Concerned that it might appear to the community that I was testing boundaries, I didn't stop to think that it may have appeared the very same way to you. I also neglected, aaaaaaaa-gain, to realize that by posting at your page I lost the ability to lock the door behind me, and... ... ... The mess I created at your talk page must have been a lovely greeting after a peaceful weekend; I left you knee-deep in the very Wiki-shit you were attempting to avoid and I'm sorry. I'll shut up now, & I'm sorry to have gone on for so long. If going out of my way to be nice is going to leave me looking like an asshole, then I may as well just be an asshole. It's a hell of a lot easier. Maybe I just suck that much at being nice. I hope all is well with you and yours. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It kind of sounds like you think I'm annoyed you asked. I'm not. I'm not annoyed you or PBP requested clarification, just a little surprised because I thought it was clear. But that can probably be chalked up to my having a clearer picture in my mind of what I'm trying to say than I can explain in writing. Now, if this had turned into back-and-forth bickering on my talk page, then I would have been annoyed, but that's why I preemptively archived it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jps (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

3RR Block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for one week due to a 3 revert rule violation. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 02:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. In the future, I'll continue to observe our WP:BLP policy. If you or one of your fellow infallibles decides to block me in violation of policy as you have just done, so be it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:El C: could you please tell me why the other editor is not blocked as well? (You know, the one who actually broke 3RR?) Please don't give me any "notthem" bullshit either. I'm not asking to be unblocked (I would never give you that satisfaction). Also, please read WP:3RRNO. Your bullying won't deter me a whit, but blocking for reverting WP:BLP violations is contrary to policy, and may have a chilling effect on users who are otherwise devoted members of your claque of sycophants. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeating that it amounts to BLP breach does not make it so. I can only go by the report that's filed. You may file a report here (if you do, please follow the format as best you can), on your own talk page, and I will treat it like any other AN3 report. Sorry you consider this, the enforcement of your 2nd 3RR violation, to be bullying (that is false), but I fail to see how I in any way acted inappropriately towards you. None of this gives me any satisfaction. El_C 03:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said you acted inappropriately. I said you blocked me in violation of policy. You have administrative infallibility. You cannot act inappropriately. When the complainant actually said there's nothing in the rules that requires him to report all parties in an edit war, I figured that would speak volumes to the reviewing admin. I would never compile a complaint here. I don't engage in such puerile nonsense. Ever. It just beggars belief that you apparently believe my counterpart in this edit war was an apparition. It's all good, friend. A block every once in a while reminds me I'm doing something right. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am very much fallible, which is why I offered that you present your claims here (yes, with evidence). Because, the burden of proof is on you, to argue your case, or compile a report. No one is going to do that for you. El_C 04:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you should have looked into that before blocking me. Not blocking (or, by your own admission, even investigating) the other party only compounds the felony, and further undermines the legitimacy of this block. It's all good though. Seriously. Bullshit blocks are a badge of honor to me.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I examined a report. The onus is on you, to provide evidence therein, as others have. I caution you that future blocks are likely to become much more lengthy. El_C 05:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Good! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:El C: Please do not misquote me. I never said "blocks are a badge of honor", I said "bullshit blocks are a badge of honor" (emphasis not in original). If the profanity troubles you, feel free to use a euphemism, but please don't lie by omission. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing. I was so wrapped up with my concerns about being blocked in in violation of policy and the fact that you took no action (or notice, for that matter) concerning Jytdog, that I didn't realize until now that you blocked me after the page had been full-protected. What happened to "not punitive"? I was of course, following the WP:BLP policy, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was actually edit-warring, how could I possibly cause further disruption at a page I can't edit? There's no ambiguity here (not that there's any real ambiguity with the BLP issue other than "you're an admin & I'm not, so you're right by default"). You've got balls, I'll give you that. Now we all know that "not punitive" is just as much BS as "adminship is no big deal"; all blocks are punitive, and also meant to have a chilling effect on other commoners, but most admins generally pretend to go along with it. Your "justification" for blocking me in violation of WP:3RRNO was "I'm right and you're wrong". What is your justification for placing a clearly punitive block? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to have another admin review this block. Violation of 3RR (2nd offense), I feel, deserve a block. If anything, your block should have been more lengthy in light of your block history. I take exception to your claim of "bullying," "claque of sycophants," and other instances of borderline incivility. El_C 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:El C: I've another question to ask of you as well, but I don't have time to compose it right now. I just wanted to post this here before you responded to the above question, as I don't want it to seem as though I'm being a deliberate nuisance, pinging you with question upon question. Of course, feel free to respond in the meantime if you'd like; I just wanted to make it clear it's not my objective to be a pain in the ass. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ask away, but be cool. I do have regrets, in this instance, actually, but not the way you think. Looking at your block history more closely, I realize I made a mistake: I should have blocked for three months (minimum) and taken into account edit warring overall, not just 3RR violations. That's on me. I try to err on the side of leniency. I challenge you to ask any other admin how long they would have blocked you for for this 3RR breach. Any admin that's not me. El_C 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I continue to maintain that I did not, in fact, breech WP:3RR. My last block (one that was undone, not by my request, but by consensus at ANI) was 3 years ago. You're obviously quite free to lengthen the block if that's what you feel is best. I, on the other hand, would counter that giving more weight to old blocks (as well as including a block that a consensus of users–including many that are far, far from "Wikifriends"–agreed was wrong) than a clean block-log for 3 years, is every bit as punitive, if not more, than blocking me after the article had already been protected. I also feel you were as remiss in reviewing the actual situation as you feel you were in reviewing my block-history. Which brings me to my question: Why was it not a BLP violation? You've said: "repeating it doesn't make it so". That's very true, but I've done more than repeat it. I gave detailed responses on the talk page as to exactly how and why it violated WP:BLP. As you have chosen to deny me an exception that's clearly written into policy, I don't feel I'm at all out of line in requesting an explanation. You know why I think it was? Because it's an article about a pseudoscientist who espouses geocentrism, choosing to ignore scientific proof to the contrary. I'm not saying it was intentional malice on your part. It was more likely natural human prejudice. It's easy to interpret the policy much more loosely when the subject of an article holds views with which any reasonable person would disagree. That doesn't make it right to do so. I did make one mistake: when performing a 4th revert or beyond on a BLP, I make it a point to cite WP:3RRNO, both in edit-summary and on the talk page, and make it clear that I'm claiming an exemption. I didn't do that in this case, and while it was an error in judgement, it doesn't make me wrong. The worst part is that I agreed with the overwhelming majority of what was in the article. I agreed that he's a pseudoscientist; I said I had no objection to calling him a young-Earth creationist. The only thing I had a problem with was using Wikipedia's voice to say that geocentrism is related to creationism and intelligent design. I had no objection to mentioning that they have been compared, but using Wikipedia's voice to state this as fact is a clear violation of multiple policies, chiefly WP:BLP. Creationism runs the gamut from biblical literalists to theistic evolutionists, and intelligent design is an extremely broad topic, for which the threshold is belief that there's a possibility that the Universe had a designer. Yes, both are pseudoscience, but they are light years away from geocentrism. Using Wikipedia's voice to declare as fact that all are related clearly violates WP:BLP, not only for Sungenis, but for literally hundreds of people. Finally, would you seriously insist I file a formal report (on my talk page, no less) concerning Jytdog's edit-warring when a quick perusal of the article's history shows he reverted (added, in this case) the same material 8 times in a 24-hour period? This seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTBURO. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The point about the blocks being three years old—fair enough. Maybe blocking you only for a week wasn't such a mistake on my part. No, I don't think it rises to a BLP breach, still. It might be bad editing, to intimate such a tendency. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see how it's injurious to a person. The point is, you could have posted it on BLPN rather than risk an exemption you were unsure of. Yes, I suggested you file a report on your talk page, since you're blocked. Why? Because I'm not inclined to do the work for you. I do insist: if you say you have proof of something, you prove it. Don't expect me to prove it for you. El_C 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. It was a rhetorical question. I was just noting that you obviously didn't look at the situation with the slightest bit of objectivity or detail if you couldn't be bothered to click the "history" button at the article. Again, rhetorical, as I was simply pointing out the unfairness of the situation. I don't want him blocked. The article is full-protected now. Blocking him would be every bit as punitive and unfair as my block is. I just find it troubling that you cannot or will not see that. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. Seems like classic projection to me. From my standpoint, it is you who could not be bothered to prove it, yet you mention it repeatedly. El_C 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Projection? You almost had me there. I actually started compiling diffs, so congratulations. Few people prove able to reach my endodermis and you're now in some elite company. Your time under my skin was short-lived, however, as I quickly realized the futility of such an endeavor. The article history speaks for itself, and barring some bizarre massive rev-del will remain there for all to see for Wikiternity. I've nothing to prove. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The point I keep repeating is that, here, on Wikipedia, the one who alleges is the one who carries the burden of proof. Were you to finish compiling those diffs, I'd have examined them. Why not seek an {{unblock}} if you deem the block unfair? El_C 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's exceedingly rare for blocks to be undone simply because they're unfair. In unblocking me, an administrator would be acknowledging your mistake, and therefore risk the possibility of having his or her own infallibility questioned in the future. If I were to request unblocking on the grounds that it was punitive, violates WP:3RRNO, and no action was taken against a fellow user who made 8 reverts, the reviewing admin would have a hearty laugh at my expense, while quickly denying the request. The only way to file a successful unblock request is to prostrate oneself before our benevolent admin corps, apologize profusely, & beg for forgiveness, while swearing to never, ever do it again. I will do no such thing. While I certainly believe in Wikipedia's purpose enough to donate many hours of my time, as well as (rather) small amounts of my money, I don't find it to be worth surrendering my dignity. I got unnecessarily dramatic with my complaints; I'm embarrassed and I apologize for that. I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me, as I continue to believe I was justified by both the letter and the spirit of policy. Obviously I'd rather be editing than blocked; if you'd like to unblock me, I'd love that, but I'm not about to beg for it. Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I probably wouldn't unblock me. I find it very hard to put myself in your shoes, as I find this block so egregiously out of process. Forcing myself to AGF, if you truly believe the block to be valid, I guess I would require a promise from me not to engage in such behaviour going forward. I'm unwilling to make that promise. Not because I want to edit-war or be disruptive, but because I believe WP:BLP to be of the utmost importance, and fear the potential damage that would result from allowing leeway for biographies of those who are obviously bat shit crazy. It's a slippery slope, and it's all too real. Above, you wrote how future blocks are likely to be lengthier. I responded: "good". That's dreadfully embarrassing; my 4-year-old daughter wouldn't say something so childish. If I wind up blocked for 3 months, 6 months, a year - there will be nothing "good" about it. While I certainly hope it never comes to that, if that's the price I pay for doing what I honestly feel is right by WP:BLP, then that will just be something with which I have to live. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No need to feel embarrassed, I understand that it's stressful being under a block. Still, I don't think we admins are that insular. In fact, I genuinely don't know what another admin would say. As mentioned, the page was protected around the same time—which I actually was unaware, but still would have probably blocked nonetheless. Not punitively, but as a deterrent, since, as you yourself admit, the same scenario is not unlikely to repeat... Again, my advise to you is not to risk it: take it to BLPN for confirmation. El_C 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how it's a "deterrent" if - actually this conversation is really going nowhere. It's obvious no amount of contrition on my part is going to get you to admit you made the slightest mistake. The article was protected in a BLP-compliant version, which is the important thing. Guess I'll just have to take one for the team here. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a deterrent in that next time, you are more likely to take to BLPN for confirmation it does constitute a genuine BLP issue, rather than risk being blocked for months. You already made it quite clear that you express zero contrition because you are certain that it was a BLP violation. An opinion we obviously do not share. El_C 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't bet on it. If what you've taken away from the above conversation is that I "express zero contrition", I really don't know what to say. As I noted above, it has little to do with opinion, as I'm currently blocked for not sharing your "opinion". As in: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't bet. But I hope for it. You said it yourself "I do not, however, apologize for the actions for which you have blocked me." I asked the protecting admin whether s/he feels this amounts to a genuine BLP issue. El_C 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You needn't have wasted time to ask Bbb23 anything about me. Even without our personal history, he is as firm a believer in administrative infallibility as I've come across and will never, and I mean never say that a fellow admin made any mistake at all. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I really wish you would assume better faith. Is there anyone you deem neutral that you would like brought in? El_C 08:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be foolish of me. I told you, he and I have a history, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he's changed. Incidentally, Bbb23 is someone whom I respected as an editor. I actually supported his RfA. At that time I had every reason to assume good faith, which I did. Since then, the admin bit has gone to his head in a way I don't think I've ever seen. No admin is going to disagree with you; even the few whom I respect. It simply isn't done. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I really did mean anyone—dosen't need to be an admin. El_C 09:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd trust myself to pick someone neutral, because to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't want someone neutral. I'm in a situation where I'm blocked because one person disagrees with me about a BLP issue. If I were to pick someone to review it, I would naturally go with someone whom I consider likely to take my side, simply to attempt to balance the ridiculous unevenness of the situation. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for someone even-handed, if you have any top picks. El_C 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the response that Bbb23 gave, this is just becoming more and more farcical, and honestly, it's causing me far more stress than the article did (not that I think that was your intent). There's really no need to bring anyone else into this. I know it was a bad block, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was curious why Joe's talk page was on my too-large watchlist, and it turns out I was one of the admins to block him a few years ago. So I don't know if I count as neutral to either of you, but FWIW, I think the following:

