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

Thank You. -Britta Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.211.66 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be afraid to edit, the worst that can happen is someone disagrees with you and undoes it. Hopefully they will tell you why, if they don't, you can ask. Perhaps the two of you will then be able to work out an edit which is suitable to you both, and perhaps then superior to either. Do let me know if you need help with anything. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for all of your help and advice. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In connection with your kind offer to help me if I needed advice, I'd like to ask you a question. I noticed numerous discrepancies in the opening paragraphs of articles about countries. I perused WP:MOS, and several other pages I figured may be revelant. Unable to find a definative answer, I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. After I did this, it occured to me that as it is a talk page, it may be inappropriate to have asked there question there (i.e. the talk page should be used to discuss the policy, rather than ask questions about it). Should I instead ask at the help desk, and if so, should I remove my question from the talk page? Thank you in advance, and I apologize if I am being a nuisance. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no wrong place to ask a question (well expect perhaps inside an article!), worst case someone will direct you somewhere else to ask. The talk page of the MOS is fine, I think the ideal place would have been Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. And I believe WP:PLACE is the page you are looking for. Prodego ^talk 05:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! What a quick response. Thank you very much. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see I was trying to redirect and got distracted. Thanks for the assist! Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure! Thanks for the note! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Project! Tentatively entitled Homelessness because that's what most people think of when concerned with Unhoused, Unshelter Persons and (human) Habitat issues. But is that title POV? Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying that entire phrase is the title? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Hello Joefromrandb, a very warm welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. We are pleased to have you join us! To start, you may want to copy edit an article from our Requests page, or pick one from our backlog. If you need any assistance, feel free to leave a note on our talk page, or you can contact any of our coordinators. If you are new to copy editing, you may want to join our Mentorship program. You may also want to participate in our Backlog elimination drives. Below, you will find list of useful links for your convenience. Guild home How to copy edit Membership department Guild coordinators Mailing list Mentorship program Backlog elimination drives Requests page Discussions Thanks again for joining the Guild, and do make yourself at home. – Your GOCE coordinators: Diannaa (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs and Slon02

05:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply at WP:RDL. --Soman (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm a little busy at the moment, and may not get to look into that thoroughly for a day or two, but I wanted to express right away my gratitude for your help. This is truly an amazing place here. In the past few months that I've been editing I have learned more than I could have imagined. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes edits to material in someone's userspace are not usually done. It depends, and in this case it's perfectly OK with me, and in fact I don't want the page - I asked to have it userfied to my userspace just to save it (it had had to be deleted, not because there was necessarily anything wrong with it, but because it had been created by a banned user, and such material must be deleted).

By all means if you are interested in the material you may move it to your userspace. I haven't had time to really cogitate on the material, but on first blush I am probably not in favor of what the writer is saying. I only wanted to save the material because I think it's a valid and interesting point.

If you want to work on it or whatever by all means move it to your userspace or whatever (if you don't know to do this, ask me). It is probably eligible to be moved back to main space as an essay if anyone wants to do this. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the page has again been deleted. That's fine with me; actually preferable. I was not in favor of it either. Sorry for the belated response. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is a set protocol about where to respond. Some users put a notice at the top of their talk page - many say "I will respond to you here", a few (like me) say "I will respond to you back on your talk page", many don't say. When I leave a message I don't like to have to watch and check back on that persons talk page for a response, but many users evidently don't mind this. There is also a template = Template:talkback - that says "Hey I have a message for you on my talk page". It's kind anarchic. I guess you can say "please respond here" (if you don't mind having to watch that person's talk page) or "please respond back on my talk page" (if you don't mind the disjointed conversation that results). To top it off, there are users who won't respond back on your talk page even if you want them to, and users who will be annoyed if you respond to their on your talk page back on their talk page. =/

Yes the page is gone, I deleted it following advice to do so from a couple of users, since I didn't really want it an no one else seemed to either. An interesting idea, but as for me I'm inclined to let it lie for now. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as the talk page issue, the last scenario you mentioned is the one I was trying to avoid. It makes no difference to me where a conversation takes place, but I'm aware that certain users wish for a precise sequence to be followed. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Talk:Frank Buckles.
Message added 07:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Responded there. Thank you! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a Move Request as per your comment at Talk:Anal–oral sex - You are invited to add your vote and comments  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done so. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your edit here, yes, the measurements are included in the Playmate infobox template and are therefore on every Playmate's article. This has been discussed before, though I have to admit that I can't track down the discussion right now... At least three studies have been written using the data provided by Playboy in the Playmate Data Sheets: [1], [2], [3]

Just thought I'd throw that out there... Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you noticed, I put it back myself once I realized that, though I still think it's unencyclopedic. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Responded there. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 02:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Responded there. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking about putting the quote box across the article section of the last section, as kind of the "last word" on the subject and then moving the image from the talk page into the place the quote currently takes up. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming that it's a public domain image, which it appears to be, I think that's an excellent idea. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess I am the tie-breaker on this one. AYW didn't like the idea, you do....so, time for me to think. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided to go with it, give here a look-see and tell me if you like it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it looks great. (I will however admit that AYW's opinion should perhaps be given more weight than mine, as they have certainly contributed much more to that article than I.) But for what it's worth, I'm all for it. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I talked with User:The ed17‎ and a person for whose opinion I trust and we decided (against what you and I thought was neat) that the quote had to go back to where it was (on the side) and the third picture had to go (too many pictures). So, if we get some more information, perhaps we can add the picture back. Either way, it is still in Commons, so it can be accessed by users. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure I follow the reasoning, but OK with me. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason is more liked it the other way (with 2 pictures and quote on the side) than 3 pictures and quote at the bottom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, NH. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think you probably want to move your post from WP:NPOV to WP:NPOVN which is the noticeboard page for NPOV issues. The policy page is usually just for discussion of the policy itself, not its application to individual articles. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 16:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great!! My contributions were minimal, but I was happy to do what I could. You should be very proud of yourself, as you were one of those who did the heavy lifting. I too, look forward to seeing it reach FA. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's nice what you are doing with the articles, but keep in mind that the majority of them are either unsourced or not sourced well, and that is the bigger issue than this. Please focus on this issue first. Thank you. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? If that's a concern of yours, why aren't you focusing on it, rather than asking me to do so? I'm not supposed to make a minor edit to tidy up the article unless I make major improvements first? Are you for real? Truly the strangest message I've ever seen. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joe, I added an important new section "new evidence" to Gary McKinnon which you removed 29 april 2011 can you tell me why? Nosli (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section was tagged as original research. Everything in our articles needs to be able to be verified by reliable sources. This is particularly true in Mr. McKinnon's case, as he is a living person. Following the links I've provided here should be able to give you more details. Best. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe, before you change the two male character names again, either in the Macchio article or the movie article, please talk about it, either here, or on one of the article's Talk pages (the Vinny article probably makes more sense). My memory of the movie is that Vinny always called his cousin Billy. However, all of the cast lists outside of Wikipedia, plus some review articles I've read, show his name as Bill and his friend's name as Stan - not William or Stanley. What's your reason for changing them to the more "proper" names? It doesn't matter whether Bill is a nickname of William or Stan is a nickname of Stanley; what matters is how they are credited in the movie.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some things aren't worth arguing. If you'd like them to be called "Stan" and "Billy", go right ahead and indulge yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I'm using Stan and Bill, not Billy - as I already said. Hopefully, your use of the phrase "indulge yourself" was careless as opposed to condescending.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stan and Bill then. Have at it! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologized on user's talk page for inappropriate response on my behalf. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at File talk:Artiodactylamorpha.jpg.
Message added 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thank you. I probably didn't clarify my concern very well, but I'll return to it when I have a bit more time. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I plan a direct interview with Benny "The Jet" Urquidez for publication within a few weeks. If you have any biographical questions that you would like answered for inclusion in his Wikipedia entry, please leave them on my talk page. Paul Maslak (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and you was forgetting the last "buffalo". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ... can you explain what you mean by your edit summary here, which presumably is meant to explain why you deleted the related brackets? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I felt it was a topic with little chance of becoming an article, and therefore the red link was simply an eyesore that detracted from the Gilad Shalit article. If you disagree please feel free to revert. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy to self-revert upon request if you're concerned about a 1RR violation. Just let me know. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hahaha ... now, why would you think I would have a concern as to 1RR?  ;) I will have to look into it a bit further. I share with you a lack of interest in redlinks with little chance of becoming an article. I just thought this one might have legs. I had, btw, created an article from the Red Cross fellow mentioned in the article, prompted by the redlink. It has dozens of news hits and thousands of ghits, and goes back a few years. My only hesitation, upon looking further, is not knowing whether I can find its website and whether I can find enough meat about it. I'll come back if I have a chance to turn that up. Tx. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Lindbergh ("CAL") and his family fled the United States for Europe in the early morning hours December 22, 1935, to escape from and thus protect themselves from continuous hounding by the news media and other threats to their safety after the kidnapping and murder of the infant Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the Hauptman trial, and other overt invasions of CAL's and his family's privacy. "Fleeing" the country is exactly how CAL later described this event in his writings as well as how it was referred to in news accounts at the time. For instance the January 6, 1936, TIME Magazine story "The Press: Hero & Herod" said "News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a.m. ...", "The Lindberghs had secretly obtained passports in Washington a week in advance, slipped away from the Morrow home in Englewood, N. J. with farewells only to the immediate family.", and "Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs."

