[[User:MB298|MB298]] ([[User talk:MB298|talk]]) 00:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
[[User:MB298|MB298]] ([[User talk:MB298|talk]]) 00:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
:Nothing personal, but must we really have WikiProjects for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, not to mention every asshole? (No need to reply; the question is rhetorical.) [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
== "Some" vs. "Many" ==
== "Some" vs. "Many" ==
Revisionasof22:28,28September2016
Archiving?
Hold on. Derogatory? Your edit repeats CISA in the same sentence. It's not derogatory to omit redundancy not found in the source.- MrX14:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. VictoriaGraysonTalk03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yogi Bear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Household name (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.
Thanks Gerda. Right now, I am primarily removing duplicates from The Sound List. That's why I had to figure out whether Bach was really the composer of Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele, or whether Cruger was (the Sound List credited both of them as composer). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bach didn't write hymn tunes ;) - One of the biggest misconceptions around. When Messiah was on its way to be FA, it said something about "Bach's hymn", but Handel quoted only the melody which is by Nicolai. Makes me understand that I should point that out more: "text by, melody by". Chorale cantata (Bach) has them all nicely together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that midi files help understanding Bach's music in historic context. Please raise the question if they should be added at project classical music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will raise the question there later today. I don't usually find midi files helpful, but the ex-midi files are exceptionally good at [1]. Those are the ones you're referring to, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commented, thanks for the invitation. Re BWV 147, arrangements of "Jesus, joy ..." have so little to do with Bach's cantata that I would prefer no sound files of it there. Perhaps we should have a separate article on that all-too-famous piece. - Generally: can we first discuss and then add more sound? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was uncertain whether to include the files at both BWV 147 and at Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, and so I have now removed them from the former, leaving them at the latter. I was also uncertain whether to use the MIDI files at Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV_1, and we are currently having a good discussion about it which is fine with me. In cases where I am uncertain, I would be glad to try discussing-first-and-adding-later. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a cropped version of one that was already considered and that I uploaded. The link to previous discussion is in my edit summary. The cropped image that you support is less recent than the one you replaced, and less formal too. I don't think it's too much to ask that you get consensus for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Castriota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (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.
Perhaps my edit summary was too terse. The RFC close said "no consensus" -- the plurality of votes for one alternative or another is not the standard we use to resolve disagreements. You should not cite the RFC close, which did not find consensus and therefore does not support the change you made. The number of votes is not a justification for such change. Please revert yourself. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk02:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not correct. We don't do "more stable" any more than we count votes. The point is that the RFC closed "no consensus" and it was misrepresented on the basis of "more votes" for the retouched photo. It's not clear to me why we should publish a retouched photo of a living person anyway. SPECIFICOtalk03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary said that you were restoring the more stable version. So I then pointed out that the more stable version is actually not the red-dress image. And now you're saying to forget about stability. In addition to forgetting about which image has more support as stated in the RFC close.