• I don't think this is a BLP issue. At least, on the spectrum of BLP issues, it is not serious. It's much more an undue weight or coatrack issue than a BLP issue.
• I think it is not unreasonable to think it a BLP issue; and therefore (mistakenly IMHO) think 3RRNO applied. I'm curious what would have happened if El C had said "I've reviewed the 3RR report, don't think this is a BLP issue, and suggest you go to BLP noticeboard if you're convinced. But any more reverts and I'll block because I'm currently confident it is not a BLP issue."
• I agree the page being protected doesn't mean the block was obviously out of order; there is in theory a deterent effect. In this particular case, I'm not sure that's the right approach with someone who's been around for a long time editing in good faith and who clearly thought BLP applied. Joe might be wrong, but he's not playing games with BLP to win an argument; I'm sure he really believes what he's saying. Blocks aren't great in this situation.
• I've seen good work from El C, and for a long time, so this is NOT an "El C sucks" comment. But in this case I'm not really... not sure how to word this... I don't support refusing to look into a situation in more detail unless Joe provides 4 diffs and makes a separate ANEW report. Part of dealing with ANEW is looking into the whole situation. There was another editor clearly edit warring, obvious from looking at the page history, who was not claiming any exemption. I don't understand why they didn't just leave it out until there was consensus to include it. If I had blocked in El C's position, I would have blocked the other party too. Note I am not saying a block is a good idea at this stage.
• If I was God Emperor, I'd probably unblock, with a notation along the lines of "claimed a good-faith (but incorrect) BLP exemption", but comment that when another clearly good faith editor honestly believes there is no BLP violation, at least acknowledging you might be wrong, and going to the BLP noticeboard is probably a better move.

HTH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the second opinion. But I don't agree: I still (strongly) feel that the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation, and on them alone—if they can't be bothered, maybe it's not that important to them. About unblocking: My concern is that the user clearly states he will continue to invoke 3RRNO on Robert Sungenis, reverting what he sees as a BLP violation. I can't simply unblock and send him to BLPN if he intends on doing that. I realize the page is protected for four more days, but that still remains a problematic position. El_C 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you're honestly pissing me off at this point. I don't mind being blocked, but playing these kinds of games is really unacceptable. Don't come here pretending to seek outside opinions, when all you're clearly after are opinions that support your position. I tried to engage with you in good faith; it's clear to me at this point you're not acting in good faith. Not only is it "not that important to me"; I told you I don't want him blocked at all. All I wanted was for you to admit you fucked up handling the AN3 report. If you're going to clerk the noticeboard, then it's your job to investigate the reports. You were wrong to block me, you were wrong to take no action against the other user, and you're 10 times as wrong for continuing to insist you were right. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

spirale of justice

Known for my seemingly unrelated comments, here's an image for the trial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, you and only you could make me smile in the middle of all this nonsense. You're the best! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, blushing - again. If you look around on the page find the other image with the best advice I ever received on Wikipedia, and I don't have to tell you that life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

liked to read again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Your points are well taken. My wife was by so many magnitudes of order a better person than I. How she put up with me for all that time (or what she saw in a no-good-son-of-a-bitch like me in the first place) is beyond my comprehension. She deserved so much better. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. I stick to a voluntary 1RR, and bet you could do the same. If there are BLP problems, I understand there's a noticeboard. You could contact also El_C, for example. Trust us around you, you don't have to do things alone. - I just made friends with an IP whom I can't thank you per click, - it's actually nicer in words ;) - see Floq's unforgettable one.

@User:Floquenbeam: Saw your post & went to quickly hit the "thank" button, only to realize I apparently don't have one. Apparently the potential disruption that could ensue were I left with the ability to say "thank you" is so great it must be removed as a non-punitive prophylactic measure. So, thank you. (Note to admins: this is not an attempt to game the system by circumventing the removal of my "thank" option and manually typing out the words "thank you".) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I recall, some vandalism-only accounts quickly discovered they could harass people with multiple clicks of the "thanks" button when it was first introduced, even when indef blocked, and there was nothing admins could do to shut it off. So instead of making that yet another thing that admins could remove if necessary, they just took away the ability to "thank" while blocked for everyone. So it wasn't a specific choice El C made. Anyway, glad to see everything is more or less sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

I've reconsidered and decided to unblock you. I still have concerns, so please don't let me down. El_C 03:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope you are not 82.20.97.197. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I hope you go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Scaphism. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It definitely was his intention, and you know it. Why are you using a template instead of speaking plainly? El_C 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason he made a passive-agressive accusation of sock-puppetry, telling me he "hoped" I wasn't that 80-something IP. He's using circuitous language so he can feign disbelief and accuse me of "personal attacks" when I tell him to stop trolling my talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yes (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Kaye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Founding/founder member

Hi. I've just learned that founding member is an American expression, while the British equivalent is founder member. So you were just keeping with the BE style in your edition to the Camel article, which I reverted. My apologies for the reversion, then.--Gorpik (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries. As an American who regularly follows several British media, I too, was unfamiliar with "founder member" for quite some time. I actually challenged it when it was introduced at Roger Waters, but several users showed me I was wrong. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy Mother's Day

I'd like to wish a very happy Mother's Day to everyone everywhere, to those of you who are mothers, and the women in your lives who are mothers. I send this wish in memory of my beautiful wife, a devoted mother, spouse, and friend. It was the greatest privilege I have ever known to have been her husband. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts

Regarding your Thomas Kinkade reverts....

In my first edit, I pointed out in the edit summary that the source said "the artist ... used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest".

In your first reversion of me, you say:

That's a summary; the sourced quotes use "they"

You're claiming that the source is saying that the company is what used its Christian faith as a tool, and where it says that Kinkade did it, that's an incorrect "summary" which can just be ignored? That doesn't make any sense.

So I included an additional source which, like the one already in the article, definitively makes it exceedingly clear that it was, indeed, Kinkade:

A 2003 lawsuit -- it mirrored others brought by failed Kinkade dealers -- alleged the artist used his Christian faith as a tool to fraudulently induce them to invest in a Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery.

You a.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Kinkade&diff=782534379&oldid=782509039 reverted me again, not only restoring your theory, but also removing the source which I had added. You selectively restored another user's edit which had been wiped out by your revert, but you did not restore my ref. It is extremely poor form to remove a relevant source which contradicts your personal interpretation of events. Your edit summary:

There's nothing "unambiguous" about "they"; it's plural, not singular - it refers to the company, not the individual, against whom charges were not filed.

Well, I agree with you that there's nothing unambiguous about "they" (in other words, "they" is ambiguous). Here's what the original source says:

The criminal probe focuses on the same issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners. Those ex-owners alleged, among other things, that the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which must sell Kinkade's work exclusively.

"They really knew how to bait the hook," said one ex-dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They certainly used the Christian hook."

Nowhere does it say who "they" refers to. Maybe Kinkade did it with his wife, or a friend, or a clergyman, or it could have been anybody else. They also could have been using the singular they to refer to Kinkade. It probably means Kinkade and one or more representatives from his company. But, without contacting the reporter, there's no way to know. You have assumed that "they" means Kinkade's company, and apparently that Kinkade was not involved at all. You've then presented your theory as fact. (See WP:OR.)

But it is completely irrelevant who "they" are. Even if that one anonymous person who is quoted really intended "they" to mean the company, excluding Kinkade (which I think is very, very unlikely), that does not make the rest of the source false. The source discusses litigation brought by at least six people, and regardless of how one of them used "they", the source incontrovertibly states that the allegation of the group is that Kinkade used his Christian faith as a tool. The source which I supplied also unequivocally reports on the allegations against Kinkade.

Please revert yourself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"They" clearly refers to Media Arts Group. You can call this "my personal interpretation of events" if you like, but I'm just following what the references say. I had meant to say there's nothing "ambiguous" about "they"; thank you for pointing out my error. At least we were able to agree about something. The six lawsuits were brought against Media Arts Group, not Kincade. The headline summary in your source indicts Kincade; this is the author's summary of his or her article. The actual material in the article cites lawsuits against Media Arts Group, and anonymous quotes alleging "they" did this or that. That "they" is obviously Media Arts Group, i.e. Kincade, et al. Thomas Kincade is to "artist" what Kent Hovind is to "doctor". Here, on my talk page, I have no problem calling him a fraud. The article is a different story. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrupt bargain

Move for capitalization done. LMK if you have any problems or need further tweaks. Best jengod (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Handicap (horse racing) Edit

In here, you said `this whole section is nonsense`.

Is there a reason why you say that? Do you have a more informational list of features that could be potentially useful in making a computer horse racing handicapping system (preferably in published paper/books)?

Cheers Ryantam626 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

By "nonsense", I just meant that it's nonsense for an encyclopedia entry. It wasn't a comment about the material itself, which may very well be useful elsewhere. Wikipedia, as a rule, cannot give advice, and offering gambling advice presents an even bigger potential problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages in Wikipedia giving advice (or rule of thumb rather), this for example; with that said, I do agree with what you said about gambling advice, and I thank you for making that edit. Ryantam626 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for incivility and continued battleground conduct.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Gee thanks! That'll teach me to talk back to one of the infallibles, huh? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Telling other editors to "fuck off" and calling them trolls seems like a constant thing with you. Please change the tone of your responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. Unfortunately, dealing with trolls is a constant for me as well. I treat people the way they treat me; always have, always will.Joefromrandb (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are calling you a troll and telling you to fuck off? Diffs? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's all there in the history. I'm no snitch. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, being called a troll is there in the history. The right to say "fuck off" is reserved for you infallibles. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:El C: Not sure it was gravedancing, given the context & circumstances. I appreciate the gesture in any case. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I tremble before our most benevolent infallibles, and humbly inquire: I'd been meaning for some while to volunteer some time at Simple English Wikipedia; now that I'm blocked seems to be the perfect time. I started making a few edits, but now I'm thinking some wiki-lawyer will "catch" me doing this. As you likely know, I consider our policies here largely backward and bizarre. (I know, hard to believe, given how conscientiously I observe them, right?) So, my question is: Am I "allowed" to do this? I can all too easily imagine it being called "sockpuppetry". Joefromrandb (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your block only applies to the regular English Wikipedia. You are free to edit on other Wikipedias, including Simple English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. My wiki-sins are as scarlet, and I'm not at all worthy of such magnificent largess. I humbly prostrate myself, and thank Thee for suffering me leave. I will be in Thy debt for all wiki-ternity, dear Adm-nistrator! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam,@ User:Drmies

Re: My message at your talk page; see also, User talk:Grayfell, as I'm certain that is not at all in compliance with what you said may be permissible. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the ANEW "report" contains the blatant lie that I was blocked for edit-warring at the article in question. A quick look at my talk page and/or block log easily confirms this. Also, note the wink & a nod to Grayfell (i.e. "I had to list your name, but I don't want you to get in any trouble"). Regardless of whether or not this complies with the letter of what you said would be permissible, this is obviously an attempt to fuck with me, rather than any genuine concern about edit-warring. I honestly don't care whether or not you actually block him. I just want it nipped in the bud that this kind of horseshit is not acceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued battleground mentality of Joefromrandb. Capitals00 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I like you Joefromrandb! Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Ethanbas! I like you too! (I like you. Do you like me? :)) Joefromrandb (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AFD closure review

Hi there. Just letting you know I have self-requested my AFD closure be reviewed - at AN. Cheers. Steven Crossin 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll comment there, and once I have a bit more time, I'll return to the thread I started on your talk page to complete my thoughts on the matter. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a worry. I'm in no rush. Steven Crossin 03:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Harry Waters

I'll admit that there's no direct reference to him no longer being in his father's band, but he's not in the current band. It's also been said that Nigel Godrich (who produced Roger's new album) had a hand in choosing the musicians for the tour. He apparently also wanted to have Roger work with new/Nigel's preferred musicians. Harry could always rejoin, I suppose, but for this current tour, it's not likely. Current line up is listed on the tour's Wikipedia page.