The Lindberghs were not just "leaving" the United States, they were literally "fleeing" (i.e. "escaping" from) the country as well because CAL felt that continuing to reside in the US had become untenable. Thus using the word "fleeing" in the introduction to the Charles Lindbergh article was neither "a poor choice of words" nor was it "foolishness", but is instead an accurate description of exactly what happened "At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, [when] Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S.S. American Importer" as the family fled the United States to live in Europe for the next six years. That is how ultimate primary source -- CAL himself -- saw what he was doing so it would be "utter nonsense" (as well as patently misleading and unsourced editorializing) to describe in his WP article what he and his family did using any word other than "fleeing". Centpacrr (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded at the article's talk page, which is where this conversation belongs. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted the above comment here before I saw that you had added a section on this in the Talk:Charles Lindbergh page where I have posted my responses. Centpacrr (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Corgan China, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dipankan001 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notice was indeed placed here in error; not because I wish to contest the deletion, but because I didn't create that article, never edited that article, and know absolutely nothing about that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

January (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joefromrandb,The user who created this was Corgan123,which had a link to your talk page.I thought that it was a misleading username.Anyway,I'm sorry,but I'll have to look upon this. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Thanks for the note. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help I can be, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for the invite! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're making edits to controversial articles, and I just had to say that your edits are uncontroversial and helpful. Would that more editors could improve articles without stirring things up. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well thank you very much!! I hadn't even thought of that, but it's quite a compliment. Very happy holidays to you as well!! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your self revert was wise; imagine if we got hauled up for edit warring on that page. We'd never live it down, the mortifying shame. Go in peace ;) Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. However, my self-revert was short-lived, as I was just erring on the side of caution while I double-checked that it was correct. Fear not, as I don't edit war. If you re-revert me, I will follow the proper dispute resolution channels, rather than continuing to revert. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbcom it is so, you blinkered rule driven whatever. "I will follow the proper dispute resolution channels". After a friendly word. Get real, prefect. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Angel Rat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Dimension Hatröss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Killing Technology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Nothingface (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Rrröööaaarrr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

War and Pain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that the MOS does discourage linking within quotes. I'm not objecting at all to your removal of the links, but I've asked at WT:MOS for clarification of the reasoning for that rule; just wanted to let you know in case you wished to participate. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have responded there. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you think there is no discussion: there is discussion, but there is only one reply, and I need your opinions on merger proposal. There is no need to remove it, unless three months passed. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already discussed it in Talk:Maxie Jones. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my comments at the respective talk pages, as well as your mentorship discussions page. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have a reply to your comment at User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions's talk page. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Things seem to have improved; it seems best to just drop it. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created "Sam and Diane" with Reception, Storyline, and Casting. "Maxie Jones" has no Reception yet, especially from critics. Let's leave tagging and other discussions out of this. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I know very little about General Hospital, and had never even heard of Maxie Jones before stumbling across the article. I'm very happy to see the work you're doing at Sam and Diane. If you're simply asking which article I think is better, "Sam and Diane" for sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam and Diane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have commented there, George. I sincerely hope that it is kept, as I would love to see you focus your good-faith efforts on improving that article rather than more taggings and proposed deletions. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jacques Charles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballooning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work with the article, it's nice to have some help. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that you use "rm" or "remove" in edit summaries instead of "rmv". I read "rmv" as "remove vandalism", which I think was not at all what you intended with your recent edit to Little Black Sambo, and I think other people are likely to misread it similarly. You might want to browse through WP:ESL to see what other people are doing. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. I wrote, "rmv; needs a source if it's returned". Obviously I wouldn't suggest vandalism be returned with a source. It was not my position that the material I removed was "vandalism". It was contentious material about a corporation, which while not a serious as WP:BLP, is still unacceptable. It was tagged for 11 months before I removed it. As you have provided multiple references for the story, it's obviously fine now. I have used "rmv" for "remove" in hundreds of edit summaries without incident. In any case, sorry if you were mislead by what I wrote, and thanks for fixing up the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest with you, I'm not very familiar with that article. I'll try to have a look at it and weigh in, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't feel qualified enough to opine. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

would you mind explaining what you meant by "and on it goes" in your edit summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke. i don't understand what you ment. LateNiteFluker (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also what does "such foolishness" mean from Talk:World War I? LateNiteFluker (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"And on it goes" was in reference to your comment merely being the latest of many single purpose accounts that I had to tag. "Such foolishness" was in reference to what I perceived as trolling behavior from another user. Hope this helps! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:George Ho/Diane Chambers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't figure out which one is too trivial enough to remove, and I don't want to commit editing wars there. Therefore, I created those sandboxes; you can discuss them there. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, George. It looks to me like these drafts are potential rewrites of the existing articles, and you'd like me to comment on them on the talk pages. Is that correct? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, you can start a new section in either one. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how much help I can be in the immediate future (a lot on my plate IRL right now), but I'll see what I can do. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be sure, you are giving me your permission to edit pages in your userspace, correct? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can edit my userspace articles if you want; not my main user page or main sandbox page, though. However, I would recommend that you go to draft's talk page first to address your concerns. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George, I'm confused. You asked me to begin by adding new sections. Now you're asking me to start at the talk pages. Why don't you contact me when you are finished with the drafts, and we'll take it from there? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right. Deal's a deal. When I said "new section", I meant first section in a talk page. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diane Chambers

