User talk:Andiar.rohnds

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andiar.rohnds, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Andiar.rohnds! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

You have repeatedly reverted me without discussing on the talk page, even though I've been posting messages there. Please join the discussion: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Condemnation_higher_than_support.VR _talk 02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have just violated the WP:3RR (three revert rule). You have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. In each of the reverts you move the "support" over the "condemnation". Here are your reverts:

1
2
3
4

Please undo your latest revert. Otherwise, I will report you.VR _talk 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded to your inquiry at Charlie Hebdo. My apologies, as you are not the only editor who has been undoing my edits. You should also know that the entire "reactions" topic seems redundant... this is among many other issues undergoing this article. Best of wishes, Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to be confused on a few subjects. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mainly the part regarding: "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Also see Wikipedia:Policy shopping, thanks! --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Vice regent (Result: ). Thank you. —VR _talk 06:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Your recent editing history at Charlie Hebdo shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and other disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

le sigh* :(

Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

You'll be reported on your next revert, and your aggressive edit comments will only make things worse. You're editing in bad faith, as more than one has already pointed out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Per WP:AN3#User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Both blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance are you evading your block at Charlie Hebdo shooting using Special:Contributions/184.77.94.119? You were warring to state that the policeman was Muslim and this IP is doing the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. EdJohnston, Rather than worrying of the petty affairs of certain users, please correct the manual of style/dating format which is expected to be used globally. I honestly cannot take your words seriously while being time-stamped with "21 February". Please understand how ridiculous this looks, even when formally interpreted.

Thank you. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not denying that the IP is you? EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you seem heated, please take a moment and calm down. i am not the only person who reads wikipedia, other individuals also share the same mindset.--Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually this date format appearing in a timestamp isnt so bad. reading it through an article is atrocious though --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston another IP appeared doing the same thing. Article is SP for the duration of this block. Andiar.rohnds; have you ever been registered here before, using a different username? Bjelleklang - talk 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you ask many questions mr. bj... the answer is yes. there are more people in this household and abroad Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What happened to the previous users you had? Bjelleklang - talk 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to call my mommy? I will give you her phone number (im joking)Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you can take this a bit more seriously. Can you please tell me what happened to your previous user accounts? Bjelleklang - talk 01:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh you would? dont you think your expectations are a little demanding and presumptuous? you're also making assumptions. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you all know how old i am. and also know this will effect an annual 6 figure contribution wikipedia seems to rely on. although wikipedia has more cash than it could ever need, please at least pretend to care Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per "yes. there are more people in this household and abroad", and the lack of denial about the IP, I've extended the block of Andiar.rohnds by one week for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching all of this and I totally support this block extension. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Bjelleklang - talk 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

abusing multiple accounts? yes i realize how i present my arguments; how colorful and stupid they are. but i assure you no kind of abuse has transpired, and that some of you people are full of yourselves, and please dont be surprised when even more contributions are lost. this website will not use its power to push an inferior timing agenda. humans deserve better. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm telling mommy about all this. literally, as a toddler would... Andiar.rohnds (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your future at Wikipedia

Aside from whether or not you are a sock:

Your talk page edits are clearly snarky, rude, cryptic, loaded, non-collegial, evasive, disruptive, obfuscating, hostile, antagonistic, ll-natured, ill-tempered, irritable, ornery, petulant, prickly, querulous, battling, fighting, and warring.

I had to use a thesaurus to capture the whole spectrum.

Wikipedia has a laundry list of block reasons like WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTHERE, etc.

Three possible futures:

1. You persist (and get blocked)
2. You leave
3. Your edits change (best plan!)

You can choose.

This is a place where we try to be polite and work together to get things sorted out. We are volunteers and do not need to tolerate being treated this way. It also wastes community resources (You made Ed and Bjelleklang waste their time asking again and again and others' time reading all of this.) which would be better spend building this encyclopedia that you use and love.