Cheers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_%2B_Them_Tour

Edit: additionally, a tenure of 2001-2016 is listed here in regards to Harry's participation in his father's tours. http://harrywaters.co.uk

Lau Kar-Yung (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was the "2017" that threw me. A man who's obsession with perfection renders him capable of sacking his own son!? Hard to decide whether that rates kudos or censure. G. Roger Waters is an awe-inspiring anomaly! Thanks for the info. Feel free to restore your changes to the article. Regards, Joefromrandb (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait...

You've been here for a span long enough to be aware that an AFD closure can't be changed/altered at your will.And neither you are a sysop (uninvolved is far away!) to unilateraly undo a NAC.So, either approach deletion review or stop revert-warring.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop revert warring? That's asking an awful lot, but I tell you what: I'm willing to stop revert-warring if you stop beating your wife. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that you have already understood and stopped in your tracks, I find little reason about why I wouldn't:) Winged Blades ^Godric 03:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) I now realize that you posted this before the drama-fest began. I actually wasn't revert-warring, but following the suggestion by the user who reverted me that I reopen the AfD. I never had any intention of performing multiple reverts. The user who actually did begin a revert-war is the same one who started the ridiculous drama-fest at ANI. He currently seems to be picking boomerang out of his teeth, so I suppose all is well. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reading trough the text below, I am sorry for your loss, and symapthesise with you--at tough times!But what I want to add is that it may be a little difficult but prob. wouldn't hurt if you would agree to a more nuanced approach as to any issue. If you ever feel a NAC was incorrect straight off veer to WP:AN and/or WP:DRV(unless and until it's pure vandalism etc. where unilateral reversion is perfectly OK!); it's less drama (I have rarely seen an DRV however good or bad culminating in non-sense proposals to indef any contributor) and more work. Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep!And I clarified in this edit about how I landed up in the issue!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Where is the consensus that noone can undo a NAC? Even a bad one, that violates the part of WP:BADNAC that says "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." which was done here? I suggest you step very lightly in the future. The above statements and actions of yours smell like an attempt to bully Joe....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamJE:--Thank you for your gracious comments!You may wish to participate at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government - review requested.Also, there's hardly little point in re-starting this drama given that it's well-settled(even between us).And I certainly don't need any advice from you about my steps.As a side-note your reversion was sincerely good!That's got to do with small fonts.....Cheers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:--Well, I didn't know I have been bullying you!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CIR issues with User:Tonton Bernardo. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

De Havilland

Hello Joefromrandb - I'm stopping by here to rephrase my edit summary upon which you commented, courteously and without re-reverting. My use of the phrase "completely rejected" was, as you say, misleading. I meant to refer to the fact that the people who entered a vote in the formal discussion and explained their vote were unanimous in saying no to the revision. Further, the consensus box from March 26th lays out the pros and cons of adding "British" to the lede pretty clearly, IMO. My bluntness in the edit summary was the second half of it - the first half emphasizing the need for collaboration and suggesting that such collaboration on the Talk page led to a consensus of "no" to a change. Now, I don't have a particularly passionate position on the issue, though clearly I agree with "American." I would, however, be entirely amenable to reopening the discussion with new and added info, as you have already done, and making a formal proposal again and see where it leads. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I have no desire to reopen the discussion, and I figured a quick null edit would suffice for my 2 cents. I actually agree with "American", although there are valid pros and cons to several options (and hitchhiking). Joefromrandb (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

My concerns

Thinking back about your comments from 2012, I often thought of you as concerned by somewhat helpful. Well, before then... I was somewhat reckless. Years later to now, I looked at your block log and realized that you've gotten yourself in trouble. Right now, I saw your report at ANI. I don't know what changed you, but I hate to see you gone because of this. Feel free to contact me if you can, but I'm unsure whether you want to respond. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, George! Nothing's changed with me, I'm the same no-good-son-of-a-bitch I've always been. No, all kidding aside, George, I think the times we've collaborated in the past are an excellent illustration of my attitude towards others, both on-Wiki and off. I treat people the way they treat me, although it's probably fair to say that I may go to extremes in either direction. As I think you'll agree, when someone comes to me with a request for help, I'm quite happy to do what I can for them. I respond to politeness with politeness, and nastiness with nastiness. My wife died last September.There's no doubt I've had a much shorter fuse since then, and I'm sure I've gotten carried away from time to time. I don't suffer fools gladly in the first place, and I've never really been one to turn the other cheek. It is what it is. At the end of the day, if I've responded to anyone with snark and attitude, it's been in response to snark and attitude. What I truly can't stand is passive-aggressive hostility disguised as civility; the ones that poke the bear with the intention of being bitten so they can run off crying that the big bear is mean and dangerous, and has to be gotten rid of at any cost. I've always been more than happy to accommodate these folks with the desired response. My two youngest children fight like cats and dogs. Several months ago, my 5-year-old son was being incredibly nice to his 4-year-old sister. They were playing together quite agreeably. I was ecstatic about this new development, but kept an eye on the situation, with the regrettable suspicion that he was up to something. Sure enough, he came to me wailing and sobbing because his sister had hit him. When I asked him why she had hit him, he responded, "because I told her 'I love you". Turns out he asked her to hit him, convincing her it was a part of the game they were playing. His actual motive, of course, was to try to land his sister in time-out for an offense he committed. I let my son know that he was trying to bullshit a bullshitter (using different words) & gently explained to my confused daughter that it's never OK to hit anyone for any reason other than self-defense. I see this very same foolishness here on a daily basis. There's literally no difference between my son's behavior and the puerile baiting tactics of our ubiquitous civility crusaders. (Actually, there is one: these users don't have the excuse of being a 5-year-old-child trying to cope with the loss of his mother.) I've been chided here for being too easily baited; I've been told that I "walked right into it", or that I let myself get "played like a fiddle". Guess what, George? That's not the case. It isn't that I'm unaware of these things; I just refuse to tolerate it. If I am, in fact, "giving them exactly what they want", then so be it. There are plenty of users here, some of whom are certainly not "Wiki-friends", who see straight through this kind of nonsense. Thanks for your message, George. You're always welcome at my talk page. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need my assistance again at any time in the future! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for responding. Umm.... I think I might be fine without your assistance, but thanks. I have a lot in my mind, and a lot of things to take of, and lately I barely spend time editing articles. I might ask your help if I want to, but I think I'm good. :)

Furthermore, after reading all of your response, maybe family matters more, especially since... oh my, I am so sorry for your loss, and I must give you my sympathies. My suggestion: I think you're better off spending more time with your kids and take some wikibreaks until things are more stable at home. This isn't to offend your good hard-working efforts. However, how about organizing your schedule and doing more time management (I don't mean an article ;) )? Hmm... I am unsure whether you can take my advice seriously. I don't have children, and I am not widowed. However, I can express my sympathies about your situation.

Another suggestion: if you want, you might want to email the WP:ARBCOM, tell your situation in full and provide diffs via email, and request a motion to encourage the community to do something. If motion to encourage the community to do something is passed, then you may take some breaks and cool off. Also, kids need a good parent/role model who can cope with and come to terms with their loss. Thoughts about my suggestion? Again, I'm not trying to offend you. I was saying that out of my concerns. Well, I hope you and your kids will do fine as well, so good luck. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, George. I'm not offended at all; I appreciate your sympathies more than I can explain. I did actually take a Wiki-break after she died. I began to make the odd edit here and there after a few monts; I've continue to edit as time permits to help me retain my sanity. It helps me to keep busy, and unlike a self-indulgent hobby, it's volunteer work that helps spread knowledge. I've long enjoyed donating both time and money to worthy causes, but volunteering has taken on a special significance to me as a widower. I didn't mean to insinuate that I have problem-children, but rather offered that example to illustrate the problems that arise from childish editors, who don't have the excuse of actually being children. My kids have all been receiving professional counseling on a regular basis since their mother died, and I continue to work closely with their therapist and implement her suggestions. My family will always come first, and although Wikipedia is very important to me, it's truly not even a blip on the radar, when put next to my family. Luckily, my children seem to have inherited my wife's intelligence, as well as her comeliness, since I have very little of the former, and absolutely none of the latter. Thanks again, George. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just read this thread. Hang in there, and please accept my sincere wishes that things get better for you and your children. regards Dom Domdeparis (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Everest 2017

		The Original Barnstar
		For working on Mount Everest in 2017. Happy editing to you Fotaun (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

• Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: ). You appear to have broken 3RR. You should consider agreeing to take a break from this article, because WP:BLP doesn't seem to prevent addition of correct and properly-referenced material. Arguments from WP:UNDUE wouldn't be enough to let you break WP:3RR. It is a matter for editor consensus as to what is undue weight; reverting potentially-undue material counts against the 3RR limit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)  Done While I disagree vehemently, I respect the fact that you came here to drop a note rather than rushing to block me. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

End of Genesis (band)

Hi. Would you mind pointing out the 2012 article in which Tony Banks states "Genesis have come to an end" ? I agree that the band is no more and see no reason to leave the active years as "2006 --", but we need reliable sources to change that information, and you didn't add them in your last edit. Clausgroi (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add them because the statement from Banks (with a reference) is already in the article's prose. I didn't change the opening sentence, as there seems to be some valid ambiguity and nuance as far as whether Genesis "were" or "are". My preference is certainly for the former, but users have long argued that Gabriel's allowance of the minuscule chance of a reunion at some point is sufficient cause for the present tense. My position is that even if such a reunion were to be announced tomorrow, they were still completely inactive going forward from 2012. Banks' statement would seem to me to shore up my argument for this position; YMMV. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't found this quote by Banks in the article. Would you care to show me where it is ? Clausgroi (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll find it. Bear with me a bit please. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a quick look and I can't find it either. I definitely saw it, but it may be a day or 2 before I can track it down. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've looked some more and even did a Google search, and I'll be a son of a bitch if I can find it. I'll find it sooner or later, but if you want to change it back for the time being, go ahead. I still feel it's unnecessary. Whether Genesis "are" or "were" is debatable, but there's no argument as to whether or not they've been active. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's in my best interest to leave the "active period" as 1967-2007 (with a hiatus between 1999 and 2005) because I agree with it (there has been no actual activity in the band since the end of the "reunion tour"). However, as you know, our interests must not affect the impartiality of the article. Let's look for a reliable source one more time. If we can't find it, then we'll have to revert back to "2006 --". Clausgroi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The mystery's apparently been solved, as it seems an anon removed it from the lede. In any case, we seem to currently have a talk-page consensus regarding both their current inactivity and their "years active" status. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please explain this

I'm mystified by most of your reverts at Kim Davis, but this one, with it's unhelpful edit summary, is particularly vexing. The sentence is almost verbatim from the source. You seem more interested in winning an edit war and berating other editors, than actually improving the content.- MrX 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 20:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Olivia De Havilland nationality reverse

I need a reasonable explanation in order to justify your reverse in my edit on De Havilland's dual citizenship. She is not just American, she is both British and American, there's no reason to avoid one of them. Please offer me an explanation, my edit was 100/100 accurate, there is no reason to forgive it, no reason to reflect about its inclusion; she is both nationalities, end of the talk. Does the word "British" cost cents with its inclusion or what? It's absurd to discuss something so clever. Alvite (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

See the talk page, where this issue has been discussed at length. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your criteria. Sorry, I will continue editing her nationality over and over again, because you're not correct on your appreciations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not my "criteria", it's the collective decision of the editors who are active at the article. You don't have to agree with it, but you will need to convince your fellow editors that your version is superior if you want it to stay in the article. "Editing it over and over again" is one of the best ways to ensure that your desired version will not be accepted, & it will also render you not only unable to edit the article, but unable to propose edits on the talk page as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Undid your Twinkle revert (without the use of the Edit Summary) of my Good Faith Edit

Twinkle page Wikipedia:Twinkle states,

"Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

You gave no explanation for your revert.