Now I think I'm done now for the Diane Chambers sandbox article. I wonder if I'm missing anything; if so, maybe talkpage of the sandbox could help. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been two weeks, and curiously I wonder if you have enough spare time to review my sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi George. Somehow I seem to have missed your previous message. I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you for two weeks. I'll have some free time after the weekend, so I'll try to look over everything and get back to you next week. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's over two weeks, and I wonder if you know someone else who can spend time reviewing my sandbox. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry George. I give you my word I will look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just started "Frasier Crane". Do you mind if I copy edit as I go, rather than making numerous minor-edit suggestions on the talk page? I do think that would be the easiest way to go. You of course would be free to revert to your preferred version if you disagree with my editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Okay. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frasier Crane

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need your help on inserting important key points that would serve general readers and fit a general overview of this character. I have already done the Diane Chambers article. The current version of Frasier Crane is overbloated with original thought and too much detail. I wonder if you have enough time on this. Thanks! --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it was pretty much good to go, needing only a good copy-editing. I have quite a lot on my plate right now, but I'll try to at least give it a once-over for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested a history merge in WP:REPAIR, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The histmerge request was rejected as parallel version. Anyway, I tried to copy-and-paste my current draft into main page, but Ylee feels that it needs to explain Frasier's personality and wealth. I don't know why, but my draft explains how he must be more than a mere love interest of Sam and Diane. --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The ((GOCEreviewed)) tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone else reverted me before I was about to self-revert. I agree with your removal, there's plenty of information within the article that the link isn't necessary. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Hi Joefromrandb. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would you accept as a credible source for the "Ernest" nickname? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just about any WP:RS, I suppose. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Joefromrandb, I have noticed the problems you are having on whip, I have been having basically the same problem with the same editor on several articles and categories, I have told this editor that there appears to be some type of ownership issue on certain articles etc, often edits are made or reverted with no discussion by this editor but when I do the exact same type of editing I am accused of not discussing my edits first, I think you have tried to solve the whip issue in a fair manner.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the note. You are correct about the ownership issue with this user. Don't get me wrong; Montanabw is a good editor, and our horse-related articles are better off for her being here. But she also seems to think she has right-of-first-refusal on all horse-related edits. Ending an edit summary with "now leave it be" smacks of WP:OWN issues. Also, the "stewardship doesn't equal ownership" caveat on her user page is a good clue that others have had similar issues with her editing. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love it. I work my butt off to bring THOUSANDS of articles up from stubs and nothing, inserting source material for years and years (some of the articles need newer and better sources, but I first worked on many in 2006 and 2007, when citation standards were different) and all I get is personal attacks from people who lack the common courtesy to take these discussions to the talk pages of the articles involved. A bit of conversation and collaboration can usually resolve such issues, such as Joe's spat over UK versus US spellings of a single word. As for Samurai, I will discuss your behavior elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of the entries I restored at this page are valid entries per disambiguation guidelines. One of your revisions actually violates the guidelines.

• Money (Australian magazine) is a valid entry per WP:DABRL: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. What links here shows many links to the page (though TBH, it is unclear how many are due to the Template:Major English-language business magazines).
• Similarly, also per WP:DABRL, the entry for the townland in County Armagh, Northern Ireland, should contain a blue link to an article that support the asserted usage. You changed the link from List of townlands in County Armagh (which mentions the usage) to link to County Armagh which makes no mention whatsoever of that townland. One of your edit summaries mention NO piped links on disambiguation pages, but that is incorrect. WP:PIPING explains that For description sections, redirects or piped links may be used; follow the normal Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Piped link guidelines. In other words, the proscription on piped links applies to links on the ambiguous term, links in the description are explicitly identified as exceptions. older ≠ wiser 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joefromrandb, since you are aware of the "problem" with horse related articles can you take a look at the revision history of Saddle? I just has 7 edits reverted as "vandalism" which I do not think even come close to being "vandalism". I have asked the advice of an administrator (User talk:Good Olfactory) ,I am not asking you to weigh in, just to be aware for future reference, thanks.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass-reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism" is completely unacceptable. I hope you follow through with this. Perhaps an RfC is in order. As I said above, she is a good editor, but her latest actions show her ownership issues are simply out of control. I'm beginning to think that a temporary topic-ban from horse-related articles may be a good idea. In any case, don't be pushed around! She can call it "quality control", "stewardship", "green cheese", "Randy in Boise"-whatever. The bottom line is these articles are as much yours as they are hers, mine, and everyone's. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, take a look here, this is what has been going on any time I have to edit or revert a perfectly reasonable horse related edit, and this is not the first time this has happened. Check this out.

[User talk:Samuraiantiqueworld], [User talk:Nyttend]

• Joefromrandb, thanks for your input on this whole horse matter. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome!! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe, be aware that you may be an unwitting participant in a forum-shopping situation. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence: this and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia, and I am particularly concerned about this attack on an article with which I have minimal involvement. Montanabw^(talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that you've posted here. It's been a hectic day but I'd definitely like to discuss this with you a bit later when I have some time. I hope you're willing to keep an open mind even if you disagree with me, and I promise I'll do the same. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. AGF. Done deal That said, some good stuff got added to the saddle article as a result of this, the Beatie book was a good find, though I needed to do some copyediting to clean up the material added. Needs more, I hate doing citation template stuff. Later maybe. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems the next few days are going to be busy for me. I'm unable to respond with the amount of detail I'd like at the moment. But just one quick thought for now: if nothing else, if you could just avoid calling edits you don't like "vandalism", and stop using rollbacks for non-vandalism edits, I think that would go a long way. A perfect example is the breed registry article. An editor added a perfectly valid and truthful edit about Cigar, Arazi, and Azeri. Rollback leaves no edit summary, as it's for vandalism only. So with your edit, I saw "revert vandalism". With your next revert, you wrote: "appears to be a commercial plug for a specific breeder, we could give thousands of examples". Now that makes perfect sense. And I hope you can see the difference. Your first revert looked like ownership while your second revert looked like stewardship. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see your point of view on leaving an edit summary and your example is a good one. I appreciate your AGF. I do have 3000 articles on my watchlist and do tend to hit the button on things that resemble advertising or random removal of cited content or citations, each of which happened here. Nonetheless I really don't get the "ownership" accusation thing at all because I got that rant even before I got the rollback button. I really DO believe in "stewardship" - many articles I have created have been dramatically improved by others, and I am glad for it. Most of the people who accuse me of "ownership" are either people like Samurai, who are enraged that I dared to disagree with them, or they are the well-meaning people who get dragged into these spats I have with the same and just apply a broad brush without really looking at the issue. I suppose I irritate them by not suffering fools, but no one wore kid gloves when I started editing WP either. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joe, I'm sorry I've had to mention your name at WP:ANI#user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing - nothing derogatory, but you're entitled to know anyway. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. Just when I thought everyone was beginning to get along. C'est la vie. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Teapeat (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason to have this article in Wikipedia anyway, the entry at wiktionary is for all practical purposes the same, and the rule at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary actively discourages articles on adjectives.Teapeat (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already advised you to use the talk page, yet you choose to come here with clownish warnings instead. I have made multiple suggestions on the talk page, yet you refuse to address them. One of my suggestions was more-or-less exactly what you suggested. Instead of edit-warring and threatening me, please respond on the talk page. We're really not that far apart. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes we are, that was an explanation, not a suggestion, and actually, you should self revert, otherwise I will report you, and you probably will be blocked. The only reason you're not already reported and blocked is because you apparently hadn't been tagged before, (the admins require that you have been tagged) but all bets are now off.Teapeat (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made 3 reverts, not 4, and I have made numerous improvements to the article while you have simply continued to revert while refusing to discuss. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree you've made any improvements at all, you've made it worse by adding a dictionary entry. Dictionary entries work very poorly as encyclopedia articles; they don't mix with encyclopedia articles because they're about very different things. There's no topic there, only three words, and who said them when. But we already have a wiktionary entry anyway, and it's substantially the same.Teapeat (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you definitely made 4 reverts within 24 hours, specifically:

fourth

third

second

first

Teapeat (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first edit I made was not a revert. It borders on being disruptive to come here and talk about edit-warring when you yourself made 3 reverts to the page as well. You need to drop the stick. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please bring any further comments to the article's talk page, which is where this conversation belongs. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, your statement is deliberately counterfactual, you very clearly were over the limit and I've mentioned it on the ANI page where you are being discussed.Teapeat (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeating that ad infinitum will not make it any more true. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get it that you are upset, but you can't do this [4]. It is unnecessary and unproductive. It is one thing to attack another persons ideas, but WP:NPA is pretty specific about not attacking the person. Step back, have a tea. The last thing I want to see is someone come along and block you. If you do stuff like that, you set yourself up for it, and that isn't helping Status or yourself. Honestly, you would be better to just remove it. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, or like him, just that you can't do that to anyone here, even someone who you are mad at. I hope you take this friendly and sincere advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do take it as friendly and sincere advice, and I thank you sincerely for your concern. I disagree that "I can't do it", and I stand by my statement that it was "a bullshit block"; others seem to agree with me. It needs to stop! Joefromrandb (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as being blocked, I'm sure my comments put me on the shit-list of a plethora of admins, who will no doubt be watching me now. Most of my editing is minor and quite uncontroversial, so it's not too great a concern. It's rare that I'm moved to speak out about much here. We all know that despite what is written, blocks are meant not only as punishments, but also as a chilling effect on other users. Your point is not lost on me, and I genuinely appreciate your concern. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm replying on my talk page, where you asked about this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to your comment, I don't think its asinine. There are some serious problems between two editors which needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Its called dispute resolution, and this particular case is ugly (as can be seen). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And FYI, I do edit articles, and even have an FAC right now, so your comment seems rather pointless in that way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tattle-taling is nearly always pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who stands to gain the most from the ips actions? Go to one of Andreas' articles and see how you are treated when to attempt to edit the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really doubt a user who's been here for six years would start socking like that. But I could be wrong. My point is the whole thing is now so fucked-up and out-of-process, it's become a circus. But when I asked for help at the ANI thread I was told to go fuck myself, so what do I know? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did they know after only 70 edits what continent Radio is on if they are not Radio or someone who knows Radio? Its andreas I'm telling you, look into it. They think Macca is their article, look at the failed FAC by them, you'll see the same idiosyncratic flowery language. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. As long as the admins refuse to get involved, it seems to be of little consequence. My advice: Call a random user an asshole. Then we'll have a phalanx of admins ready to sort through this mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True that! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that was one terrible ANI discussion. But see? I was right in many ways. For example, the editors were behaving very childishly (backed by Chedzilla). So many more. Of course, such truths came loaded with trucks of bad faith accusations, attacks and pointless refusals. Sometimes, Wikipedia can be weird. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You weren't right in any way. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with that Joe and this whole thing needs some leadership to get resolved. Now *you* have been getting involved and your behaviour is also becoming attrocious, attempting to push other editors buttons with issue distracting dirty politics. How would me being a sock puppet have any bearing on the content disputes? Can you nt defend content arguments? Then you attempt to wind other editors up and it complicates the original issue and it never gets resolved. Try to stick to the issue presented and stop using disruptive behaviour. This was the complaint regarding GabeMc I launched. Personailizing it and creating lynchmobs isn't helping the cause, your reputation or GabeMc, when he does it. Oh I know GabeMc has apologized for at east 5-6 behavioural errors and then he does it again. He isnot the only oe behaving like this, currently, and you have signed up for membership.99.251.125.65 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go troll somewhere else. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Althought you are uninvolved (correct?), I wonder if you join in merge proposal discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I commented there, as you know. I think this merge proposal 2 months after a failed identical one is ill-advised. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then how long must I wait for another proposal? If notability is relevant, then why are there no offline sources? As for the plot, that's what exactly and generally happened. Maybe I can find a book about premarital sex and Cheers and motel, but I don't think Woody and Kelly are widely or significantly discussed very much. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically you shouldn't start a second merge proposal unless you are offering new evidence that wasn't discussed in the last proposal or you have evidence that consensus may have changed. You certainly can't put up a banner telling editors they aren't allowed to use notability (or anything else) as a reason for their !vote. You have to respect the consensus. I realize that may not be easy for you. Believe me there are some things here that drive me up a wall. But I can't just go change them, and I can't keep repeating the same arguments, no matter how correct I think they are. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, some of the same voters are the same contributors to this article. Therefore, there are other considerations, like notifying uninvolved, but slowly one at a time. For instance, I've waited for your opinion, and, since you removed the notice, my proposal would fail if we keep mentioning notability and awards. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George, with just about any article, the main contributors to any discussion are going to be the article's primary editors. I know you're trying hard here; think about this: You nominated the article for a merge. The consensus was "no merge"-not "no consensus". Now, 2 months later, you start a new merge proposal, only this time you tell people, "you're not allowed to mention notability and awards". Do you see why you can't do that? Yes, the proposal will likely fail, but you can't start imposing requirements that favor your position in a discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a rule against it? --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have withdrawn request and then have this discussed in WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I was advised to create Cheers (season 9) before another proposal. If that Season article is created, then I can use that as new evidence for a newer proposal. How is that? --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see what happens. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to give full disclosure: I am an evangelical Christian. I don't accept the JEPD theory but I understand it. I also don't agree with the theologians who argue for massive redaction in the Old Testament. I do understand all of their scholarly work and that's what Wikipedia reflects. I also believe that Leviathan as described in the Old Testament is not an alternative creation narrative but rather an allusion to common narrative in the ancient near east. However, that's not what scholarly consensus is. All of this is simply my way of clarifying my response on the Genesis Creation Narrative article. The account in Genesis is so common in modern Christianity and Judaism that the other, discussed and understood primarily by academics and theologians, is non-consequential. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What article are you referring? --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Southwest Jiaotong University, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Alcmaeonid (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. Please try to pay more attention. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I get it, you hate me (for no reasons that I can think of, I don't remember really interacting with you before - or.. did we ?- but nevermind) and systematically reverting all my edits is your way to express your rage. However, blind revenge isn't the way Wikipedia works, and might have the opposite effects than what you tried to achieve.