So now your criterion seems to be whether a photo is retouched or not. As far as I know, this image (as uploaded on 6 July) is not retouched, and honestly I can't see any significant difference between that 6 July image and this image from 30 September. More importantly, Wikipedia uses retouched photos all the time, and that's mostly what happens at WP:Graphics Lab.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its wikimedia page says its retouched. A retouched photo of a living person is of particular concern. I didn't say "forget stability" -- the fact is the RfC was misrepresented as the basis for the change when it was reviewed and closed as no consensus. As long as there are editors waiting to edit war it back in, there's no point in anybody trying to enforce that close, but sooner or later other editors will see what's happening and the other photo will be restored. SPECIFICOtalk16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was closed as no consensus. I never said otherwise. The RFC close also indicated that the red-dress photo is not the one with the most support. Now, if you would like to come here again and accuse me of misrepresentation, any such further comment will be deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comment. Nowhere did I say that you misrepresented anything. Ironic. None of this is worth nitpicking. As I said, others will chime in and do the right thing. SPECIFICOtalk16:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: That article does need work, and in its current state primarily presents only a POV positive to the subject. My only advice -- just be aware that you will likely run into a whole barrage of other editors bent upon sanitizing and reverting anything added that might be taken in a negative light about the subject of the article, and who are not above the sort of aggressive undoing that could be taken by some as Wikipedia:bullying tactics. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such practices are not uncommon at Wikipedia, sometimes at the highest levels. The logic appears to be something like: "I believe the content should be a certain way, and therefore any means are acceptable to accomplish that, and if it cannot be accomplished by following the rules then we have the wonderful WP:IAR". It's not a pretty sight, nor an acceptable one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reporter requesting to talk
Hi, my name is Zach and I'm a reporter for National Journal. I'm writing a story on political wikipedia editors and I'd love to talk to you for it. If you're interested, shoot me an email at zmontellaro(at)nationaljournal.com. I'm also happy to answer any questions you have! Zach NJ (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd prefer the template for the other 3RR? Your recent edits have been rather obstinate and that's not in the spirit of the Arbcom sanctions. Just trying to give a civil warning here. SPECIFICOtalk20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for condescension, nor for silliness. You specifically said that that Kurtz quote was to balance out the "House of Horrors" reference. In direct response, I removed both references. If you disagree and want to keep the Kurtz quote in any case, fine - we can talk about it on article talk. Neutralitytalk03:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Hey there,
My name is Jake and I'm a journalist at NBC News. I'm hoping to speak with you about a podcast and video series I'm working on. You can email me at jake.heller[at]nbcuni.com or give me a call at 212-664-4846. Thanks!
Would you be alright with an image upload of the original sheet music by Christie's? I can scan it in and the copyright will have expired long ago. The lyrics on Christie's are different than the version referenced in the citation. Thanks! Firthpond1700 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2015
Thanks for your edits to EEU. They're small, but they make a difference. Do you think you could help me make a few more changes? I have a paid COI regarding the article, and I'm looking for collaborators to improve a couple other sections.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was linked to "Donald Trump and Fascism" from Google News, even though it was a redirect--I think maybe it should just be deleted altogether and not be a redirect, because people might think it's a real article or draw conclusions about Wikipedia after the redirect.
It goes to the campaign page so that the link goes somewhere where there are a number of comparisons of his rhetoric to fascism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people say Obama is a fool. Shall we have a redirect to Obama and foolishness? I'm not a Trump supporter, but we do have rules here. Anyway, the matter appears moot. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anythingyouwant! I’m a journalist with The New York Times. I’m writing a story about the role Wikipedia plays in U.S. politics, particularly the presidential race. I’d like to talk to a couple of frequent editors on pages related to the candidates and the election -- and you seem to fit that description. I’d want to ask you about what motivates you to edit Wikipedia, how you see Wikipedia’s role in the election and how you balance your own political views (if any) with ensuring Wikipedia stays fair. Thanks! If you’d be willing to help, please let me know. I’m jeremy.merrill@nytimes.com on email and gchat/XMPP, jeremybmerrill on Skype and +1-212-556-1262. Jeremybmerrill (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Mozart is Art Awart
In recognition of your fine edits to The Marriage of Figaro, the Mozart Committee Local 151 hereby presents you with our appreciation and a token of magnificence, which you are entitled to display on both your user and user talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you very much. Yesterday I hallucinated that Mozart was speaking to me---haranguing me actually---for not fixing up that article, so of course I immediately complied.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Anythingyouwant. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder. Message added 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, not to bother you, but I really don't get the motive for removing your note in Mozart talk page, which did touch an important question, and feeling. Why isn't it the right place? Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carlotm, no problem, thanks for visiting my humble Wikipedia abode. Honestly, I didn't mean to put that comment at article talk. Instead, I meant to put it at user talk, and that's where I put it. The reason for putting it at user talk instead of article talk, is because it seemed like a more behavioral issue than a content issue. Please feel free to link to that comment of mine, or quote it, but it seems like it's at the right place. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.