Note, that I had written in my Edit Summary that the WP page is the same name as my change, not the redirected Chinese name used prior to my "Good Faith" edit. The original Tibetan name for this ancient and famous location is certainly a 500+ years old and perhaps 1,000 or more years old. The relatively new name (after 1959) is a Chinese transliteration of the current Tibetan name as well as ancient Tibetan name of this location.A ri gi bod (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A second revert using Twinkle without using "Edit Summary" A ri gi bod (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's quite the Catch-22, isn't it? Trying to be an expert wiki-lawyer, while still needing to portray yourself as the poor, clueless noob who was just trying to be helpful. You seem to know how things work here well enough to easily understand why your edit wasn't appropriate, which, in turn, renders your feigned surprise at not getting any AGF rather moot. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kim Davis

On Kim Davis:

1. Please promptly revert your latest edit. You are over the 3RR limit. (I
2. Please don't repeatedly curse in edit summaries. It's not helpful and is not civil.
3. As for the sentence at issue, the text of the article said "release" but clearly meant "removal" (as supported by the source: "The governor added that he hYas no power to remove Davis from office.") - you could and should have fixed the typo rather than messing up the sentence and leaving cryptic edit summaries.

--Neutrality^talk 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no 3RR limit. My edits have been to correct clear and obvious BLP violations, exempt, per WP:3RRNO. (Don't forget the perfunctory blue link to WP:CRYBLP when you respond with some nonsense about the article being WP:BLP-compliant.) Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what relevance BLP has here. This dispute, as far as I can tell, is literally about a typo ("removal" vs "release") and your over-the-top response to it (when most people would have fixed the typo). Let me focus on the article. Do you object to the following sentence:

"Beshear added that he lacked the legal authority to either remove Davis from office or to relieve Davis of her statutory duties."

Cited to this new CNN source ("The governor has no legal authority to remove Davis and cannot use an executive order to relieve her of statutory duties, he said."). Pinging MrX as well. Neutrality^talk 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I'm not buying for a second that it was a typo, though. Had it been, Mr. X would have corrected it, rather than returning it verbatim. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually it was. I though I had copy pasted the exact quoted text from the article. You could have easily copyedited it rather than punch the revert button. Or you could have pointed out the error and I would have gladly fixed it.- MrX 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I did point out the error, again and again. You did not "gladly fix it", but rather suggested I "continue to reread the source until (I) understand". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are now edit warring over the infobox image. You're past 3RR. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm editing it in accordance with policy, much to the chagrin of a handful of editors who have used the article as their personal soapbox for a long time. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Glossary discussion

Joe, I have opened up a discussion at Talk:Glossary of North American horse racing. In case you haven't seen it, I urge you once again to please stop removing cited content -- if there are problem entries, please use tags so they can be fixed, not deletion. It does appear that one web site has changed the content of their page or else things were aded but mis-cited, but that's a fixable problem by seeking content elsewhere. I spent a considerable amount time reviewing your last set of edits and would value you engaging in talkpage discussion. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The "cited content" that I removed was copyvios. Obviously, feel free to seek content elsewhere, but that doesn't mean copyvios stay in place in the meanwhile. They have to come out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That was not your original set of arguments, and it also is not an accurate statement for all the content you removed. That said, I ran earwig and found that one page that flags is a wikipedia mirror and I did an extensive review of the remaining pages flagged, rewriting several entries that had been inserted verbatim. Once again, please fix these problems, and stop blanking the entries altogether (in the above example, you could have removed the phrasing but kept the word itself if your concerns were not mere pretext.) From here forward, let's please continue the discussion at the article talk so others may weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Joefromrandb: You are engaged in revert warring. If you revert Ricky Rodriguez one more time, you will be in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. Please use the article's talk page to discuss why you think that paragraph is no well-sourced instead of reverting. Thank you. --Thorwald (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Olivia de Havillad

Could you please show me what's being overlinked? Why do you keep removing linking in an appropriate location for linking? Rusted AutoParts 15:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I already showed you what's being overlinked (as did another user). There's no reason to link everyday terms like countries and large, well-known cities (allowing for exceptions, of course, where it would be reasonable to expect that a link would be helpful to a reader wishing to get a more-comprehensive understanding of the topic). For instance, Tokyo could reasonably be linked from the Japan article, and Japan could reasonably be linked from the Asia article. There is no reason whatsoever for these links to be in de Havilland's article, info-box or elsewhere. If you feel there's an egregious reason that ignoring guidelines would improve the article, that's fine, but it's on you to make your case and build a consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Im finding your response a bit rude towards the end as when one normally cites overlinking I take it to mean it's been linked over and over in the article already. Quite frankly that argument is a tad silly IMO, but to avoid edit warring I won't revert back. Rusted AutoParts 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by "overlinking"; see WP:OVERLINK. Obviously, repetitive linking should be avoided as well, but "overlinking" refers to cluttering the text with low-value links that have little, if any, direct relation to the article. I believe User:Tony1 has, amongst his excellent tutorials, a page (or at least a section of a page) detailing the concept of "smart linking". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts, it was recognised long ago on en.WP that linking carries a cost as well as a benefit. To briefly summarise the costs: dilution of the linking system in listeners' minds; lack of specificity in link target ; the sea of blue, which makes the text less easy to read, and brings a messy aesthetic to the page; failure to take the opportunity to use editorial skill and knowledge to ration the links for whatever we assume is the typical reader of an article (maximised utility, minimised linking); the forgetting of the fact that readers can type into the search box. Tony (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that a joke? No, I can't. I'm currently blocked, as I've chosen not editing at all over genuflecting before a corrupt administrator & promising to obey. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have to stand up for slakr here: you don't know s/he's corrupt, so I could cite you for a BLP violation. :) Drmies (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Oshwah:That's some pussy shit there. Are you trying to fuck with me? A month! Make this fucking block for a month. Otherwise, this shit will just start all over in 2 weeks. I'm fucking serious. Please change this block to match the duration of whatever horseshit restriction has been imposed on me & don't make me cause any more needless disruption 2 weeks from now. It's almost like the "2 weeks" thing was on purpose, just to fuck with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:slakr If Oshwah doesn't have the balls to do it, maybe you'll have the decency, since you caused this entire fucking mess in the first place. Once again, I absolutely refuse to honor the restrictions you have imposed, and request I be blocked for the duration. Are you seriously going to make me make more meaningless edits to BLP articles in 2 weeks, as I just did? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: I think the 2 weeks was only to reflect the previous block, which was 1 week. I don't think there were any bad faith involved. Do you want one month just to make a point? Alex Shih^Talk 06:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. What I'm saying is that I absolutely refuse to abide by the edict set down by slakr. I said from the beginning, you may as well block me, because I promise you I will disobey the edict. It's not exactly "to make a point", unless the "point" is "I'd rather be blocked than obey an unjust edict". I will resume reverting any and all BLP violations once this 2-week block has expired, and I don't give a shit that I'm not "allowed" to. I'm asking for one month now to prevent the inevitable drama in 2 weeks, which will certainly lead to me being blocked again, possibly for longer than 2 weeks. Why is that necessary? Just block me for a month now and be done with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Even though this would be against the principles of WP:COMPULSORY, I have extended the block to one month as I hope this would be better for the place. Hopefully we can re-visit the issue to reach a resolution at some point after one month. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 07:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That took balls (the good kind)! There will be nothing that needs to be revisited in a month. The "restriction" unjustly imposed will be over, and I will be free to resume editing. Again, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:slakr: I'll AGF that you still haven't noticed, but as I have chosen to be blocked for a month as a prophylactic measure in light of your baseless and unjust edict, will you please have the decency to revert your annotation to whatever page that was. As I can't edit anything other than my talk page for the month, it goes without saying that I can't revert WP:BLP violations. You've won; you succeeded in showing me who's boss around here, & your ex cathedra fiat will be obeyed by default. There's really no call to add insult to injury. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No; the WP:ACDS sanction (1RR) stands regardless of the current block for disruptive editing and incivility, as the current block, which likely resulted due to your ensuing behavior, wasn't recorded as an arbitration-enforcement action. You can therefore appeal your current block through the normal unblock process. If you feel I was in error with the 1RR sanction or that it was otherwise unwarranted, you can appeal the sanction, usually via arbitration enforcement. --slakr^\ talk / 01:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:slakr:Why would I want to appeal the block? I requested it. That was the entire point–I said I'd rather be blocked than edit under the ridiculous, egregiously unjust restriction of being forbidden to revert WP:BLP violations. I would have continued to revert them on sight, and with extreme prejudice, on a daily basis. (I know, what a malicious prick I am!) With escalating blocks for each "violation", I'd have likely wound up blocked for 2 years by the time a month was up. I asked you to simply block me. When this fell upon deaf ears, I set to making multiple null-edits, followed by reverting, to various BLP articles. I was openly defying your ridiculous punishment, yet you did nothing. User:Oshwah tagged in at this point; can't have one of us commoners publicly thumbing his nose at one of the infallibles. That shit's bad for business! Of course, the 2-week block was a second try at the setup, done no doubt with the knowledge that I would resume once the block had expired, earning me a new block, almost certainly longer than 2 weeks in length. Thankfully, User:Alex Shih had the decency and the balls to honor my original request, which first you, and then Oswah should have done originally. Please don't pretend I was blocked for my "ensuing behavior", as though I committed an infraction that merited a block. That sounds like: "You dont decide whether you get blocked or not; you're blocked, but because We say you deserve to be blocked, not because it's what you wanted". This whole thing is so fucking ridiculous. "The restriction stands regardless of the block"? Are you kidding me? That's like the proverbial jail-sentence of "life plus ten days". The "restriction" was rendered completely moot upon the block. I'm not permitted to edit Wikipedia for a month, and furthermore, during that same month, I'm forbidden to revert any WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours. Have you by chance served on the Arbcom at some point? Because that non-sequitor sounds like it was ripped straight from one of their "findings-of-fact". Again, I will not be appealing this block, as I'm the one who requested it (not that I've ever appealed any block). Therefore, the "restriction" of not being permitted to revert WP:BLP violations more than once per 24 hours does not exist, in practice or in theory. On the contrary, I'm not permitted to revert them at all. It beggars belief that you would insist on retaining something so patently absurd with no rationale other than "I Am the Law". Your "restriction" is far more than unnecessary at this point. It does not exist. It has been superseded by a more-restrictive set of parameters, albeit one of my own choosing. Is being "right" truly that much of an issue to you? I'm again asking you to revert these phantom "restrictions". They have no point, no value, and no effect whatsoever on any editing taking place here, good, bad, or indifferent. --Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Joe, how do we get out of this? I happen to think you were right in the Waters article (and Piriczki's edit solved the entire problem in what I think is a proper way), but you were blocked of course for incivility. You don't want to ask for an unblock, that's cool, and you don't agree with slakr's edict, which I assume is the 1R restriction. Well, that restriction is only for a month, so that's not that much of a leash, and you could of course also disagree with it while not violating it. Or you could argue your case at AE--but I think, judging from experience, that the whole fuck fuck fuck thing will weight against you, even setting aside the edit warring (I know, you'll claim the exception, and that is understandable). I don't know; I suppose the ball is in your court and (I think I've said this before) I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here--but I'd rather have you editing than not editing. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. I'll post a proper response at some point today, as time permits. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Understood. Ping me if you can there's anything useful I can do (that might be a first...). Drmies (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @User:Drmies:Just wanted to take a minute to let you know I haven't forgotten. I have some family issues with which I'm dealing, but I still intend to respond to your message. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Hey, you don't owe me a thing, but thanks for the note. Good luck with those issues; they matter more than "something's wrong on the internet"--this is advice I need to take myself too. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas

You made a pretty darn weak argument when you reverted my edit the last time. You do NOT own the Kirk Douglas article! I was trying to IMPROVE the article so it made better sense. If you are not a dope, Marvin Gaye was a British singer, and he was born in London. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Looks like it's about this. Classicalfan626, since the claim is supported in the #Style and philosophy of acting section, citation should't really be needed per MOS:LEADCITE. But I'll add it since it has been contested. Next time would you please provide wikilinks and/or diffs if you are going to talk about something that happened one or two months ago? Alex Shih^Talk 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that. Indeed, statements in the lede do not need refs, provided they're properly referenced within the body. The edit also changed Democratic Party "member" to "supporter", which is not at all the same thing. Alex Shih, you have far more patience than I. That you managed to deduce that from a cryptic mention of Marvin Gaye is quite impressive! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Malcolm X

