User talk:Butwhatdoiknow/Archive2

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ShockMetric 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have responded on the article talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you email me? I don't see a way to email you back. What is your proposal? Thanks, Tomer^talk 03:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. You have new messages at Izno's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The article Suellem Rocha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable election candidate,

WP:WIDESPREAD, etc. Physchim62 (talk)

22:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like someone that other people would want to know about, hence notable. But I'll not argue the point. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the page. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an effort before to sort this out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks, it was nothing. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other users as you did at

Thank you for contacting me regarding this. I certainly didn't mean to "attack" SG. Will you please tell me how I did so in order that I may avoid similar behavior in the future? Butwhatdoiknow ([User talk:Butwhatdoiknow#top|talk]]) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of upper case typography (= shouting) and accusations of "ownership" here are a cause of concern.

talk

) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you. With regard to the first item, the use of upper case was intended for emphasis. Is there some say of putting italics or underline in an edit summary? If so, would that be less objectionable? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Or are you talking about the capitalization in the comment itself? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I have posted an apology. Butwhatdoiknow 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just been through all the WikiProject guidelines staring with A and B, and only found one empty guideline. All the others deal with layout. There may be some other guidelines which don't, but it may be more appropriate to deal with those on a case by case basis, than to ignore the others which do have layout and structure guidelines. Listing just one or two doesn't quite make sense. And listing them all would be inappropriate, given that we can link to them. What do you think? SilkTork *^YES! 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Marcia Anderson, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Rutgers Law School (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) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Rufus Early Clement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reconstruction (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) 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

F.Y.I.,

Let's discuss this here. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is our conversation over?

Well, I thought it was. Section title removed, done for my part. --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, R is only the second step in BRD. So I was hoping that you would answer the question I posted. ("Which brings us to the other primary benefit of a navbox heading: Letting readers know in the table of contents that an article contains navbox information and making it easy for them to click to jump to that information. Again, not necessary, but helpful. Why not provide that help for our readers?") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I already replied at the Luck talk page that I do not consider section titles for navboxes "helpful for our readers", whatsoever. --bender235 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not clear from your posting there: Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that make a heading unhelpful for them only? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate navbox info from external links

The point is: section titles seperate sections of texts, because otherwise people would hardly know when one section of text ends and the next one starts. However, everyone can tell where the navboxes are, because they are navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In my last posting on the Luck page I said "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." So I think you and I are in agreement with regard to that. Which still leaves unresolved the potential benefit of using headings to provide information in tables of contents. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I note that I also on the Luck pag that "the lack of a heading still leaves the conceptual problem of internal links in the external links section." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jump to navboxes

Do you reject the general proposition that headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily? Or is there something about navboxes that makes linking to them in a table of contents unhelpful? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the number of people who want to jump from the

WP:LEAD directly to the navboxes via ToC is pretty small. I willing to take the risk that among these people there are some who don't know the general direction of where to find navboxes if quickly needed. --bender235 (talk

) 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us further agree that only small percentage of folks actually want to jump to the navbox "section" from the ToC. What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I simply do not consider it useful. Nor do it like it aesthetically. I just don't like it. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you provide a response that speaks to the issue of having a navbox listing in the table of contents. See WP:I just don't like it. If you honor this request then I authorize you to delete this posting. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:JDLI, and since this is not a AfD discussion, it does not apply here.

WP:CONSENSUS on the Luck article is not to add a navbox section title, period. --bender235 (talk

) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus "means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Only two editors have expressed concern regarding the navbox heading on Luck. Eagle 24/7's concern was that the heading was prohibited by MOS. I responded to that concern and Eagle 24/7 did not reply to my response. Putting aside "I don't like it," your concern is that it is unhelpful. I am trying work through that with you. Would you please provide a specific response to "What is your opinion of the "overview" benefit (since some articles have navboxes and others don't, having a navbox listing in the ToC lets readers know up front that an article has navigation aids)?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No one needs it. --bender235 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To say that something is unnecessary is not to say it is unhelpful. Is it your position that having a navbox listing in the ToC does not let readers know that an article has navigation aids? Or are you saying that such information has no benefit to readers whatsoever? Or are you saying something else? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If readers are familar with how Wikipedia articles look like, they will know that navboxes are at the end of the article, or nowhere. If readers are not familar with Wikipedia articles, they won't know what navboxes are, anyway. So either way, giving them their own section title is useless, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Could you please let go now? --bender235 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the length of this conversation. I hope that you will understand my frustration with responses such as "Dude ... I just don't like it." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To the extent your most recent response is a repeat of your earlier point that a heading is not required to distinguish navboxes themselves from the proceeding material then I can only repeat, for the third time: "I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the proposition that putting a "Related information" heading in the ToC is a silly way to educate folks about the general concept of navboxes and where they appear in articles. My point is that, without a listing in the ToC, the readers of a specific article - including those familiar with Wikipedia - do not know whether that article has a navbox unless they migrate to the end of that article. So, I suggest, having a listing in the ToC is a benefit. While you may take the position that the benefit is minimal, would you agree that there is a benefit? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Shall I deduce from your silence that you agree there is a benefit (however minimal) but that you are uncomfortable conceding the point? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You shall deduce that I said all I wanted to say. I do not want Navbox section titles, period. But since I

do not own Wikipedia, I'm not the one in charge to conclusively decide this. So please get off my back. --bender235 (talk

) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If I "get off your back" you will continue to revert navbox headings because you don't like them and don't want them. Good solution for you (almost as if you did own Wikipedia). I suggest that a fairer solution would be to work through our disagreement with a reasoned discussion of the relative benefits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. However, I can't do that all by myself. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, I would likely revert it. Or somebody else, like User:Eagles247. There is just no consensus for that personal style preference of yours. --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We have previously discussed the invalidity of "I don't like it" as a reason to revert. As it turns out, "no consensus" is

also invalid. And, so far, you refuse to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the proposed heading. So we are left with this: You will keep on reverting because you want to and you can, not because you should. I am sorry, but I still say that looks a lot like taking ownership. Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, what you're doing looks a lot like

WP:POINT. --bender235 (talk

) 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome a separate discussion of the propriety of my behavior if you want to start a new thread. Meanwhile, I note that you are not contradicting my assessment of your behavior. Are you now taking the position that you are acting improperly, but that your behavior is justified by by what you are alleging is my improper conduct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll leave it at "[y]ou will keep on reverting because you want to and you can, not because you should." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please explain this? I don't understand what that image is or does or how it helps the article as Sunny Lee has only really been mentioned I think in a couple of character articles.

FYI, there's also a discussion about this at Talk:Sunny Lee--5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll answer there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking anyone's side in the debate. I just thought the level of

Came across your username which reminded me of Knowledge by Op Ivy :-) benzband (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Although you tried to pretend it was innocent, when you said you are sometimes "tricky" it was correct of me to infer that you try to change the meaning of the page while pretending you aren't. Busted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying that I am sometimes "tricky." What I do recall is this:

What Victor Yus said:

• I could make this page as a whole both much more concise and more clear.

What I said:

• The trick [is] to make small incremental changes, doing [your] best to not change the meaning. (Emphasis added.)

Is that what you are referring to? If so, how do you read that as an intention to change the meaning of a page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently you have already tried and convicted me, so I am probably wasting my time responding. But, in the off chance I am not, here goes: I assume you are talking about this edit. I honestly do not view the heading as changing the meaning of the paragraph that follows it. I would appreciate you explaining to me why you believe it does. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just empty excuses for bad behavior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? What you said and what you did are not the same. Noted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you have re-tried and re-convicted me. Sigh. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need to discuss the section further... however I agree that we should wait until the broader debate ends before we tackle it. I will leave the section at your revert for now (sort of like a self imposed version of "WP:Wrong version")... Please don't assume that my temporary lack of continued editing on the section means a "silent consensus" for your version. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. And thank you for making the concession of letting your edit bide its time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if RC isn't reverted (again) then your version will stay in place for now. I trust you will extend me the courtesy of not assuming that my temporary lack of reverting means a "silent consensus" for your version. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The way that section of layout is worded, there is not only a section heading before the navboxes, but one above each other section at the end, such as persondata, categories, and language links. It is poorly worded. Adding what is common practice in no way affects the RfC, and if the RfC recommends putting a section header before the navboxes, this just gets moved to after the navboxes. Not a big deal. But for right now it is clearly common practice to not include section headers for any of those eight items. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Once we resolve the navbox header question we should definitely take a look at clarifying which items should never have a heading. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seymour Cray Computer Engineering Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Scott (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) 11:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I regret putting the "essay" in Wikipedia space, as it seems to be an invitation to assholeish editing like this. You were obviously aware of the consensus on talk, since you took part in — indeed, you initiated — the discussion there. I'll keep anything of a similar nature in userspace from now on. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

One person's attempt at humor is another person's assholeish edit. I assumed my restoration of the other editor's changes would be reverted. But I just couldn't resist responding to the "no citation" edit summary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that you are unsympathetic to me because I didn't play your ridiculous games. Yes, you wanted to draw me into discussing something a long, long time ago that wasn't worth wasting time on. How about that. Maybe this is the day you give up the biased editing, especially when it leads you to revert me for a reason that's obviously out of line. I think you are aware that returning to the last consensus is the standard way to handle a dispute while it's under discussion. I'm sorry to see that your unfortunate ad hominem slant has clouded your thinking to this degree, but I am pointing it out so that you can correct yourself. Thanks for abandoning a dispute with me that you wanted but that I never took up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I disagree with them. Unfortunately, as you point out, we have not been able to effectively communicate in the past. So I'm not sure that anything is to be gained by me saying anything further. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have just commented to your reply here. Your input will be welcomed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. These are busy times for me in the real world, and I see another editor has responded to your most recent post. So I may sit on the sidelines a while. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you don' mind that I reverted your recent change[1]. See, the new text would have said: "in the body of an article ... and at the first occurrence after the lead". In other words, this would have been the same as "in the body of an article ... and at the first occurrence in the body", since after the lede there is the body.