In case you aren't already aware, BS is little more than an internet troll and loves to control the discussion and do everything they can to continue the discussion. They will use everything they can to pull you back into useless discussion. Don't fall for it and try to interact with them as little as possible. They get off on jerking editors around - it's nothing more than a game. -- WV ● ✉✓23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion -- suggest you add in-line citations after each singular entry to the right in a column called "Refs", in addition I see there is a cite next to "Nominations", but this would impressively strengthen the citation style of the page. — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are at 4RR there. Please step back. User:SPECIFICO, 20:07, 7 May 2016
What the heck are you talking about? I haven't edited that article in hours, and wasn't even at 3RR much less 4RR. I have signed for you, please try to sign properly next time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're an experienced editor SPECIFICO, so you must realize that your second and fourth diffs are not remotely reverts. So what does that make you, SPECIFICO?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting overworked about this. I didn't template you. I think you are too involved for the moment. Others also have questioned your recent edits. No need for snark or hostility. Please review the 3RR policy. SPECIFICOtalk22:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're again asserting that the four diffs you provided above are all reverts. As I said, the second and fourth are clearly not. So please stay away from this page in future. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.
An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.
Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.
Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision."
Thanks Zach. I'm not sure that I've earned the barnstar yet, since there's lots of work to do still at that article, but I'm glad to take the barnstar in view of both past and future performance. 😎Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I mostly just copied stuff from the main Donald Trump article, and the hard part is now writing a summary for the latter article, to replace the stuff that's now at two separate articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Donald Trump into Roy Cohn. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry if that edit summary was vague; I linked to a specific section of the talk page though. Maybe an {{update}} tag could have been better.... -- Kendrick7talk21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump
Please refrain from reverting my edits without giving a viable reason for doing so. My sources have been named and everything I added was true. Your reverts do no not appear impartial. There seems to be a bias for Mr Trump from you as you have also recently edited out some bad information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord NnNn (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily News (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.
Nothing insidious here, it's just that those two images (Trump Las Vegas and Chicago) are excessive and WP:UNDUE here. There's no pertinent discussion of significance that renders these necessary. Instead, those same two valuable slots could be take up with different (non-property) types of images. I request you to consider taking these down so that they can indeed be used for something different at those points in the article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now the order of Trumps's financial ventures. To place them in alphabetical order is nonsensical! There has to be flow according to context and meaning, rather than, of all things, the first letter of the topic! Everything was good until just a few days ago - why did everything have to be turned upside down all of a sudden? Castncoot (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and please be aware that I asked you never to visit this user talk page, so please remember to stay away unless admin duties require you to be here, and you are an active editor at the Donald Trump article so go away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor problem at Donald Trump. Technical violation of 1RR policy. Not to worry, since you've graciously resolved the dispute yourself. It appears that you, like many other busy editors, may never have been advised that 1RR limits contributors to one revert per article, not per article section. Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I can do that. But let's get this up at DYK, and maybe you can pick up where TParis left off--getting Kit Parker on the front page. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Association of churches has been nominated for Did You Know
Legal Affairs of Trump - more connxns to org crime
On the talk page of this article I linked to news about an incident involving one Trump collaborator... detractors for this inclusion in Wikipedia note that the Trump collaborator, Arif, was not convicted of crimes related to the incident, but this changes nothing about the man's being detained under incriminating circumstances which are reported plainly in the news article that I linked over to. Since when does Wikipedia withhold facts because they did not result in convictions in foreign court? 168.88.65.6 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not editing that article right now, because it's not clear to me yet if Wikipedia will soon be scrubbing the counterpart article about Hillary Clinton controversies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever you are