Thanks for your attempted corrections. You're in the right—most experienced editors can see that. Unfortunately you are up against a small group of individuals who nonetheless control the article. They insist on enforcing an usual set of standards that are unlike most other Wikipedia biographies. It's all very strange; it's been discussed previously. Best to quit now before you're accused of edit warring! --Hazhk (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, or the patience to deal with it right now,but this tiny group doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as guidelines go, and I will return to it eventually. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If taken to a community notice-board, with site-wide participation, this "local consensus" has zero chance of holding up. Nonetheless, I'm very hesitant to get involved with such things. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Despite your assertions to the contrary, there was discussion about the changes and consensus was achieved. You have now made four reverts in less than 24 hours. Please self-revert your last edit or I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I had already self-reverted, but seeing these puerile threats makes me seriously consider reverting my self-revert. I really expected better from you, Malik. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry that you think it's appropriate to make three reverts in 10 minutes, but that my concern about your out-of-control edit-warring on a featured article is a "puerile threat". If I thought it would do any good, I would recommend that you read WP:BRD, but I have a feeling that it would be a waste of both of our time. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dylan as Nobel laureate (rather than winner)

Hi Joefromrandb, I saw that you reverted this edit by Skymandr . I have taken a great interest in the Bob Dylan page and tried to keep it up to date and readable. I thought that in this instance, Skymandr was right. Winners of Nobel prizes are usually described as "laureates". I thought I would check with you, rather than revert, as was my initial impulse. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something? Best, Mick gold (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Nobel prize winner" is a common phrase. Multiple sources refer to Dylan as such. I'm sure that plenty use "laureate" as well. It's not a big deal to me either way. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK

You can't just pick and choose which part of a guideline you want. The very same guideline that you cite to justify your edit also contains the explicit guidance The rules on linking applicable to disambiguation pages are set out in the disambiguation style guide. If you want to change WP:MOSLINK and WP:MOSDAB, please establish some consensus before making accusations of arrogance. older ≠ wiser 00:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. Please fuck off and go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your ANI Thread

I've closed your ani thread with no consensus for a indef ban at this time, however your rough-around-the-edges commentary needs to be reigned in some. To that end, then, you're now subject to an editing restriction: incivility added outside of your own talk userpages during the next 6 months will invite an ANI thread on whether or not to move forward with the indef block. In an attempt to be fair, until that discussion occurs, you are not supposed to be indef blocked, and if that consensus is reached it has to be implemented by an uninvolved admin. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hello Joefromrandb,

I just noticed on my watchlist that the block against you has been lifted. I just wanted to welcome you back to editing, and wish you the very best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Joefromrandb and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 13:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What a dirty fucking trick! So much for AGF! When you wished me "good luck" above, I was foolish enough to believe it meant "good luck". Apparently it meant "good luck; wait until you see the shit-storm I've got cooked up for you, ha ha ha ha ha ha!!". Joefromrandb (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Joefromrandb, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuck off. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As you wish. See WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: To be honest, as much as time sink it may be to let this drag on, an indefinite block 4 minutes after the AN/I report was filed, it is quite possibly an overkill here for an editor that has been around for nearly 7 years with 20k+ edits. This is going to generate a lot of negative response. Alex Shih^Talk 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Frankly, and with all due respect, Joefromrandb can use the unblock requests to detail how they'd continue to contribute without the gross incivility. There's plenty of talented content contributors who manage, so I'm sure they can too -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime, I agree with Alex Shih. Toddst's silly NPA warning looks like pure provocation to me, designed to get more ANI fodder. I'm composing a note to that effect for the ANI thread, but I expect it'll be closed before I get there — it's often the way. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC).

Happy Mother's Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, as always! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I can make you smile once more: look at the top of my user page. In case you look in a few days only: it's this title of which I said but forgot where that it's a perfect description of much we do here. I have my most recent DYK in the position, and after several days of changing every day, that title seems there to stay ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Sadly, there's more of them than there are of us, but as long as there's some of us left, it's still worth being here. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You are in the same boat as TRM, did you know? I couldn't help mentioning the opera on the talk of the blocking admin. Missing Hillbilly on holiday also, - you are in good company ;) - In the future, please stick to 1RR and find another expression to reject being baited. Sorry, no new and better ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I won't be intimidated. I'll continue to use "fuck off" when it's appropriate (as it absolutely was in this case). Joefromrandb (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seriously, when "fuck off" becomes indef-block worthy, then they have really won. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • • Thank you, Doctor. You're a plain-spoken man. We don't always agree, but I always appreciate your input and the perspicacity that invariably accompanies your opinion, whether defending or rebuking me. Your conduct as an administrator has always been (IMHO) beyond reproach, something that's as laudable as it is rare. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I sing your praises ... in memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Gerda. That may be my highest honor yet; I'm in some very good company there. Meanwhile, the ANI has run for over a week; there's clearly no consensus for the block, yet no one has unblocked me. All the while, the appropriately named There's No Time laments as "surreal" the experience of being held accountable for his bad block. Only on Wikipedia (where "infallible" means INFALLIBLE!)! Joefromrandb (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Good company, indeed. I thought 3 was a good number, or could have added Eric and Coffee. Alakzi gave up after a series of unbelievable blocks, - I miss him. - I understand that you unblocked now: that's good news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks again. You've been a source of strength to me during myriad nonsensical blocks over the years, as well as a level-headed voice of reason, somehow managing to stay afloat in a sea of ubiquitous insanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • blushing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • The easy way to stay afloat is: avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Amen to that! Did you hear that, Toddst1? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
              • In the spirit of that Amen, I wrote a new article, Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, at least a start. The rest of the day, I'll be at the opera pictured on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Look again, improved, - can you help to make it more English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
                • I'll try & have a look later tonight or tomorrow morning, but make no mistake, Gerda: your English is quite good. It's actually better than what I see from many native Anglophones. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joefromrandb, I have changed your block duration from indefinite to three months per this discussion. I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You must be very proud of yourself. Meanwhile, Todd's trolling goes completely unpunished. Double fucking standard indeed! (Does the block extend by a month, now that I've said "fuck"?) As for your offer to "unblock immediately" if I "throw my hands up" (read: prostrate myself before you and beg to be forgiven), that will take place on the day of Mahmoud Abbas' bar mitzvah. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"I'd like to sincerely apologise for blocking too quickly" and "the only thing I regret in this block is backing down from the indef. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)" are logically consistent? More evidence this new admin is really messed up. --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, IHTS, both for sticking up for me an ANI, as well as having the balls to call them as you see them. The most toxic presence at that board is the claque of "this user is not an administrator, but might like to be one someday" folks, sowing seeds for their future RfA's by defending the indefensible. It was a stressful experience for me, but watching you tell it like it is to Snow Rise & AutomaticStrikeout brought me some much-needed relief. Be well. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I made it a point to never reply to Snow Rise in that ANI, nor would I. (I recognize that sickly sweet sophistry, it gives me a headache, it's shallow & like a bucket of water filled w/ 1000 holes. Not worth it. Frankly nearly every sentence he writes is hard for me to read w/o getting nauceous. The implied condescension, probably unintentional but unmistakably there, e.g. referring to you in third person constantly instead of by username, as though he thinks he is a clinical psychologist in white lab coat, vetting you as if you were some sort of animal or candidate pet for family adoption. "They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection." All this para-psychology on the ANI cesspool board, why do some people feel they can do that? They feel there must be "anger" behind a bad word, how shallow is that? Who the H does he think he is? Let's see you've been editor at least 7 years, and Snow Rise writes: "this user [...] may indeed just not have the temperament to participate in a project of this sort." And saying you have an "inability to internalize" ... "baseline conduct standards of this project". Always so superior, and always black & white. Sounds like a computer w/o the concision & w/ a screw loose. Really no one could pay me to have any discourse w/ Snow, the combination of mock argument & superior tone is just too creepy for me. For sure he'll be at RfA in a year. He said he thinks himself a "shoo-in". Oh nooooooo!) ¶ AutomaticStrikeout I'll also have nothing to do w/. He badgers my posts at RfA & now ANI, even I'm seldom on public boards. (He apologized once to me at my Talk; seems to have forgotten that. I was nice to him then, but he turns tail again. So I just give him smack back, he fabricates arguments to try & engage; I'm not that stupid.) ¶ As much as I think ANI is a disgraceful form of pseudo jurisprudence, one for the anthropological record books, I have to say, there were several experienced users & admins there who were great w/ observations & perspectives. Including Drmies. They were great, concise, all policy & experience talking. The parade of extremist civility warriors, I presume, get little weight from any closing admin. So I learned a little respect there for the process, even the format is a swamp, the thing is, there's no guarantee any of those experienced voices are not on a month-long vacation in Bali. And what then? (That's the point. The "community" is then the caste of warriors.) ¶ Good luck, me thinks you have multiple buddy-admins' eyes aims locked on. --IHTS (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Please, there's no need to get personal. Joe, is it possible to ask for voluntary 1RR? I think it's better to turn off the revert notification; the system design was flawed to begin with. Alex Shih^Talk 06:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

It is with great pleasure that I remember how I met you five years ago, missing the same great editor. We sit in the same boat, labelled for battleground. My voluntary ways to overcome it (although I realize that it will always stick): 1RR, no more than 2 comments per discussion, and ignore ignore ignore (or even more than 3 times, see?), the best advice from a dead friend. Some edits don't deserve the effort of an edit summary. We still look for a good cat image to illustrate ignoring. - I decorated my talk with a song of praise today. The Magnificat is a good text to reflect, any time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks  :)

	The "Surely you can't be serious?" barnstar
	For ... "Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison...?" — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not, to tell the truth. On the other hand, I have been in a cockpit, & I've seen a grown man naked. Realize that by opening the interrogative statement used to test knowledge with "Joey", you've ruined the chance for me to demand that you stop calling me "Surley"! Cosi e vita.

Hey, I laughed so hard there I forgot to sign my post! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI

...you've been mentioned on the ARBCOM page in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nathan_B._Forrest, however the filing party apparently didn't bother to notify the people in the statement section, hence the message. If you'd like you are welcome to leave your two cents on the page, otherwise feel free to disregard this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Reading & responding at that page was causing me an inordinate amount of stress. I decided to just get back to improving articles, & not even look at that page until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth (and I betting its not worth much), the arbcom folks look ready to punt your case, which means it'll go back to the community...which can't decide what to do with you, so that in turns means the community will answer to me with regards to blocking you until April, and after that it looks like you'll be free to edit with everything you've got for good long while. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the community will (or has to answer) to you at all, in this case. You chose a lengthy bureaucratic procedure. Your reasoning (among other) was "As much as it pains me to admit, this is beyond my ability to adequately deal with, and due to the long time over which this has played out it its probably beyond the community's ability to adequately deal with as well. At this point it is my professional opinion that this matter should be referred to the arbitration committee for a thorough, independent, and formal investigation into all aspects of this matter and to better balance the needs of the community against the allegations of the editor." The committee looks like it's going to decline. I think Joe is free to edit with everything he's got as soon as that happens (though, in the encyclopedia's interest of keeping you unblocked, I, of course, don't hope you really will use all you've got, Joe :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For a Few Dollars More

Your recent revert at For a Few Dollars More. Please visit the talk page. Thank you. Hull16 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! Hull16 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Stopping Genesis (band) edits

Hi joefromrandb, you recently reverted an user's edit on Genesis (band) with the change comment Knock it the fuck off. I think your revert was completely right so thanks for doing that. However, please can you keep the change comments WP:5P4 and "respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree". At worst, it can provoke time-consuming behaviour from aggrieved users. I know the Talk-discussed history behind the 'is'/'were' thing in Genesis (band) and understand that it's very annoying to have to deal with it twice from that user. On that, I'm right behind you and thank you for your edits to fix Genesis (band). All the best. ToaneeM (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Had I said, "knock it the fuck off" the first time, I would understand your point. When I explained it thoroughly and politely, only to be reverted without comment, I don't see the need to be so obsequious. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, my POV here is only that WP:5P4 applies all the time, no matter how many reverts. Without that, we all know that discussions between a huge number of people on so many controversial subjects get quickly out of hand. Politeness isn't obsequiousness and it doesn't seem much to ask of us all. I hope that you'll see what WP:5P4 is about, makes life cooler. Again, I appreciate your work there, I'll leave you in peace and best regards.ToaneeM (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm prepared to cut Joe some slack here - although he's used the "dreaded 'F' word" it doesn't seem to be any less WP:CIVIL than this edit, so for me to criticise him would be a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have the article watchlisted after I took it to GA and there are a number of perennial things that people squabble over. This is unfortunate as there are probably bits of prose that could be tightened up, and some of the sourcing improved in places, but people tend to focus on the easy pickings which really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