Indeed, you seem to have neglected an important parameter in your crusade: Thessalmonster, Kopru , Jermlaine , Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) ‎, Astral dreadnought ‎, Athach ‎ , Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (just in case, these are all linking to archived AfD discussions) and possibly many others have already gone through AfD and were all deleted/redirected per consensus around 2008, and in 2009 someone apparently decided to have his own way and circumvent the AfD result to secretly restore the article without consensus and without any attempt at discussion. Such blatant disrespect of consensus is "at best" disruptive, otherwise vandalism. I'm merely enforcing the AfD decisions by redirecting these articles, I don't need any discussion to do so since it already happened, and I will continue to look for previously deleted and now unconsensually restored articles. However, if you wish to restore article that have been deleted per AfD consensus, then you will have to go to talk pages and reach consensus before doing anything to articles.

I don't care about your motivation, whether real hatred for me or just honest but misguided care for D&D, but in restoring these articles you have become accomplice to disruption/vandalism, and if you continue reverting my redirects without trying to know if they're justified or not, then I will have no problem in getting you blocked at WP:AN/I, particularly after your veeeery civil behavior at AfDs, of which SudoGhost and I are not the only victims, apparently [5].

I don't think the joy of cathartically displaying your hatred for me for one day, is worth losing your editing priviledges on WP, possibly forever, so be careful about your next moves here. If you ever touch the articles I have mentioned again, you'll get blocked.

By the way, please don't ever come again on my talk page to throw your ridiculous and groundless accusations of edit warring. You're the one edit-warring and violating a consensus established by several users without discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.) I have no idea why you think I hate you. I have no interest in you whatsoever.

2.) I will continue to revert any disruptive edits you make to any article.

3.) Threatening me with "if you ever touch the articles I have mentioned again you'll get blocked" is enough to get you' blocked. Watch yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) Then I think you can remove your personal attacks from the AfD and apologize for them, then.

2) You will have to prove they are disruptive first. "Disruptive" doesn't mean "disagreeing with Joefromrandb"

3) No it's not. But restoring article against consensus established in AfD is. Have a good day.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.) I have made no personal attacks.

2.) You are correct "disruptive doesn't mean disagreeing with Joefromrandb". But "Folken doesn't like it so it shouldn't be here" is disruptive.

3.) Yes, it is. Have a good day! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enjoy your laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded to the comment you left on the ANI page. I want to note that you indicated you have stopped reverting and recreating these articles, which is a demonstration of good faith that will help you make your case elsewhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you forgot to block me! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Joe, thanks for your note on my talk page. As for the articles from old AFDs, they should stay redirects unless we can find better sources for them. I know off the top of my head that the thessalmonster was in the Tome of Horrors, but I don't think the rest are in that book; regardless one source would not be enough to overturn an AFD.

Although you are clearly upset, you seem to have your heart in the right place, so I would not want to see you blocked. As for dealing with Folken de Fanel, I actually try to avoid him, but he seems to keep finding my talk page - he must be a fan of mine!  :)