Miss your editing at Donald Trump, are you OK!? (Or did a big city rat drag you away? [I took a walk late at night in downtown Chicago once, saw a rat as big as a cocker spaniel cross the street. It was black silhouette, but the street light reflected in its eyes, which shown green, when it paused to look at me, before continuing down the pavement.]) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message User:Ihardlythinkso. I was on safari in Africa earlier this month, seeing all kinds of animals. No rats, but plenty of hyrax (which looks kind of similar). I expect my activity here will be light, as I have much better things to do than mess around with a hierarchy that does not consider me in good standing, for transparently phony reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump DS
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
A tsunami in a teapot. All parties turned out to have been engaging in "rightdoing" -- whether or not all other parties understood it at the time. In any case, the above alert was unneeded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your post on the RfC. I would have just said yes, as I don't see any harm. But your post there gave me pause if that is not the real issue. Would you have the time to perhaps post on my talk page or here, what exactly is the point of this membership issue and how is that combined with a desire to insert racism in the lede? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:SW3 5DL, I think CFredkin has written a draft that includes the HNBA factoid. What I'm essentially saying is that inserting the HNBA factoid without context, such as without the rest of the stuff that CFredkin wrote, would be wrong. So the answer depends upon what else is included. Certainly if Gounc inserts a bunch of stuff about alleged racism, then that too would justify insertion of the HNBA factoid. Does that seem reasonable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I actually couldn't see who posted the text and thought it would be clearer at the top. I have reverted. If the text ISN'T the disputed text, it would be useful to add a 'clarifier' as to what it actually is, or what the disputed text is!Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it's OK to use the IP address of vandals to track their physical location and freak them out. This may have gone too far, as the vandal made a mobile edit at a school of kids less than 11 years old. I just need guidance, that's all. Help. MgWd (talk)MgWd —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. If someone reverts my reinsertion of "temporary" then I will follow 1RR. But please be aware that the content I restored is longstanding.[10] If it were a recent addition, then I would self-revert by removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, could you please stop "tweaking" the Immigration section, even as people are trying to discuss your changes, and instead come to the talk page and TALK about it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo your note at BLPN.
The point is not to start a discussion there. This was a neutral invitation to editors who wish to view the talk page thread. Your bit was not neutral words and should be erased. Thanks.
SPECIFICOtalk20:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my notice was entirely neutral and complete. Your statement is neither, and I asked you to remove it for the reason I stated above. You can review WP:CANVASS if it's not familiar to you. Frankly your partial "cleanup" and comment above feels a bit like trolling. I won't be back here about this. SPECIFICOtalk20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that [1] I think that we should come to a consensus that the passage that Volunteer Marek removed in the above edit should be kept in the article, and [2] if there is currently a lack of consensus for keeping it in, it should be removed (this is standard behavior for any BLP material, including the recently dead). Note: I have not done an actual head count, so I am not expressing an opinion as to what the consensus is, just saying what should happen if there isn't one. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Murder of Seth Rich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Mr./Ms. Anything, you make some good contributions, but every time I've seen you on an article relating to people or politics you've devolved to IDHT and EW behavior. The next time I see this, I'm going to launch an ANI discussion about it. These politics-related articles are very sensitive, and they call for more, not less, attention to policy and thoughtful dialogue. You're an experienced editor, so I'm not using a template, but this behavior is corrosive, it sets a bad example and environment for others less seasoned than yourself, and it's not showing you at your best. Moreover, canvassing Sandstein with a loaded and accusatory statement was not a smart move, IMO. Please consider. SPECIFICOtalk00:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, editors are seeking to overturn Sandstein's AfD close, so I don't view that message as canvassing at all. Asking an admin about the meaning and consequences of a close merely continue an already-existing conversation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're losing all perspective on this discussion. Editors are seeking to comply with various WP policies and content guidelines. Nothing can "reverse an AfD" because that's the only way articles get deleted. The policy compliant content about this subject is not meaty enough to meet GNG, so once the crap is flushed the article will likely be deleted in a later AfD that doesn't get derailed by all the IDHT and POV political spin. SPECIFICOtalk01:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up?