“Example creep”

What does “example creep” mean? Linguist^unEins^uno 19:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think it's wot Judge Dredd sez when he wants an example... — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 19:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed! There's also WP:CREEP, but it seems rather pedestrian next to fortuna's example. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb arbitration case request archived

Hi Joefromrandb. The Joefromrandb arbitration case request has been declined by the Arbitration Committee and has accordingly been archived. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect timing: the wake-up call for justice in our time (mentioned a bit above) is on the Main page right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Moar music

More music, - it's unbelievable how it doesn't leave my mind almost a week later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's amazing how much beautiful choral music I've discovered as a result of your many DYK's. Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! For this one, there's even a YouTube of the first movement (last years version), bottom of the article ;) - If you want more ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Today, we sang a good piece by the composer with "us" in one boat. DYK: only one question this year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! I love it!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes, happy thanksgiving to you and yours! This year I have only music to offer, but there were more delicious variations before ;) - I planned to expand today the song pictured but meeting people was more important. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Joefromrandb. 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)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited QQ (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chery QQ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that one was intentional. Joe: 1–Robot: 0. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I got sidetracked while in the midst of sending some of you holiday wishes; to those of you I wasn't able to address personally, I wish you & yours a very happy holiday! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Time to say thanks for another year, Reformation and reformation, and best wishes for the next, pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi

Hi. Please see WP:REDYES - all these actors have 50+ film credits, so could easily have articles. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They sure could. They don't. WP:REDYES does not apply to red-linking personal names. This is because of potential WP:BLP issues. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you are edit-warring. Please discuss any further changes on the article's talkpage. And none of them are BLPs, as they're all dead. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

3RR

I think you might need to review WP:3RR - please disengage in edit warring and enter sensible discussion. violet/riga _^[talk] 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe, perhaps I am overstepping, but would you please consider accepting voluntary 1RR? Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of horseshit that drives me round the fucking bend. A user who has made four reverts to the page in the last 24 hours comes to my page with bullshit about 3RR, yet here you are rebuking me. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, by "horseshit", I was referring to the above user's disingenuous behavior, and not your good-faith inquiry. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You're an admin and should behave 'better' than us mere users. You have broken 3RR and I have not. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have fairly thick skin. Calling me just about any name is water off a duck's back, but I refuse to abide being called an admin. The audacity! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I thought I saw that you were. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think Violetriga is closer than most to nearly being an admin  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil discussion

I put it to you that "second album" is more universally understood than "sophomore album". I don't really see that it's particularly debatable and, moreover, I don't really see why someone would be so adamant about same that they engage in an edit war to enforce their view without anything more than "No, it isn't". Our own sophomore article starts "In the United States..." while Wiktionary gives only (US) definitions. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, "civil discussion" when you start with nonsense about "edit warring". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I was going to list for you how many Wikipedia articles use the term "sophmore album", or "sophomore effort", but I stopped counting after the second page. As for it being a "U.S. term", fine; the article is written in American English. We don't change semantic plurals in British English articles; we don't change "tire" to "tyre" (or "tyre" to "tire"), "founder" to "founding", etc., etc., etc. Your change is not an improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You were quietly edit-warring and have only stopped because I have held back. You have broken 3RR. Finally you engage in discussion but go with "other things exist" as a defence? Right, so it's a US article and it's American English, we agree, but given that "second album" is accepted in all versions of English do please explain to me how it isn't preferable. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, holy fucking shit! You "held back"? Seriously? "Held back"? I stopped edit-warring because you stopped edit-warring. The difference between us is that I admit I was edit-warring, while you engage in identical behavior, yet have the audacity to act like an injured party. Please see my user-page, specifically the part that says: "This user has a low tolerance for bullshit". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Finally, stop lying that I broke 3RR. It's kind of foolish, considering that the entire history is right there for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't know you knew swear words! Right. You don't know how to count though - you reverted four times. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, keep saying it until you believe it yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pfft.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820254989&oldid=820253722
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820258703&oldid=820257231
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820263772&oldid=820261315
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820415185&oldid=820388193

Now stop the straw man and discuss. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

2 of those are the same edit. Give it up already. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In any case, the article's talk page is where you should be proposing this, not mine. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, they are all separate reversions as is easy to see. Perhaps a third party might be able to explain this to you.

The article's talk page is not needed - this is a revert war that you instigated but you're totally unable to defend yourself. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Go away. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just as soon as you tell me you won't undo my change again. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine...

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joefromrandb. Can you please provide a further response to this report at the noticeboard? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying; I keep edit-conflicting. I have already self-reverted, upon seeing Davey's opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Two SEPTA station names

I noticed your recent move-reverts of Fortuna (SEPTA station) and St. Davids (SEPTA station). While the moves you reverted were done by a now-banned sock - and thus you were right to be suspicious of them - they were actually correct per WP:USSTATION (a policy enacted a few years ago). I believe there's not a need for a move discussion; unilateral moves to comply with USSTATION are generally considered uncontroversial technical moves at this point. (I was actually against USSTATION at first, but it's proved to be a well-thought-out implementation of the wider naming policy). I wanted to let you know rather than revert your moves and risk appearing rude. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

They should all be disambiguated with "SEPTA station", and if WP:USSTATION says otherwise, then USSTATION is wrong. With that said, I really don't care if you want to move them back; I've too many other dragons to slay at the moment. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: Kim Davis

You are going to participate on the talk page, right? El_C 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being referred to as a troll, Joe. I wasn't trying to get any reaction from you other than respecting WP:DS and your fellow editors. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the actual dispute, but I saw MrX's edit summary here just now, and Joe, to the extent that you trust my judgement, MrX is not, and has never been, a troll. He's good people. Maybe you guys disagree on whatever is going on, but he's good people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

While I do trust your judgement, I feel the need to point out that this editor has repeatedly, and I do mean again and again, edit-warred demonstrably proven lies into that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I have very little patience for this woman; she's an obnoxious homophobe, and unlike others who were indoctrinated since birth with irrational hatred, Davis picked up her nuttiness well into adulthood. Here, on my talk page, such sentiments can be expressed freely. Our articles, on the other hand, should just present the facts. Editors who are unable to check their biases at the door should refrain from editing sensitive topics. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating "demonstrably proven lies" with information that is simply incorrect. I know you're smart enough to know that "lies" carries the implication of intent, if not malicious intent. If you are trying to say that I lied, or intentionally added lies to a biography, I wish you would at least have the guts to say it directly. Your constant passive-aggressiveness and overt bellicosity is so tiring that I wonder if it's just a tactic to win content disputes, or if you really are just a person with a large chip on his shoulder who seeks to make others miserable too.- MrX 🖋 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, now. This is not going to lead to anything constructive. Let's, instead, focus on the content at the article talk page. El_C 00:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Passive-aggressive"? Now there's a first! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Red links

Hi Joefromrandb,

Please revert the red link. See Wikipedia:Red link "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" and "Do not create red links to articles that are NOT LIKELY to be created and retained in Wikipedia". As I have noted in the Edit Summary "Red link for future article, which I am writing....Please leave as a RED LINK". I am currently working on an the article Gary Pickford-Hopkins....thanks. 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT, WP:WTAF. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do Not Disturb (much)

Hi Joefromrandb. Re your delinking here, etc. Your three edit summaries read simply "WP:MOSQUOTE". But there is nothing about links there. I wonder could you direct me to any clear advice that WP:MoS gives for the use of links in block quotations? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"As much as possible, avoid linking within direct quotes, which can clutter the text, and in some cases, alter the meaning". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Where is that located? Your interpretation then, seems to be that links are to be avoided regardless of whether or not they actually do "clutter the text, and ... alter the meaning"? Because I'm finding it hard to see how those removed links did either of those things. Thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought the guidance was, too, but apparently there was a recent decision otherwise. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/snuck-or-sneaked-which-is-correct --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Snuck" may be more common, but it is not, nor will it ever be, "correct". Joefromrandb (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

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/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in participating in one of Arbcom's famed show trials at all, let alone one opened upon the testimony of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. If Arbcom wants to railroad me the hell off of this website, they're going to have to do it without my help. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Fore-edge painting

Hi Joe, just to let you know, my edit was not made haphazardly. You might want to take a look at this article: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy in any case. By all means, change it back if you think it's better. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

We would like to remind you that the Joefromrandb and others case, in which you are listed as party, is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat: I have no desire to participate in a show trial, especially one accepted upon the word of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to ANI noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

• I see that this has been closed already. Now for the debrief. @BattleshipMan:, may I suggest that if you are going to do something like this again, you do so without appearing to be basing an entire case on an editor's background? Yes, in your view, J<R&B has a history of being a major disruptive editor and he's a history of blocks [sic], but I'm afraid all that did was attract attention, and not in a productive way. Not that the entire thread was ever likely to produce anything except wasted spleen and cheap coffee. And I hope this isn't true, either, although-
  Incidentally, if you could please sign your remarks with four tildes (~~~~, thusly), that would be appreciated. Take care and happy editing! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joefromrandb_reported_by_User:FrankP_(Result:_). Thank you. - FrankP (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Joefromrandb, in the open Joefromrandb and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought of you today

... when I advertised the beautiful Main page. I should have come sooner. Look for song, toys and pride and prejudice, "spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, as always. The star chamber is apparently in session, so your presence here–again, as always–is a much-welcomed breath of sanity. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You probably know my dangerous thoughts about arbitration. On one of the talk pages, I met the phrase "net-negative" which I despise. We should be a collaborative team, no. Calculation of plus and minus is heartless when it comes to people, also depends on who looks. You feel sanity when I come, others smell battle ;) - I still believe that sticking to 1RR and relying more on others is a net-positive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who smells "battle" when you come around obviously lacks the very "sanity" of which we speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, blushing again. Quote from the above: "I am known for my dreams. How about amnesty?" - My most famous saying, it seems (Look for my name. The user is blocked.) Dream, dream ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Of the many wise quotes on that page, none ring more true for me than Carlin's admonition to "think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are dumber than that". Alas, my wife used to remind me of that all the time: the overwhelming majority of people who piss me off everyday in all likelihood truly don't know any better. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Heard the same thing: your "opponents" probably did what they thought was best. - Completely different topic. I face a major boring task. The template lang changed (and see the talk page). In case you don't know: it identifies foreign language. One result: screenreaders don't try to pronounce something in English. So far, so good, I spread it generously. It was - until recently - neutral to italics, so you could format to your liking. Now that changed to italics when you don't do something, and they tell you that no bot can fix the changes, so I have to do it. Deep breath. Every Bach cantata (motet, chorale prelude ...) title needs to be touched, not only in the article but in all links to it, because the title should be italic, but not the BWV number. Every hymn title is "wrong", italic where it shouldn't be. I go now and change one hymn and see how long it takes, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I did 4 short hymn articles, 90 occurences, 20 minutes. Now to the cantatas, "only" those linked from in peace and joy I let go, 15, I'd guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One cantata has about 40 occurrences of the template (at the least the better ones), and of course, while reading you find this and that else that profits from change, - anyway, the hymns and cantatas related to Luther are done. Letting go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll see if I can help with some of those, although I'm afraid I may very well screw it up, adding even more to your workload. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I discussed what needs to be done with Trappist the monk, who did something about the italics (too many) in {{Richard Strauss}} while I did the songs (but wrong, and corrected). For examples. With the Bach cantatas, I'd like to know if "lang" should better be specified in the link than outside - something I had not considered but it seems to work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Trappist the monk! I remember him: an administrator who wanted the tools simply to make use of them and improve the project! If only we had a hundred more like he! Joefromrandb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

despised and rejected

the desert is a good place for introspection

... and again, passing an image from the desert, with greetings from the cabal of the outcasts. Yesterday was Handel's birthday, he composed He was despised in 1741, and I made it a redirect in March 2012. I actually returned from the desert pictured, and am going to upload a few of my own impressions, will keep you posted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I keep thinking of you, because arbcom keeps coming up on my watchlist. What do think of this: reply to an edit as if you never heard of the user, and she or he might be your child? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Good advice, although I can't tell you how many times it's dawned on me that my children have infinitely more common sense than so many of the troublemakers on this site. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No doubt about this, but you might still try it. I did, with some positive results. If you meet troublemakers, you could review some of their articles, for example. - Remember that Opabinia regalis gave good advice last year? - One simple bit moar: typing an extra "for fuck's sake" shortens your life time ;) - How do you like the image? The trail begins behind the little blackish peak in the centre. Not easy but good for new perspectives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

ps: look I began the singer's article yesterday, helped the Bach cantata long ago, and made Psalm 130 a focus in 2018, - without knowing this was going to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

look, for refreshment - working on something lovely, which was on my mind when walking in The Hidden Valley, comments welcome here, where the outcasts meet ;) - Did you see that I uploaded more pics from desert and sea? (click on "the desert")--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We had to sing in memory of a choir member who died, the program is on my talk, "say yes to me when all say no" will be my article tomorrow, by Diethard Zils. I sang with him once, same church, in a project choir for the victims of the Holocaust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb and others case closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Joefromrandb and others has been closed and the final decision is viewable here. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
2. For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
3. Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
   