In my humble opinion, the original phrasing is really consistent, and especially when there is an on-going RfC on the subject right now, it'd be smart for us to wait before making any changes concerning that. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write and explain. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the Combination tone article you edited, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Steamboat Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mean as custard (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! About your removal of the wikilink for Ammar Campa-Najjar at the Duncan D. Hunter page: Longstanding tradition here is that unelected candidates who are otherwise not notable get their name redirected to the elections page where they are mentioned. That way people can at least find out a little about the election. Please see the Campa-Najjar talk page, which records that people have tried several times to create stubs or articles about this candidate. It went to AfD twice; both times the result was Redirect. Please respect this result and this tradition, and restore the wikilink for Ammar Campa-Najjar. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. (P.S., longstanding tradition is stupid. But, if you're going to keep it, you should provide some hidden text on the redirect page explaining it.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on Duncan D. Hunter. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Butwhatdoiknow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It says: "This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia." And later says: "If you have an account (registered user): Please login to edit." But I am logged in and there is nothing on my talk page that suggests I am the target of the block.

Decline reason:

I'm afraid we can't do anything about a block on an IP address unless you tell us what IP address it is. Please post a new unblock request giving us that information, which will be given in the message you see when you try to edit. Alternatively, if for any reason you prefer not to make your IP address publicly visible, you can request an unblock through the

talk

) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Berean Hunter, this is one of yours. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Now it says: "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." It doesn't say I can use my account to edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Butwhatdoiknow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It says: "Editing from 2001:978:2305:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been blocked ... This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia." And later says: "If you have an account (registered user): Please login to edit." But I am logged in and there is nothing on my talk page that suggests I am the target of the block.

Decline reason:

Perhaps the message is wrong, but that range has been completely blocked since June due to long-term abuse. Block report. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Jpgordon, I don't get it. Looking at that block report you provided, the parameters don't seem to disallow logged-in editing. Berean Hunter, do you know what's going on? Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies look closer -- it doesn't say "anon only". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not following. The only parameter I see is "account creation disabled". When we block IPs, we have an option "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address"--wait, now I see it: "hardblock after continued abuse". So that box was checked by Berean Hunter. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon, you say "that range has been completely blocked since June." But I have been editing as recently as September 22. Do you know why this this all of a sudden a problem for me? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, Jpgordon and Butwhatdoiknow, the current range as indicated above in the unblock request is a colocation webhost, M247. And this is the first time, according to the checkuser information that Butwhatdoiknow has logged in through this address range. Previously was using local connect on both IPv4 and IPv6. Simple answer is drop the VPN and use normal connections. No problems that way.

This range was originally blocked because of mass spamming where the spammer was manipulating several ranges. This was massive, intentional

It may have been the LTA's socking that prompted the check and hardblock in August rather than spam accounts...trying to do this based on memory.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you forthis. However, I must admit, most of what you tell me goes over my head. I'm now using my (portable) computer in a different location and I'm not getting the block message. So problem solved (for now). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Brenna Sparks should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna Sparks .

You might like to note that such

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully, as it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Not sure what to make of this poorly written notification. At first glance it certainly appears ominous, but since I don't think I've engaged in any of the described activity (assuming I correctly understand what is prohibited) I'm thinking it is just a "heads-up." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy. To clarify, my concern is consistency on all the primaries & caucuses articles, from 1912 to 2020. Exclusion or inclusion of presidential must be equally applied for all of them. This would (of course), include other American political parties too :) GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

}

As the template says, the MOS is under DS. The template is FYI. Before posting it here I put it on my own talk page.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 19:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this poorly written template and I don't know why you are posting it on my talk page (or why you posted it on your talk page). Care to elaborate? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Click the "discretionary sanctions" piped link... that explains the DS procedures, of which the template is a part. Before 2013 or so DS relied on "warnings" for cause. These were unfortunately weaponzed and used as badges of shame by battle minded editors, and the giving of one was just one more thing to fight about. In the 2013 (about) DS reform, I participated (as a regular editor) in discussions over text now seen in section 4 (awareness and alerts). The goal of the reform was to explictily make them no-fault/no-shame/FYI. As a result, the template can be given to anyone working in a topic area where DS applies, regardless of the content of their edits. It also adds another layer of procedure that hopes to keep the community focused on the content of the project working in a cooperative way. I'm sorry my attempt to recognize your good faith efforts flopped but its time to

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 00:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.