I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Murder of Seth Rich. I've seen this pattern before in political articles: canvassing accusations, crying BLP, intimidating 3RR warnings. It makes editing less pleasant but to me the alternative - abandoning the article to whoever appears most intimidating - seems worse. D.Creish (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
D.Creish, I hope you don't continue with this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND pep talk. The fact is that Anythingyouwant is trying to do his/her best on this article and has been responsive to warnings and feedback, amending or redacting his/her comments and actions when they go too far. SPECIFICOtalk12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say this once. I had thought you were a new editor -- naive, inexperienced, emotional and erratic. But now I think you're not naive at all. I think you're POV-pushing in articles that are related to the current election, the Supreme Court vacancy, abortion rights, and related issues. I consider [your words here] to be a personal attack, accusing me or others of gaming the system, wikilawyering, or otherwise contriving editorial concerns for the purpose of circumventing WP process concerning the AfD. I formerly thought you were excitable and confused and didn't know the difference between discussion and obfuscation, but my best guess now is that you're deliberate and tactically adopting an argumentative and accusatory stance. That's my opinion.
Your reinsertion of that list of content items, some of which are defamatory insinuations and BLP violations, is unacceptable even for the talk page. I suggest you delete your recent talk page writings, including the personal attack, and take a time out from this article for a week or so. Otherwise, a time out is likely to be imposed on you. That's not a conspiracy, it's just my opinion as to what happens when folks behave badly. SPECIFICOtalk18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find this continued bullying troubling. @Anythingyouwant: your list provides an excellent summary. I suggest you include it in your response at DRN. Between that and The Four Deuces section I think the issue becomes clear and resolution straightforward. D.Creish (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SPECIFICO it's a good thing we don't administrate this website according to your opinion. What you linked is far from a personal attack. It seems you are quite worked up about this article / issue and should maybe listen to your own advice. Take a step back, don't use talk page posts as a bludgeon, and let's work together to improve this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
I've commented here. I'm not going to make accusations there without diffs, but I think they're on to something and I hope you'll seriously consider stepping out of election-related topics and pages. SPECIFICOtalk16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the multiple reverts in 24 hours part of the rule but rather to the part which CFredkin is so fond of quoting "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page" You reinstated reverted info.Gaas99 (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gaas99, I can certainly understand your concern about that, but the rule applies a bit differently to longstanding content as compared to newly-inserted content. Details are here. In this case, the material was longstanding and the "challenged...edit" was the removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That linked thread has nothing to do with violating 1RR under sanctions. 99 is correct on this one. I suggest asking Arbcom clarification if you disagree. SPECIFICOtalk17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I don't know who you mean by "who". In any event, go search the linked thread for the word "challenged". Also, I have a very high threshhold for banning people from this talk page, but you're getting mighty close. Don't you have anything better to do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Anythingyouwant is referencing is a discussion on my talk page, in which various admins discussed how to apply the Discretionary Sanctions. One conclusion seemed to be that the prohibition against reinstating challenged material applies to any recent edit that has been challenged by reversion. "Edit" does not merely refer to recent edits which ADD new content, but also to recent edits which REMOVE content that has been present in the article for a long time. In other words, DS does not give people a green light to remove longstanding content and insist that their removal not be reverted; rather, according to this interpretation, the act of removing longstanding content is itself an edit which can be challenged by reversion (restoring the material), and the longstanding material should not be removed again without consensus. The meaning of "longstanding" depends on the article; in a very busy article it might mean four to six weeks. The goal, as it was explained to me, is to stabilize the article, in part by favoring the status quo. Note that this was merely a discussion among admins, not a policy or guideline. And I have no opinion about how it might or might not apply to your current discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that this is an interpretation by 1-3 admins, and not a representation of any consensus by the broader community. I take no position on its validity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the same Anythingyouwant who tried to cite the "longstanding" carveout at Murder of Seth Rich only two weeks after the article was created? Sounds as if Arbcom Clarification will save everyone a lot of fuss and bother over the next 2 months. SPECIFICOtalk23:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't involve me citing or linking to the discussion at Melanie's talk page. I said, "by longstanding I meant the info has been in the article for weeks, since it was created, and throughout the AfD proceedings, but it's true the article was created earlier this month."