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#''Joefromrandb and others'' case closed

• I'm very sorry it came to this, Joe. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Thanks, Bish. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Song without words

Miriam Makeba

4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

More women, pictured, and flowers for the desert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, and please follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

thought of you again with more music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking of you on Bach's day of death, adding a fly for the dead and the otherwise missed, hope you like my DYK on the occasion: ... that the oratorio Sankt-Bach-Passion by Mauricio Kagel, premiered for the tricentenary of Bach's birth in 1985, "changed the game by making Bach himself the suffering protagonist"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, Gerda, my most valued Wiki-friend. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You can exchange Die Fliege for happy cat dance! We sang good music yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

... and today, singing good music, I mean ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The The

Hi Joe - I see you've been renaming the The albums with a disambiguator, but I'm not sure you're correct. You're right that within prose the first "the" should be lower case, but every other song or album article that uses a disambiguator with a band name that begins with "The" uses a capital letter in the brackets. I realise that with the The there's always going to be confusion over which part of their name should be capitalised, but as it stands, it's now different to every other disambiguator on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so; many of them were moved following "The Beatles" RfC, and I've moved a few more since then. (Incidentally, I'm just following what was overwhelming consensus; I myself voted for "The Beatles".) With that said, The The may be an isolated case. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, I apologise then, I didn't realise that there had been an RfC about this and that it had reached a consensus... if it's reached a consensus about the most famous band in the world, it's safe to assume it's fine to do it for the other "the xxxx" bands. Personally I don't mind one way or the other (it's just a disambiguator), I was just worried you'd opened up a can of worms... you've certainly given yourself a LOT of work to do now. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not much work. As I said, I'm more or less just tying up loose ends; most of them have been moved already. In some cases, it was determined that simply omitting the definite article was the best course of action. For instance, "Real Love (The Beatles song)" was moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)", and then moved again, to "Real Love (Beatles song)". While that solution works quite well for many articles, I don't think it would fly for The The [xxxxx (The album), xxxxx (The song)]. :) Joefromrandb (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't – I'm working on the Soul Mining article at the moment with a view of getting it to GA, and doing background reading on the album... their frontman Matt Johnson regrets having chosen the name because of how hard it is to Google, but of course that wasn't a concern in 1983... Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I've just reverted a couple more of these cases where you've changed "The" to "the" where it clearly looked wrong. This was "the Killers and "the Adult Net" in bullet lists, and "the Police" when the next sentence used "The Police" in a quote. Having now found the RfC it seems the consensus was 'to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence' which is not the same as 'change every band name beginning with 'The' to 'the' without any further consideration '! MrMajors (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, actually it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Grognard Mirabilaire
Thank you for experienced copy-editing and for going after lost editors, such as a "content-contributor" and an admin with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 284th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated (yes, it's still on this page, but so far up, no prize for archiving) in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that's about the nicest compliment a blocked user can receive! I find myself "speechless" on Wikipedia on a near-daily basis; it's been quite a long time since I've been speechless in a pleasant way. Thank you!! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You and speechless? Your wording is very colourful ;) ("While no sane person could blame you for wanting out of this asylum, we really need you." - 2012) - I looked if I could still support what I wrote a year ago, - you see that I modified only slightly. You probably know that a compliment from me doesn't mean much at present (that was different a year ago), the shortest possible summary was found here, to my delight (and followed by: "an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well it certainly means a lot to me. I also value the opinions of most of those with whom I routinely disagree (i.e. ESL, above). The only users here that I genuinely dislike are those I find to be disingenuous. Obviously I won't name them, but contrary to what seems to be popular belief, it's only a handful. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the archive you see that I find many people precious in their own ways who may not be ready to talk to each other or are on different sides of an argument ;) - Did you follow the link to my template? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did :). Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Our arbs didn't yet come up with a solution, nor decide if I "created an article" if I wrote 80% of the content, and if not who else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on Arbcom to come up with many solutions - at least not good ones. They are quite the phenomenon; individually, they're intelligent, articulate individuals - collectively, they're an embarrassing motley ship of fools. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote on Kafka, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Great article! I've always wanted to improve my German to the point where I could read Kafka in the original, though I'm ashamed to admit I haven't kept up with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Great article", tell PumpkinSky, it was his idea. I miss him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So do I. He's gotten the short end of the stick more than once. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

'tis the season

• Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have time for reading again. The witch appeared on the German Main page (they have a modest equivalent to DYK) with success, - more clicks than the TFA here that day. I collected the answers to my questions to arb candidates, interesting how uninvolved people looked at a diff that had concerned an arb enough ("deeply") to include it in his vote to ban the editor. If you really have time, click on the 28bytes answer: he had a good story to tell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. You always have such a quaint way of putting things :). I'll try to catch up on the reading as time allows. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's hope, I added an infobox today, and it was not reverted ;) - my own, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 284 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

... six years now that we met in sadness and defiance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Red link at Register (sociolinguistics)

Hello, Joefromrandb. Your edit summary at Register (sociolinguistics) on 8 November was "WP:REDNOT". That guideline says, "red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability." Since T.B.W. Reid presumably meets notability guidelines, the redlink was appropriate. That – and not the fact that he is usually referred to by his initials – is why I re-added the link. For the time being, your solution of linking to his German-language article seems appropriate. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the note. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Could you show me where it says that? This is directly from WP:MOSFILM: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." -- "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Notice how it states that the infobox contains the details about the film that we would use to provide an in-line citation. That isn't the case with character pages, thus you need to source it. It's still a primary source, but that does not remove the need for the citation. It's {{cite video}}, you'll notice that the rest of them have it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Then put a "cite video" there if it satisfies your desire for pedantic process-for-the-sake-of-process, but don't disrupt a GA by returning a "cite needed" tag for an egregiously trivial statement that, again, anyone can easily verify by simply watching the film. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Onus is not on me. It's not disrupting a GA article by requiring a citation in the plot section that has citations for every other film there (except the new one). Yes, they can verify by watching the film. The point is not that it's a primary source, the point is that there isn't a source listed. For a source to be listed, you must have a reference point filled out. Would you be allowed to go into an article and say "In the Washington Post in 2018, they reported...", but not actually put a citation there to back up the claim? No, you need to identify the information necessary for verification. Yes, it may seem mundane, but the reason it's a GA article (I would know, as I wrote the damn thing) is because it has standards. Those being that it is fully referenced. There is NO guideline or policy that removes the right to put a source in there when it's a primary source. The only exception to this is when the sourcing information is already present in the article (i.e. infobox, episode table). That is NOT the case here. At this point, you are repeatedly violating WP:V and edit warring over a citation tag. Either fix it or leave it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because you wrote "the damn thing" doesn't mean you own the damn thing. I already fixed it. Go do something productive. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it how? Removing a citation request tag is not fixing it. Either fill it out or leave it be. As of right now YOU are the one making a GA article unstable by constantly removing a citation needed tag from the section. Clearly, you see the rest of it is sourced. So, if you feel the need then fill out the template. Otherwise, please stop removing per WP:V.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Myers (Halloween)

Hi Joe. I was asked by Gerda a few days ago to look into a case request from last year concerning you. As I was looking into your background, I noted the above discussion with BIGNOLE regarding the Michael Myers (Halloween) article. On looking at that article I noted this edit and then this second edit , are restoring this edit within 24 hours, which appears contrary to your restriction. I don't know your full history, nor yet the details of the case, but felt that someone should speak to you about it. Preferably someone with more knowledge of you and/or the case. I left a note regarding the incident at Gerda's question, asking someone to look into it, but it would have been better if I came direct to you myself. So here I am. Considering the ArbCom ruling that if problematic behaviour continues you might face an indefinite ban, it would be wise of you to think very carefully about the consequences of making any sort of revert, and of the way you communicate with others. In your defence here, the second edit is dated the next day, so you may not have been aware it was within 24 hours, and you made another minor edit at the same time which might make you think it wouldn't be counted as a revert, however you do need to take care, as you were making those reverts after BIGNOLE made contact with you regarding your initial edit, and you are continuing the slow edit war with another revert yesterday: . Whatever your feelings in this matter, you either need to move away from that article and edit on safer ground, or engage in a more productive discussion with Bignole on the article talkpage, otherwise this might turn quite unpleasant. I don't think attempting to win a slow edit war over a CN template is really worth losing editing privileges on Wikipedia. Although this is a friendly warning, without any kind of templates or formal notifications, it is a serious one. Please take heed. SilkTork (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If you decide to discuss the value and purpose of the cite template on the article talkpage with Bignole, I would be willing to mediate. SilkTork (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have placed a citation in the article, so I think this matter has now ended. If you wish to discuss it further, please leave a note on my talkpage as I am unwatching your talkpage. Safe editing. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You were asked for an opinion about an old case, and somehow wound up coming here to threaten me instead? You, sir, are most definitely Arbcom material! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe. I wrote about petty restrictions in February 2012, DYK? That was before I even knew what an arb is, or an infobox. The whole system translates to pettiness and waste of time to me. I have asked the candidates about that edit because I want to support those who answer like Drmies ;) - Please pick a rose on my talk today, a happy anniversary day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ps: working on Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214, for GA eventually. I'll ping you when that is ready for you copy-editing, tomorrow I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping ;) - the movements section is the least developed, will try to improve, but am too tired right now. This is a great week: rehearsing Christmas oratorio (which has some of the music) on 6 of 8 days! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it – I'm incredibly busy with work this week, and likely won't have much time until after the holiday. To whatever extent Thanksgiving or something roughly equivalent is observed in Germany, happy holidays to you and yours!! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. We have no equivalent (Erntedankfest in early October is really more a harvest festival), but I lived in the US long enough to know, and remember several extraordinary feasts, especially the community feeling where the Rabbi held the sermon in the Catholic church, followed by a meal at their house to which everyone invited brought one dish. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Joefromrandb. 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)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Talk:Seth Andrews.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NPA inquiry

Can you point me to the passage at Wikipedia:No personal attacks that applies to the words, "original research by Joefromrandb"? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Blatantly lying is most certainly a personal attack. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not "owned"

That I disagree with your point of grammar, does not mean that the article is "owned". You think that the sentence is saying that "one single proof solves all mathematical conjectures" I think that the sentence is saying that one single method—i.e. the technique of mathematical proof—solves solves all mathematical conjectures. As Trovatore has pointed out, "proof" is being used as a mass noun. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet you're blue-linking to an article that does not use it that way. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? I assure you the noun "proof" is used this way. And in any case what does this have to do with article ownership? Paul August ☎ 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, how does poor grammar make a sentence "mathematically incorrect"? I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The idea that a single proof solves all conjectures is "mathematically correct"? Must be a new theory of everything of which I'm unaware. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of a "single proof", however. I take "by mathematical proof" to mean "by means of mathematical proof" or "using the technique of mathematical proof", not "by a mathematical proof". Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh ... what Lord Bolingbroke says is correct. Let me try to explain another way. Imagine that the sentence were "Mathematicians seek and use patterns to formulate new conjectures; they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof, instead of hand-waving." Would you want to instead make it "... they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, instead of hand-wavings"? Mathematical proof (notice the use here as a count noun) is something which sets mathematics apart from other disciplines, much like the scientific method sets science apart. The main point of that sentence is that, more important even than all the thousands of mathematical proofs which have resolved all the thousands of mathematical conjectures, is the method of mathematical proof itself.

Look, you seem to feel like you are being mistreated, If so then let me apolozize for that. I assure you that even though I disagree with your edit I mean you no ill will. And I assure you that, for my part, all editors are welcome at that article. Here's wishing you a Happy New Year.