Regarding the current AFD, if you want to give a "real" response, I will tell you that the adherer and brownie have additional sources beyond the ToH, so you may want to mention that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a waste of time. They could me mentioned in The New York Times; a troll like Folken would still argue for deletion. Best to just let this cool for a few months and revisit it once these trolls have moved on to their next disruption. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you change the minds of Folken or anyone who prefers to delete or redirect; I agree that's a waste of time. The object is to get other people to see your point of view with an argument that's more persuasive than the other guy's. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe you should be misusing a term like 'troll' for Folken de Fanel; 'trolling', for example, might be better applied to something like going to Jimbo Wales' and adding a childish complaint against an admin who had the temerity to stop you from continuing your bad behaviour. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you are free to believe whatever you wish. There seems to be a good chance that BWilkins is going to be stopped from continuing his bad behavior so further complaints from me will be unnecessary.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Apparently, CalendarWatcher's friendly nudge about this insult didn't make an impression on you. You've caused enough disruption and made enough personal insults; a templated warning is a more formal reminder that you stop attacking other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I told your corrupt friend BWilkins, if blocking me will help you feel better, go right ahead and indulge yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on Joe, people are trying to not block here. Calling other editors trolls is problematic, you know this. Forget policy, it just isn't good in a collaborative environment and causes drama. No one is asking you to change your opinions, just to moderate your tone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis, I respectfully disagree. That "troll" comment is just an excuse to badger me; the real reason any of this is going on is because I dared to speak up about BWilkins' misconduct. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if you look around, you see I have as well. I'm not picking sides here, I'm noting one problematic phrase being used multiple times, and offering friendly advice, that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're a maverick, no doubt. But for every admin like you, there are 50 more of the rank-and-file "admins can do no wrong" bunch. And yes, one of them may very well block me, because that's what they do. So be it. Given the price people like John Brown and Malcolm X paid for speaking out about what's right, the thought of some child blocking someone from editing an online encyclopedia is not even worth mentioning. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really see myself as a maverick, although I think it was meant in the most positive light, I just see myself as someone who wants to improve Wikipedia. That means being honest with each other, admitting our mistakes and helping each other become better editors and admins. I disagree with some of the methods that several admins use, but I still think that the majority are good people. This is why I get preachy about engaging instead of enraging, and why I try to change the culture so admins that mess up can admit mistakes without worrying about losing the bit over a single instance of bad judgement. But if you push it too far, you provide the rationale to get blocked, and your opinions are lost in a sea of rationales. This is why I say we should be at least as polite as we are asking our admins to be. Proactive, no doubt, but never becoming what it is we are protesting. I personally think Bwilkins is a good guy, he just gets a bit too blunt. I would rather work with him on that issue than lose him. And yes, we have a tendency to block too quickly here. All I can do is work on it via helping change the culture here, one day at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the "you're a maverick" was intended as a compliment of the highest kind. I don't know BWilkins personally; he may very well be a good guy. His actions as an en-Wiki administrator are deplorable. I too don't think admins should lose the bit over a single honest mistake-even multiple honest mistakes. As an extremely flawed human being, I know all too well that to err is human. The problem is that our admin corps enjoys some bizarre form of immunity akin to papal infallability. Look at the administrative actions against which I've spoken out: Thumperward's block of Malleus; Rschen's block of PoD; Toddst1's block of Status; Kafziel's revocation of Kiefer's talk page. My position was never, "he made a mistake, let's hang him". The problem I had in each of these situations was that when called on his mistake, each admin chose to dig in his heels and insist he was right. Ditto with BWilkins. Sure, he said he was embarrassed after being publicly censured by Jimmy, but he offered no apology-didn't even admit he was wrong. So while your solution would be the better one in an ideal world, it's never going to work on a project where the overwhelming majority of admins feel they're better than the rest of us. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FYI, if you followed the subsequent history of those blocks you'd know that three of them (I'm not familiar with the Status block) were very controversial: "papal infallability" simply does not apply. Thumperward's block was reverted after 73 minutes, Rschen had hell to pay for their block, and Kafziel's revoking TPA was reverted after half an hour. You may not know this, since you obviously don't know me (I am not a "child" and I am not a "friend" of Bwilkins, though I am not his enemy either) but I disagreed with all three of those blocks, and I was not alone. You paint with too broad a brush and while I don't really take offense at the remarks of someone I don't even know, I think it is important to point out that in none of those cases was there an "overwhelming majority of admins" (98%?) supporting those blocks. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point taken. However, in each case the offending admin walked away completely unscathed, free to do the same thing again. Concerning BWilkins' WP:INVOLVED block of Volunteer Marek, BW boasted on his talk page how he's made involved blocks before and will do it again. There's the infallability. Perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush; mea culpa. There are probably more good apples in your lot than I've acknowledged. That doesn't change the fact that the problems I noted above exist. A bad block being overturned is of course a goood thing, but if nothing is done to prevent the offending admin from doing it again, then little has been accomplished. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are problems, like on any project, but I don't believe it is most admins, not by a mile. And most of the admins who I think are a bit gruff are still good guys trying to do the right thing, even if I disagree with a few of their methods. I've also seen the good things they do, so it is easy to cherry pick the mistakes. And I'm forever an optimist. I'm not here to change your mind, but I still support the idea of engaging, discussing and working together, as "taking a stand" and being belligerent surely isn't going to accomplish anything. Calling people "child" or "troll" just isn't going to help the situation, and can get you blocked. I probably tolerate more heat than most admins, which may or may not be a good thing, but I can't stop them from exercising their judgment. Best to just take a break, go read a book and don't let the heat of the moment control you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's absolutely a good thing. If other admins took the same approach, 98% of the drama here would be eliminated. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking about your comment on Jimbo's page that seemed to imply that you think anyone an admin has ever blocked is not a reliable witness to the admins overall behaviour. This would seem to suggest that all an admin would have to do to silence their detractors would be to block them, thus rendering their input invalid, or so your logic would seem to suggest ala reductio ad absurdum. Am I missing something here? Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gabe. Could you point me to that comment? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Joe, sorry, this was meant for soemone else, I posted it here by accident. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries! If you have a moment to post a diff, please do, as I'd still like to check it out. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the diff of which I was speaking. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your question on my talk page. Typically, no, you do not lock a page and block a person for reverting. Many admins don't bother locking (full protection) at all, which I think is a mistake, but policy gives them a lot of choices. Once it is locked, you have already prevented further disruption as they can't revert further. Blocking would be seen as punitive, and possibly abusive. If it is one revert happy person who has no real reason to revert other than their own preferred way (ie: coi) and a few others who are trying to be neutral, then a block might make sense. If everyone is acting in good faith with just radically different ideas and crossing 3RR, I think you protect the page instantly, forcing discussion. Some admins think otherwise and block them, but I think it is shortsighted. But again, once you have prevented them from reverting, you can't block as that would be punishment, via WP:BLOCK. Of course, if you block them for a different reason, like personal attacks, etc., then that is fine, but not for the same thing you just protected for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Dennis. I meant that as humour. I was referencing the block of a certain avian-named user after the protection of a certain lunar-themed article. Bbb23 still being a nascent admministrator probably didn't realize that's it's perfectly acceptable to lock a page and then block someone an hour later. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, I must have missed that. He had just emailed me saying he was taking a holiday in the real world, so I was just trying to answer as he likely wouldn't have been here to do so. He is a pretty sharp guy, but from experience I know that when you first get the tools, it is all a bit overwhelming. It is very easy to say "block him!" at ANI when you are an editor, but when you have the button, you get a bit more cautious. Hopefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally understand. Humour is much harder to convey over the net. I remember some time ago, at RFPP an admin responded to a request with "protected for a fortnight". I told him I thought that was too harsh, and suggested reducing the protection to two weeks. It didn't go over as I had hoped. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I am quite busy IRL right now, but I intend to do my best to look into this. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe, just wanted to touch base. AFAIK, the only interaction that you and I have ever had was related to D&D articles on ANI. It was a pretty tame interaction, so I'm not sure how I ever raised your ire. Jimbo recommended that I voluntarily request removal of the admin bit temporarily - no RFA would be needed to regain it. So, by editing only using my non-admin account, how I am somehow violating that - or indeed, posing in some "charade"? A couple of people got what was asked: me not adminning. Would you kindly explain to me the issue that a) is between us in the first place and b) with how my actions have not met the request for voluntary action from Jimbo - remembering again that it was voluntary. dangerouspanda 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even before our ANI encounter, I've never much cared for the way you treat people. Myriad examples of your offensive remarks have already been noted; there's little point in providing more. I will note that on July 20th, regarding your WP:INVOLVED-violating block of Volunteer Marek, you stated "there's a reason my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, although I make so few of them". Then, on August 2nd you said, "my user page says I'm an admin willing to make difficult blocks, and I make many of them". (Emphasis added) As my grandfather used to say, when you lie you need to have a good memory. As far as the ANI thread, I don't even know where to start. First of all, you should have informed the complainant that it wasn't an ANI issue. Secondly, your full-protecting the articles was absurd muscle-flexing. I had stated that I realized I was at 3 reverts and would not be reverting further. Had I stated my intentions to continue reverting, then yes, protection would have been in order. Having agreed to stop reverting, I would think an AGF-zealot like you would have taken me at my word. Hence my "admin-phallus" remark. To which you responded that by using your "admin-phallus", you solved the problem. Bullshit. If there was a problem, it was resolved the instant I said I wouldn't revert anymore. So I didn't care for you strutting around, claiming to have solved a problem that didn't exist. But I really got angry when you said "a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path". Excuse me? What path? I made reverts in good faith, acknowledged that I was at 3 reverts, and agreed to stop reverting without being asked. What is possibly blockable about that? Let me guess; you don't have to break 3RR to be blocked for edit-warring. That may have held water had you warned both of us. If you had said, "While neither of you has broken 3RR, you have each made 3 reverts, and you both risk being blocked if you continue", I wouldn't have had a problem. So to sum up my personal issue with you, you assumed bad faith and protected articles that I had already agreed to not revert, and you threatened me with a block while issuing no such threat to my counterpart who had engaged in identical behavior.

As far as your second question, nothing. I simply noted that temporarily editing from a non-admin account while retaining admin powers is pointless, and hence a charade. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, so essentially you're mad at me because you've misread a few times - and added some of your own meaning to things. Got it. I appreciate your candor. When it comes to your second part: I think it's your erroneous belief that I would have needed to re-RFA that's irking you there. Sorry about your misunderstanding, and the continued grief that it's causing. dangerouspanda 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's easy to make generalizations. Please tell me what I've misread.
• Yes, I'm irked, but no, I never had the erroneous belief that you would need to re-RfA. It would be the right thing to do, which is why I never had a glimmer of hope that it would actually take place. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll ask again, what have I misread and where have I added my own meaning to things? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Joe. Could you tell me what you know about User:KBlott vis a vis this guy and his drawer full of socks? You mentioned him in connection with that whole mess after my misguided SPI last month, but I'm afraid I never followed up on the KBlott connection.

