User talk:Juicy Oranges

Here's wishing you a belated

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Again, welcome! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony that is very kind of you! So thanks! I must say this though, any activity here is purely continued from User talk:Oranges Juicy. I am not a new editor so to speak as I've been on English Wiki for three and a half years now! :) You weren't to know - but I am happy to let the greeting remain! --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I saw the red link user name and the contribs without looking at the user page. You might want to redirect it to your main account :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could - but I'm not that handy with the system. Are you clued on tools? I accidentally selected a beta gadget (or something similar) which created "text editor" mode on the Oranges Juicy account. For all my efforts, I could not return to the original choice, and I found the alternative system a real difficulty and so I created a new account (which was never intended to conceal my past activity or disguise my identity!). Having tried every switch, nothing worked on the old account. Thankfully Vanjagenije restored the few privileges I had over to this account but I've got to the point that the recent edits here have overtaken my edits from 2014 in terms of importance. So if anything, those talk pages should be linked here rather than the other way...if you see my point. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm tired of your repeated posts on my talk page, so let's get a few things straight:

1. An editor who as soon as they become active starts to add flag icons to infoboxes, and gets the code right from the very first try, is with all probability not a new user.
2. I have made well over 50,000 edits, 99.7% of them with an edit summary, while you (including your previous incarnation User:Oranges Juicy) have made some 3,000 edits, of which only just over 80% have an edit summary, so try to improve your own statistics instead of harassing me.
3. Leid2000 is still adding flags to infoboxes (I just reverted them and posted a message in English on their talk page), so spend your energy on getting them to comply with MOS instead of posting messages on my talk page.

Have a nice day. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were no repeated posts: one informed you of an error, one informed you that I recognised your blanking as acknowledgement, and one was to make it abundantly clear that I was/am not "playing" (presuming you were pitching that comment as a serious remark). I hereby repudiate the false claim of "harassment". Your "I've done more edits that you and have left summaries more times than you" narrative attacks the

WP:CIR and should he ignore this, then it will have to be admin attention. If I have with either account done something wrong or in breach of policy guidelines and someone spots it then I will gladly cease the practice and redress the method for future contributions. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Juicy Oranges. 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)[reply]

This message is sent to the talkpages of both MirkoS18 and Juicy Oranges.

So you're both aware, I have no affiliation to "the other editor" in either case. I removed the "existential giult" passage per the arguments of Juicy Oranges. I immediately reconsidered and restored the source per the points of MirkoS18. I amended the wording to how I best believe it serves an NPOV outlook. I hope you are both fine with it as it stands at the time I send the messages. You may write back on mt talkpage and keep a conversation going there or we could move the whole thing to article talk. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on - please see this section which I hope you'll appreciate. Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast by Julia Davis? You call that journalism? It is pure Russia-bashing and not a shred of evidence to suggest Putin has "bots". But then even I have been accused in forums of being a "Russian bot", but hey! I'm human! The reason I mention this to you is because your editing activity came to my attention not so long ago when you posted on the Reliable Source discussion page. My lead to where you were was first looking at the dodgy "Philip Cross" user talk (yeah that one looks like a bot to me). You made fair representations for RT and Press TV and all their detractors could do was throw their toys out of the pram over how their corporate media is "reliable" and yours wasn't, and for all your questions as to how they should be discerned, you got inconsistent answers. We all know the ropes: find a source which reflects the community's predetermined bias, and work backwards from there to separate the piles. The editor you argued with, and in my opinion you wiped the floor with him, showed his colours in the course of the debate which is that he is merely a neoliberal paladin and sadly, en.wikipedia is dominated by stooges like that. I feel there is little for me here now. Thanks anyhow! :) --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Two things. First, I strongly advise against edit-warring here. Yes I appreciate the good faith, but I have reported LJstats and you don't want to end up joining the party that can see me sanctioned too. Second, if you've noticed, I removed an uncivil remark that you must have missed or didn't care about. I gather Russian is not one of your spoken languages? I am sorry that you have joined the "include" lobby. That's all I can say. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coldtrack, thanks for advising me about the behind the scenes editwarring scenario, and no I was not aware of it at all. I hadn't looked closely at everybody's activity. About the table, it is looking like consensus is slowly going against your proposal, and I feel the only thing the community can do is something along the lines of the preface to the main table of measuremnents. Something along the lines of, ok, here is a presentation, but this too should be taken with a pinch of salt for XYZ reasoning. You've done well to spot anomalies in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro, whereas I see problems for all of the former Yugoslavia from Slovenia to Macedonia which is where I tend to hedge my concerns. But if you're being told the source is reliable and others are saying, "we note the problems, but we can explain these" then we can amongst ourselves produce a positive end result. For what it's worth, I certainly strongly oppose a brazen "this is how tall 19-year olds were in 2019" pitch. They weren't. Regards! --Juicy Oranges (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know if you're about but thank you very much for the report. It's been a few hours and at the time of my writing, nobody has picked it up, but the last thing I am going to do now is exacerbate things and make more reverts. Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the last week in Croatia and just got back today (this morning), still celebrating the win over Brazil! :))))))))))) Otherwise, I am glad to see that action was taken and that the matter seems to have settled down. Regards! --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seriously keep a close eye here[1]. A very old trick for a flagrant POV pusher without a consensus: lie low and launch attack later when others are not paying much attention. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'll keep a closer eye. It's beyond warnings for that editor. I know and you know he has fought this battle singlehandedly since about 2019 and sees some personal gain from what he is selling. If he restores the edit/s, I'll go straight to the noticeboard. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there never was consensus for your/Coldtrack's edits. I agreed that not everything in the section is (strictly speaking) 'genocide denial', but 'genocide scepticism' isn't a real thing. I felt the section title was OK as long as the text within the section was accurate and reasonably nuanced as to what exactly the 'doubter' was doubting - in some cases that anything 'wrong' or muderous happened AT ALL, in other cases merely the aptness of a legal definition. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the other editor's version which aims merely to accommodate his personal imperatives. The sceptisism surrounds the narrative people are expected to swallow. Genocide by its nature is a legal convention. There are items on the list that neither swallow the mainstream narrative and nor are they cases of denial. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]