Paul August ☎ 11:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been mistreated here plenty, but not by you. I disagree with the way this is being handled, but I coukd have less of a dickhead about it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Whose been mistreating you? And how would you prefer it had been handled? Paul August ☎ 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and for bearing with me! How do you like Ray's Rules? - So proud to have helped bringing Amos Oz to the Main page, besides Bach and Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You should be proud! Thank you as well, and happy New Year! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am proud of the TFA on the tricentenary of the work, prouder of having our local music pictured on the same page, prouder for Amos Oz, just a bit sad that Raymond Arritt wasn't there also. How do you like his rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Oz was a legend! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I was there when he received the peace prize, - unforgettable. I understand only now how early that prize came, internationally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Can you please leave the {{split-apart}} tag at Shooting of Trayvon Martin until May 2019 or when the discussion is complete? Also
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 767.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. I like my talk page the way it is. If it bothers you, do feel free to refrain from posting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks for biographies

Hi. I hope there are no ill-feelings for the revert I made. I'd like to explain my action in greater detail. The redlinks you removed are articles I want to get to in the future. I've created articles from redlinks for the following CJNG biographies: Abigael González Valencia, Elvis González Valencia, Gerardo González Valencia, José González Valencia, Rosalinda González Valencia, Martín Arzola Ortega, Érick Valencia Salazar, and Rubén Oseguera González. Not to mention dozens more from other cartels. Those redlinks removed were original members (founders, per say) of the Milenio Cartel, and there are plenty of sources about them. I usually decide if a cartel member deserves a biography if they (1) have outstanding international charges; (2) were high-ranking members or founders of a cartel; (3) received detailed coverage on their criminal career; (4) had a lasting impact in the organization and are mentioned years after they were active. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to post a detailed response at the moment; bear with me. For now, though, just one quick question: if you plan to create these articles yourself, why are the red links necessary? Your criteria seem reasonable, and I have no objection to to the creation of those articles. There is, however, an issue with them sitting as red links. Hopefully I'll have some time to explain this in detail within the next day or two. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just saw this message. Per WP:REDLINK: It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. I set them as redlinks and then add them to my to-do list so whenever they are created they are linked immediately. If someone gets to them before me, that's fine. Wikipedia is far from being done and I think redlinks can encourage new contributors to start writing. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's all well and good. The problem isn't with red links, but with red-linking personal names. Someone looking for a scientist or a poet can all too often wind up at an article about, for instance, the head of a drug cartel. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

An Explanation

Firstly, what RfC are you talking about exactly? You mentioned it in one of your edits. Secondly, you shouldn't accuse other users of trolling without any proof, as you did here. Accusing other users of trolling without explicit evidence goes against the practice of assuming good faith. And thirdly, this edit summary gives me the impression that perhaps you are overreacting and getting heated up over having your edits undone. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny Whitten

Hello again! Some years ago we had a brief chat about whether Danny Whitten was born Daniel or Danny. Happily, I discovered that the Danny Whitten page now cites a book by Jimmy McDonough (about Neil Young) that contains some biographical information about Whitten; this includes his full name at birth, which turns out to be Danny Ray Whitten. My original edit was motivated by the databases of performing rights societies, but these do not always store the birth name. The book by McDonough seems to be a reliable source. All the best, Labalius (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I remember this! I intend to respond properly to this when time allows, but, for the moment, thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello to you too, Ed

Hello Joefromrandb. There may still be time for you to back away from this dispute. If you agree to stop all reverts on the MOS-related issue and stick to 1RR in the future, the AN3 complaint may yet be closed. Due to the severity of the past restrictions, if you make no concessions at all admins may feel they have to take some action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Ed. Anything for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This reply would be more convincing if you made it at a noticeboard, and used your own words to say what you're agreeing to do in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My reply was meant to be taken at face value. As I said at the noticeboard, I will not reply there for the sole reason that I stated. See User:Floquenbeam for details about that, as I'd rather not even discuss it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the rules you are supposed to be blocked for one month. Now you are too scrupulous even to defend yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I said I would not respond further at that noticeboard, and with good reason that has nothing to do with "scruples". I think User:Swarm summed it up quite well. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Joe, my memory is not what it used to be. I thought there was an i-ban between you two, but can find no evidence, and maybe it's my imagination. Am I wrong? Have you just been unilaterally disengaging? Just a "yes there is an i-ban" or "no there isn't an i-ban", without getting into any details or names or giving them a reason to post here. On a separate note, remember that there are literally millions of articles with errors, and most of them are frequented by people who actually appreciate the help. If you run across an article where someone wants their article to be wrong, just let it go, and move on to one of the million other articles where the principal authors do want their articles to be right. You aren't going to fix them all, so fix the ones where the work is appreciated. Good for the encyclopedia (maximizes the unreverted corrections), good for everyone's blood pressure, good for everyone's soul, good for everyone's block log, good for everyone's karma (except the person who wants their article wrong, and who cares about their karma?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no actual I-ban; you investigated things at my request a while back, and told him he would be blocked for 2 weeks if continued to harass me; before long he resumed stalking me, and you followed through and blocked him. As far as my end of it goes, it has been my personal policy for years to have zero interaction with him. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Monkee's 'Christmas Party'

Can you please point me to the policy that justifies moving the page? I'm not saying you're wrong (though it doesn't make sense to me), but you did not indicate the policy that justifies the move.Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:THEMUSIC, for starters. As a corollary of sorts, take the song "Real Love" by the Beatles: originally at "Real Love (The Beatles song), moved to "Real Love (the Beatles song)" after The Beatles became "the Beatles", and now at "Real Love (Beatles song). Similarly, "Christmas Party (Monkees album) would be fine too. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think I'd necessarily object to "(Monkees album)". But you didn't do that. And since "the Beatles song" isn't used, I'm not sure why the Monkees material doesn't follow the same system. Unfortunately, I can't find a guideline that specifically speaks to the word "the", as part of a band's title, at the beginning of a paranthetical phrase, only at the beginning of or within a sentence. I don't see much difference between the Beatles and the Monkees on this issue, so it's odd they are being treated differently.Rhindle The Red (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

Hi Joe,

I see that you have made a large number of job titles lower case, in good faith. Please see MOS:JOBTITLES. There you'll see that certain job titles are capitalized, when unmodified. I hope that you will consider undoing edits that you have made that counter this rule, to save others from the need to do so.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the ones in the infobox at George H. W. Bush because "These are in title case because they are titles of sections of the infobox (as are the sections below them [which are title-cased])". It really doesn't look right or consistent otherwise, and there is probably a guideline somewhere about it, not to mention extensive use. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey joe, I'm as active as anybody on this JOBTITLES compliance, but I agree with the preceding that the infobox headings are in title case so JOBTITLES doesn't apply.

While I'm here, I'll note that you were incorrectly reverted a few times recently after using the editsum "lc", and that user self-reverted after being directed to MOS:JOBTITLES. So at least one user actually respects guidelines when aware of them, and it might be worth your time to link to it in your editsums. That is, if you're more interested in avoiding fights than in winning them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that I should have written "sentence case" instead of "title case", though there is rarely a difference (i.e., most usage is of the form "Title [of|from] the CapitalizedProperNoun", which is the same in title- and sentence-case. One example is at Chuck Grassley, we have "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa's 3rd district". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you correctly wrote "title case". If it were sentence case, uncapped would be correct when there a modifier, in this case the ordinal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're thinking about things other than the title, such as "district". This issue is not about those things as I understand it, and the JOBTITLES guideline is not about them ("from Iowa's 3rd district" is not part of the title, certainly). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I had been linking to "JOBTITLES", but seeing as how I was being blindly reverted anyway, I eventually went with "lc" as a matter of convenience. I have no quarrel with title-case or sentence-case in the info box, but I don't see why it would be capitalized when a numerical rank precedes it. Suppose it were "2nd person to win 'x'"; would "Person" be capitalized? Frankly, the whole thing is a mess – not the guideline itself, but rather the ubiquity of unapologetic noncompliance, a la "IDONTLIKEIT", as well as a generally poor understanding of un/modified by those claiming an exemption (which, in most cases, is actually just a thinly veiled "IDONTLIKEIT"). Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In title case that would be "2nd Person to Win 'x'". I.e. all words capitalized except the preposition "to". That's why JOBTITLES can't apply to titles within title case text. (Nothing at all confusing about the two definitions of the word "title" in that! :D)

The unapologetic noncompliance is (mostly) from editors asserting the principle that guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should reflect the implicit consensus demonstrated by what editors have done in articles. There's no disputing that a majority of existing content is non-compliant with the current guideline, so the principle dictates that it's the guideline that should change, not the existing content. The principle is completely dysfunctional in my view—particularly with respect to MoS, and even more so with respect to MoS that seeks to base itself on today's authoritative sources rather than what editors think looks right, what they have always believed, and/or what they learned in the 4th grade. But, while dysfunctional, it's still an actual Wikipedia principle that can be found somewhere in policy, and that makes this a largely unresolveable problem for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, this discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. I don't see any exception to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) doesn't have any special rule for infoboxes, either. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anything is still in dispute as concerns your original complaint. AFAIK we are in agreement that infobox headings should be (and generally are, in my experience) in title case. The thread has moved past that to stuff that is just fine on this page—and may be itself finished now. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Learning

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

Image unrelated, but just for you ;) - Learning: so you would say "in an article of the New York Times?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it's being done now. Initially, I was vehemently opposed to this practice, and in the "T/the Beatles" RfC and subsequent RfM, I was firmly in favor of the uppercase "T". Consensus, however, was overwhelmingly in favor of lowercase. I began making these edits through clenched teeth, but was slowly swayed upon seeing how various media and style guides treat the issue (most sources even use a lowercase "t" for the The at this point), and eventually, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the lowercase camp, where I now happily reside. That being said, I would never in a million years dream of edit warring with you, Gerda, and if you would prefer uppercase, I promise I won't change it back if you revert my edit. Always a pleasure to hear from you; hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood, and especially the transition from screaming to happily ;) - I was "converted" from opposing infoboxes to understanding that the intended "redundancy" is good for some readers in a 2012 discussion on Talk:Samuel Barber. You - as everybody else - are/is safe from edit warring with me because I observe my personal voluntary !RR happily, - saves time! --

Never signed that one ;) - I have a GAN under review, and would appreciate if you'd give it a read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but I gave it a quick once-over and made a few copy-edits. I hope I was of some help. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Manuscripts

Please note that gospel book, book of hours, psalter etc are all lower case unless part of a name - see WP:VAMOS. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. That "psalter" and "book of hours" are lowercase has nothing to do with the fact that "Gospel Book" is not. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For a moment I thought that said apostles-to-oranges. EEng 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

With the bizarre punctuation conventions to which you subscribe, it should have apparently read: "apostles –to–oranges". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Ask yourself that question) Well, ok, good RS usage varies a bit between "gospel book" and "Gospel book", but it should be the former, and certainly not "Gospel Book". Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WTFs at Donkey milk

This and this were parts of a vandal edit that nobody noticed for a whole year:( Thanks for fixing! DMacks (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol Lynley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Englander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Joefromrandb (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

... the day I have 3 recent deaths on the Main page, but not the 4th, Márta Kurtág, see my talk. Thank you for being you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You're incredibly kind, Gerda. I can tell you that that is not something I hear often. I would normally question the sanity of someone who commented such. Most would prefer that I were someone else entirely. The tiny soupçon of folks who can tolerate me being me aren't exactly lining up to thank me for it. I appreciate it nonetheless, and your kind words are indeed reciprocated. You being you, along with your friendship, have no doubt enabled me to become a better me. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

blushing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me stay

October

... with thanks from QAI

You gave me great pleasure, because I read again what you wrote seven years ago (partly collapsed), and found it still good and uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Aah, good old Jack! Hard to believe it's been seven years. Hopefully he still edits among us quietly. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder. I met a few accounts I thought could be him, one (forgot the name) was blocked often ;) - but I'm afraid he has better things to do. While Dreadstar kept in email touch after having enough, he cut all connections. Such a loss. But nothing compared to this. - You people in the thread, you really made me stay seven years ago, - I thought I shouldn't support such a "community", expelling her best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bantustan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Namibians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Joefromrandb (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to 2020

Happy 2020!

Looking forward to 2020 with your helpful presence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I'm looking forward to it. Happy new year to you and your family! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

February flowers

February

Alte Liebe I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses

A late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. - I thought of you. The song "Der Weg" was played in the pictured church, written by a singer-songwriter who lost his wife. It's on YouTube, look in Mensch (album) for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda. What a beautiful message. I've been a bit busy with family issues lately, but please know I cherish your friendship (and all of the wonderful music you've helped me to discover) more than I can explain! I hope all is well. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)