Of course, I've been told that there's really not much that can be done, given that this guy can apparently IP hop with the best of them, but I would like to get a firm establishment of his previously registered identity, if possible. I don't know if there was a previous SPI that made the connection, but I'd be willing to open one myself if there's enough evidence. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know too much. You might try asking User:BullRangifer, as xe was the one who first made the connection. The important thing is that he is blocked now. He can keep hopping IPs all he wants; he'll just keep getting blocked. Long-term trolls are a pain in the ass, but it's the cost of doing business on an open wiki. The problem before was that the admins were treating him as a bona-fide user. Now that they're on to him, he's little more than a common pest. Sorry I don't have any more info but please let me know if I can be of any help. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He has been unblocked now, actually. It was decided that original indef was overkill, but the template was never swapped out. Thanks for the tip, though. I will consult BullRangifer. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, she's probably about as notable or more notable than Frank Kelty, also a mayor of Unalaska, whose article reads like a cross between a resume and a vanity piece. She's the president of the Alaska Municipal League. In the real world, that and $1.49 will get you a large cup of coffee at a convenience store. All kidding aside, she's probably not notable in the sense of being well known outside Alaska, at least outside of political circles. I've watched very little of Deadliest Catch. Could that show be why someone would think her to be notable?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If she's a regular on Deadliest Catch, she may have some margin of notability. I certainly don't want to see an article created for her if it would look anything like that Frank Kelty article. Red links are supposed to encourage article creation, and I don't want to encourage anything like that. If she's notable enough for an article, I'd rather someone start it from scratch, but if you think the red link should go back, it doesn't seem like too big a deal. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I added the member list from the Alaska Conference of Mayors to the infoboxes of the pertinent city articles just recently, removing a number of redlinks from names already entered in the process. I think the only one I left redlinked was Peter Micciche, the mayor of Soldotna, who defeated an incumbent state senator for renomination in the primary election two weeks ago. He's very likely to win the seat, which as a state senator would make him notable and would probably result in someone creating the article before too long.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken you to ANI for your actions. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:TPO, modifying other users' talk page comments should be done only in certain situations. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

?????????????????Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit prompted my post. Another editor pointed out on ANI that this was probably due to an edit conflict, not an intentional removal of another editor's post. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, and ANI is the last resort - one always discusses minor things like that with the other editor first - I see no other discussion about that glitch - only an ANI posting dangerouspanda 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's particularly odd because I didn't get an edit conflict when I did that, but looking at it, it definitely removed text so I suppose that must be what happened. It certainly wasn't intentional. I don't see why he couldn't have just asked me about it. I've been here coming up on 2 years and it's not like I have a habit of going aroung removing peoples' posts. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The even better question: what's the relationship between User:Jasonasosa and User:VQuakr ... why does one continue on with someone else's discussion/explanation? dangerouspanda 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're sleeping together. Geez. Anyway, I apologize for over-reacting. I really thought it was intentional with the comment Proofread. I rescinded to WP:AGF and now the matter is closed. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No sir, not closed one bit. If you honestly AGF'd then you would have come here before ANI - ANI is last resort. If you'd like to explain why you took him to court before you even asked him about it, it might be helpful dangerouspanda 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion is closed per Niceguyedc (talk · contribs) - "Resolved. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)". If you don't want to accept my apology as I indicated above, then you can go to ANI. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, no. That means the ANi thread you started has been closed-nothing else. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and the discussion that I tried to politely have with you on your talkpage was simply removed with the false statement "archived" when it doesn't appear to have been archived anywhere. You're finally here having the discussion you were supposed to have ... you cannot start the discussion by pointing out you said sorry elsewhere. Joefromrandb deserve more than that, and I think the project needs to know that you're aware of how you're supposed to resolve issues between editors. So, start from scratch dangerouspanda 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's apparent you cannot read, because I apologized about 5 statements up above on this page, not "elsewhere". If you cannot accept my apology, take it to ANI. If you want more out of this and you just want to eat WP:HORSEMEAT, take it to ANI. There is nothing more to be said, other than your complaints. The posting that I archived can be found at User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive. This archive is opened to the public and accessible from my main page. I am not required to respond on my talk page to your attempts to "politely" interrogate me. Any further inquisitions, please take to ANI, because this is my last posting on this talk page per: "The page "User talk:Joefromrandb" has been removed from your watchlist." So any further comments on this talkpage, I will not be notified. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently I have to ask the simplest of questions directly to the editor on their talkpage - it's so much easier to say "it was an error, and I learned from it" than to not answer dangerouspanda 08:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got a stonewall of "I didn't hear that" while trying to explain the RS/N issue; this looks like more of the same. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has become more bizarre. All I ever tried to say was "next time resolve simple problems between editors first, ok", but take a look at Jasonasosa's talkpage, my talkpage, and now look ANI! *sigh* dangerouspanda 09:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can lead a horse to water... Joefromrandb (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that you reconsider your conclusion, as you have heard arguments that I had no opportunity to rebut. See my talk page for more. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't mean to infer that you deserved what you got. I personally would have handled the situation differently than TP did. Basically what I meant to say is that upon further review of the situation, while I still disagree with what he did, it certainly wasn't administrative misconduct and it was extremely irresponsible of me to have accused him of such. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to disagree with that. He's thrown away any pretense of neutrality by defending WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't follow that logic. Without discussing my own political leanings, I would have no problem defending WikiProject: Conservatism, WikiProject: Liberalism, or even WikiProject: Socialism. WikiProjects exist to improve articles, not to further an agenda. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. If you talk a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism, you'll find that this project is on the ropes because it exists to further the conservative agenda, not improve articles. See for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should consider the advice my friend Dennis gave you. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you saying you don't see any such behavior from the WikiProject or are you saying you can't find the discussion on their talk page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The former. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger discussion is in place. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping! Your response is replied. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks George. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Thanks for your note. With some of the cherrypicking-style canvassing that takes place here, it's always refreshing to see someone attempting to include a broad spectrum of editors with different views in a discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Your comment here [6] is not helpful and I have reverted it. Everyone at that thread needs to calm down and discuss in a rational way and repeatedly denigrating the character of your opponents gives the appearance you're trying to goad them into an outburst. Please don't do that anymore. The Garbage Skow (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take that to read, "your comment was spot-on". And "trying to goad my opponent into an outburst"? Are you for real? "My opponent" just goaded one of Wikipedia's finest editors into a site-ban. You need to get a grip. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I have re-reverted. As a supporter, you have some nerve removing an oppose comment from the page. If a neutral editor thinks it should be removed, so be it. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I see who you are. You're a previously indef-blocked vandal with an axe to grind against Merridew. Should have known. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with ((copyedit)) belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits 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 of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Grognard Mirabilaire
	Thank you for experienced copy-editing and your effort not to lose content editors and admins with integrity, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's extremely kind of you; thank you very much! Joefromrandb (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joefromrandb. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 08:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Regarding Bill Nye, I've explained how the overlinking policy doesn't apply, and asked you to provide some sort of argument for your case. But you continue to revert, saying only "overlinking" or "please stop". Can you see how it might seem like you're just being stubborn? Please, offer a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have explained nothing. You have, however, had it explained to you -particularly by User:Tony1, who knows the WP:MOS as well as any editor on our site- why the low-value links you are continuing to add are not helpful to the article. Your latest obsession, "Washington D.C.", is an extremely well-known geographic location. The only reason to link to it would be if important aspects of Nye's life were directly germane to the District. The simple fact that he was born there does not make it a relevant link. Just as his being born in the United States doesn't make that a relevant link, his being an American doesn't make that a relevant link, and his father having fought in World War II doesn't make that a relevant link. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He wasn't just born there, he grew up there for twenty years and was a fourth generation resident. If that's not particularly relevant, what is? Seriously. Seattle? Boeing? Ellen Degeneres? Washington is well-known insofar as people typically know it's the capitol of the US. Other than that, what? You may be right about WWII, since it's an indirect connection, but overlink says nothing about major wars.

Tony's "explanation" was that the "particular relevance" exception doesn't apply to major cities. If he knows the MoS, he knows that isn't true. It specifically applies to "major geographical locations".