[12] At that time, there was no discretionary sanctions notice on the page, so I was just referring to the usual principle that longstanding material in an article should not be removed as easily as new material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2-week longstanding is no more convincing in the reprise. Nobdody's suggesting you don't always have a ready "explanation" for these little hiccups. I presume you didn't mean to say that the lack of a template here or there is a license to edit-war? SPECIFICOtalk02:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just quoted to you my acknowledgment that "it's true the article was created earlier this month", and I think you'll find that I did not press the issue at all after making that acknowledgment. I'm glad you agree that the matter was "little", so maybe we can each move on to a more productive use of our time?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each hiccup is little. But the pattern of your behavior is, in the opinion of many editors, disruptive. I don't have the time to assemble evidence and open a discussion, but unless you look forward to that, I'd ask you to consider staying farther back of the line. Maybe others will chime in. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk02:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to make a mountain out of a bunch of molehills, but please be aware that WP:Disruptive editing says, "Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." We discussed the "longstanding" matter at the Rich talk page, I acknowledged your point about it only being two weeks, and dropped the matter. And now you're looking for the slightest little thing to complain about. Go away, will you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the policy says the exact opposite and contains quite a fine clear explanation of patterns of behavior over time on many articles. So, your behavior appears to be a case of either WP:IDHTorWP:CIR. I used to think the latter, but judging by the reactions you seem to elicit from a broad swath of the community, I suspect it's more the former and that you could possibly modify your behavior if you so choose. SPECIFICOtalk20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Groupthink at Wikipedia is not always reliable. For example, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a big bad mob at Wikipedia agreed with you that a verbatim quote of policy is the opposite of what the policy says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry pick much? Leaning toward the WP:CIR interpretation, but I give you much credit for a happy personality and excellent sublimation. We part as friend for now. Buenos noches. SPECIFICOtalk21:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s I'm copying this nice thingy to my user page. Please remember that Wikipedia is full of land mines, cow patties, quicksand, and assorted other things that are not pleasant to step in. So be careful, I don't like it when someone who gives me an award steps in it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do feel harassed right now. But luckily I have stuff to do in Real Life as well, so being discouraged from editing Wikipedia for a couple of hours might be for the best. I hope I don't get so discouraged that I never edit again, though. All those historic buildings would not be here without me.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you followed that I've been consistently harassed for the past few days. Do you think this comes from this barnstar? I would like to identify why before I try to find the strength to edit again. Right now I feel discouraged, unwanted and undervalued here.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZigZig, it's not unusual at all to feel unappreciated at Wikipedia, and most editors find other motivation for editing. I haven't followed your particular troubles, because I'm really not supposed to do that, per WP:Canvassing, but I hope you eventually get feeling better. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really edit for others. But there is an editor currently nominating every new article I create for AFD, and it has definitely had a chilling effect. And it started roughly when I left this barnstar. Do you think this might be a vendetta?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never before imagined that people who are nice to me at Wikipedia might get treated adversely, but nothing would surprise me at this place. But it also could be that once an article of yours get AFD'd then that puts you on the radar of people who hang out at AFD, quite apart from me. I'd hate to part with the nice award you gave me, but I could try erasing it to see if that helps you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be too late. And you deserved it. But I have reason to believe that some may be trying to discourage me from editing. Perhaps they are here to "correct the record", allegedly?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Anythingyouwant. You have new messages at Tazerdadog's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well, that's certainly a possibility. Our pool is actually looking pretty good, and we have company--company which typically brings an excellent selection of beers. Plus, it's fall, and the Tide is Rolling, so yeah, we've been busy. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accidental revert
Sorry about that! Must have clicked the rollback link on my watchlist without realising, I hadn't even read your edit or realised I'd done it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion that you "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page"
Your reversion of my reversion without consensus on talk page violates 1RR. You have started a topic on the talk page but there certainly isn't any consensus. I have not yet had time to analyze your comments but one sticks out. You consider a 1 month interval to represent stability yet you completely rewrote the section which had been stable for close to a year. Please see:
[13]] Please self revert your reversion until and if consensus is obtained. Gaas99 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I consider a 1 month interval to represent stability. Surely it's a lot more stable than your preferred version which was totally new. You think your totally new version had consensus?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was my "totally new" version? The one I wrote in July 2015 , was unchanged except for "tweaks" until you rewrote it on 31 May 2016 and to which rewrite I objected ? In any case, your reversion is in violation of the DS so please remove it. Gaas99 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit (that I reverted) seems different from your old edit from July 2015, and I'm not sure what difference it would make if the two edits were the same. The fact is that I recently undid an edit for which you did not have consensus and which substantially changed the version that had been in place for a month as a result of talk page discussion in early August. You are free to try and build consensus at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I undid an edit of yours which removed important information. ( the statement from the selective service official that given Trump's medical exemption his high number was not significant) As an aside, this should be obvious and the reference in the talk section that a person with a 1Y classification could be easily drafted is ridiculous. It never happened and the fact that this was converted to 4F is further evidence of that point. Per the DS, YOU are required to obtain consensus before reinstating your reverted edit. The burden is on YOU not me to obtain consensus.Gaas99 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the selective service official is quoted in a footnote. My view is that that's sufficient. And I don't think that a firm consensus is needed to keep out new stuff from the main text of the article that you (or I) want to put in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll excuse me but did you not "reinstate a challenged (via reversion) edit without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page" ? That question can be answered by a yes or no.Gaas99 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, in my opinion this edit of mine removed a challenged edit that had been made without firm consensus on the article talk page. I restored longstanding content per this discussion about what the discretionary sanctions mean. P.S. I notice that you've been contacting several other editors about me today, including ones who are involved at the article in question, and here's good advice from one of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in my contacts. Since you bring up the advice from Melanie, perhaps you should try to emulate her behavior as she did here. I had removed the picture of Trump as a teenager which had been in the article for some time. Rather than trying to parse the meaning of the DS, she took the issue to the talk page and obtained consus that the picture should remain.Gaas99 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by or about Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TigraanClick here to contact me11:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.
You are invited to join WikiProject Donald Trump, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American businessman, television personality, author, and politician Donald Trump. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to him. The WikiProject Donald Trump group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.
Nothing personal, but must we really have WikiProjects for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, not to mention every asshole? (No need to reply; the question is rhetorical.) Writegeist (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" vs. "Many"
The claim of "many" isn't supported by cites, and is an arbitrary assessment. We don't do assessments here. We report what's generally available through secondary sources. "Some" isn't a weasel word. It's accurate. Google's definition of "Some" is "an unspecified amount or number of."; since no number has been specified, this is accurate. "Many" definition is "a large number of.", which is again arbitrary since "large" isn't defined, and is possibly relative. "Some" is accurate. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And I quote, "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words" I showed above how "some" is more appropriate for this passage than "many". If you have no other objections, I'll put it back to "some" as it is quite appropriate. Unless you can provide a cite showing some amorphous "many" to have some meaning, it's a meaningless weasel word itself. Cite, or it goes back to "some". Wouldn't you agree? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed three instances of "some" in the lead. Here they are (emphasis added):
Forgive me, I did not know we were potentially talking about three different "many"/"some"'s. The one I am referring to is "Many of his statements in interviews..." --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks. The main problem with putting "some" in that particular location is that it would be contrary to the result of this widely-attended and recent RFC. Also, I think many of his statements have been controversial. You really dispute that? I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with controversial statements, by the way (especially if I agree with them!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to get into any sort of discussion that involves discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of any candidate. I'm sickened by the political climate in the U.S. I find it silly to the point of be absurd that it takes so much effort to change one word, and dare anyone change that one word they'll face serious bureaucracy to event attempt changing it again. The RfC is stupid. There is no basis for an arbitrary "many". It's amorphous and without meaning. But, if that's what the RfC indicated (thanks for pointing it out), so be it. One word. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