Now please stop disrupting Wikipedia, unless you have a better reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take your trolling elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're going to be that useless in the discussion, skip the reversion part, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little hard of reading, are we? I'm beginning to see why you're having so much trouble. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm an excellent reader, and not trolling. What do you think I've missed? And be civil. I'm not trying to fight, just understand why you're removing the link (which I'm not adding, by the way, just restoring). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't revert 88.104.5.244, even to re-close the discussion. While I'm glad to see that you want to close it, I don't want things to escalate between yourself and 88.104.5.244, since they're pretty bad right now already. Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than WP:TTR, I'm just letting you know you're at your 3rd revert, and I've already warned the IP for going way over. Please let someone else handle it now. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's discuss. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bill Nye shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you stop reverting, of course. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ROFL!!! Now THAT made my day. You are currently at 15 reverts-FIFTEEN!-including 8 times that you have now vandalized the page by removing comments. You're priceless. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reverting, let someone else step in. You are to involved in this right now. GB fan 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone else finally did step in. This wasn't just about reverting; the IP was vandalizing the page by removing comments. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw what it was about and I was also stepping in. Sometimes when you get as involved as you are the best thing is to step back and ask for help instead of pushing it further. You were not helping diffuse the situation. GB fan 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand what you're saying; I hope you understand my frustration as well. The IP reverted fifteen times before someone finally stepped in. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand you were frustrated, but where did you report it so that an admin could step in and try to stop it? I don't see anything in your contributions that shows you did that. Maybe I missed something. GB fan 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GB, I accept that, and hope for fair resolution; please let me know my best course. Thanks. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a no-troll zone. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)) below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel better now, big guy? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To anyone who's watching, in addition to violating blocking-policy (I was removing clear vandalism), TParis has also violated WP:INVOLVED, as he was involved in the discussion. No surprise, of course. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's quite a stretch to call that vandalism. Actually, good faith edits arn't vandalism. You were in a dispute and you used rollback to win it. And excuse me if "Thank you for posting that information" constitutes a discussion that I was involved in. Both stretches there. Do I feel better? I'm inclined to ask you the same thing. What were you thinking? If you had to explain in an edit summary that it's 'clear vandalism' then it's obviously not.--v/r - TP 04:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed that. "Thank you for posting that information"? You know fucking right well that wasn't all you said. (Something about me being an embarassment to the discussion, maybe?) And even though your edit is right there for the world to see, you have no problem lying about it here. Have you no shame? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes me want to vomit to think I ever defended you. StillStanding was right. You are a fucking disgrace of the lowest order. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not the one warring with an IP. Nor am I the one joking about killing others. I really don't see how I come out to be the bad guy. Looks to me more like someone lashing out for bad behavior and getting called out on it. In any case, I don't hold it against you. Feel free to be upset. We'll see you when your block expires.--v/r - TP 04:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can count on that motherfucker. Might not be until a looooong time later, but you will see me. (And lest you now go to ANi and tell them I've threatened to murder you, "You can count on that motherfucker" means I will not rest until you are desysoped. It is not a threat of violence.) Joefromrandb (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I endorse this block, and it would've been my next step after I revoked the rollback right. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course you endorse it. You yourself might be blocked if you didn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'm curious. Why do you say? I'm not seeing it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do I say? Oh don't be daff. You children aren't supposed to disagree with one-another, and not having a fellow admin's back when they make a policy-violating block is verboten. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have revoked your rollback for the flagrant misuse in the edit war at WP:VPM. You've been around for quite a while; you should know better than this by now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm...I hadn't thought of that...maybe I will. Thanks for the suggestion. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, because now I'll have to click twice to undo vandalism instead of once. Whatever will I do? Only a Wikipedia admin-prefect would possibly think that rollback is a big deal to anyone. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't care less if you only had to click once to revert vandalism. The main purpose is that now you cannot revert edits that aren't vandalism by clicking once. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as I've never done that, I certainly won't miss the ability to do it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit you reverted here (and here) was so far from vandalism I don't see how it could even be passed off as such to justify using rollback. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you're incredibly fucking stupid, and entirely fit to wield the admin-phallus. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=D Why, thank you! What an honour! I'll wield the admin-phallus with the utmost pride. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no doubt. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I have to ask though...does it require a codpiece? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. Your shitty attitude is plenty. And thanks for blue-linking to "codpiece" like I have no idea what one is. You admins are so fucking arrogant.Joefromrandb (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should point out for all that this little fucker is nineteen years old. When Malleus talks about "the children who run this site" that's not just figurative. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha not for long...I turn 20 in three days. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your clique works something like Menudo. You may have to turn the bit in if you get any older. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I'm glad you enjoy taunting users you've just blocked (or attempted to block-I know one of your little friends beat you to it). That the ADHD? Forget to take your Dexedrine? I guess with your generation it's probably Adderall. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE:When Ks0stm was censured on his talk page for his behavior here, his response was: "I'm not a pushover to insults". Sort of the thing you'd expect from a child.

@Jasper Deng:Mind your own fucking business. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone wants some real lulz, one of our beloved arbs has awarded Ks0stm a barnstar for this taunting. You simply can't make this shit up! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone want to explain how it's OK that the blocked IP (you know, the one who is actually supposed to be blocked) is using his talk page to edit by proxy? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template removed. It was foolish of me to worry about what the IP is doing. Focus my quest for justice where it needs to be. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your info. Tony (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tony. As you can see, the with the admin abuse I'm dealing with from TParis and Ks0tsm, Jauerback's poor behavior pales in comparison. I was blocked for removing vandalism, so Jauerback's threat doesn't surprise me at all. TParis has decreed that I be punished for two days. It's much more important to these children that I recognize who's boss here; improving articles is merely an afterthought. I wish you luck with the article. Right now I'm more concerned about how I bring these 2 clowns to justice. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please enlighten me on where I've demonstrated poor behavior? Also, where did I make any threats? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, don't bother responding. I've just read the discussions above regarding your block. Great job. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go troll somewhere else kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments such as this one are utterly unacceptable; I would have blocked you for making personal attacks, but TParis got there first. In the future, please refrain from acting in such a disruptive manner. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've obviously taken leave of your senses. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone should really take a look at this. He's posted a perfectly reasonable, logical unblock request (2 of them actually) and been denied. Proof that his block, just like this one, is punative. I personally would never prostrate myself before an admin to request an unblock -especially for an offfense I didn't commit- but his unblock requests make perfect sense, and an honorable admin (we must have 1 or 2 here) should undo it. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll add that the part about me "goading him" is obviously nonsense; however the essence of what he said -that I am blocked and therefore there can be no discussion between us- is quite sound. Two admins have ruled that it doesn't matter, he must serve the duration of his punishment, proving that his block, like all others here, is strictly punative. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm also thinking of starting: "Category:Wikipedians who have been blocked for removing vandalism". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will state for the record here that I was blocked by an involved administrator for an imaginary infraction. From WP:3RRNO: removing obvious vandalism such as page blanking (my emphasis). The IP who I was reverting repeatedly blanked 5467 bytes of my text. This was an open-and-shut 3RR exemption. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Joefromrandb. Thank you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Running to ANi because I didn't prostrate myself before you and beg for forgiveness? I thought that sort of thing was handled at IRC-admin. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. Amended. Occasionally terrible eye-hand coordination. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries here. Of course Ks0stm may now remove your rollback... Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]