When your block expires, please, please, please, try to make a complete turn-around and be nice and constructive and collegial, okay? The reason is that you will last in this the community only a short time if you continue this way. Think about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no but seriously, where is the logic in adopting a substandard dating format? lowering everyones standard is not the solution in global friendliness or equality. thats like starving yourself, in place of feeding the children of africa. now everyone is hungry, great job --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my love for wikipedia is true, but this new dating format genuinely mystifies me. and im usually not the type of person who rejects change. the irony is i tend to approach things more openly than even the most liberal social justice warrior this website has ever known. for instance, unlike most people i do actually consider the entire "spectrum", even in politics. being anything but independent seems illogical to me. and i assure you this is a genuine stance, rather than some niche-cool-looking-idea. but the dating format really has been killing my love for wikipedia as of late... iv'e been noticing subtle changes here and there; analytics that could possibly indicate an inevitable decline or misfortune of this website. and it all started with a simple change of an infobox template, where the color of an infobox header was changed from red to purple. there at least needs to be a new infobox class for ancient militaristic empires, such as rome. which should definitely be red. it is very pleasing to the eye and matches the article appropriately. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gah!

Sorry for the late reply. It is nice to see you writing about article issues in a constructive way. Good turnaround. So, yes, take that to the article talk. I will stay out of it. If you want the article to be shaped a certain way, you are going about it nicely. Present good arguments and get others on board. Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my lovely Anna, if only rational were the norm here... come sail with me Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As per your recent vandalism/offensive comments at Min-maxing and Talk:Twinking, you have been blocked for a month. --Pres N 19:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Over the course of 2015, you were given many blocks and warnings about constantly being difficult when interacting with others. Sadly, you've turned right back to those activities. Virtually every comment of yours has had some sort of insult or bad-faith criticism towards editors, or inappropriate discussion going on. You've time and time again been requested to make an actionable request on talk pages, but instead it's just lots of long-winded complaining about things outside of the scope of writing that particular article. You've even been given other venues for some of your complaints that were misplaced (like going to WP:TFA to discuss your issues with review and selection process) and yet you still continued to complain at the wrong venues. All you seem to want to do is vaguely complain, you dont seem to be here to actually build an encyclopedia. Your response to my first warning to stop all this was this, and your response to your second and last warning was this and this, so it doesn't seem you intend to stop your disruptive editing of your own accord. Between all of your disruptive editing and past warnings and blocks for similar things, you are blocked for 1 month. I hope that when you return, you can make short, constructive comments about the subject that doesn't attack the participants involved. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK

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).

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

Request reason:

I will definitely admit some of my actions are not friendly or perhaps tolerable on Wikipedia, but there is a real genuine case here of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interests. This matter truly needs to be looked into, I don't know where else to mention something like this, but there is surely a biased admin who is abusing his powers. Once again, perhaps my ban is appropriate, I tend to get a little emotional in my edits, I actually have a valid disability which excuses this, but that is another subject up for debate. Lets not ignore the deeper issue here, of a genuine account of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interests. Please also view comments left on Sergecross73 page. He is conveniently ignoring many established, well known and verifiable facts among the video game world (which he is supposedly knowledgeable in), and was generally making the conversation difficult for no appernt reason. Definitely ignoring logic, and common sense. I know this issue may seem trival as it's related to video games, but please, I assure you, a real and devious account of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interest is taking place. Is there a place i can go to report something like this? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Wikipedia doesn't need soapboxing drama about a video game. OhNoitsJamie
Yes, thank you for the commentary, but facts of the matter still remain, and you have not provided any useful additional information, which would have been quite helpful. Plus your talkpage looks very stupid, you should probably edit it. Thanks Andiar.rohnds (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)^Talk 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yes, thank you for the commentary, Ohnoitsjamie but facts of the matter within this issue still remain, and you also have not provided any useful additional information, which would have been quite helpful. Plus your talkpage looks very stupid, you should probably consider editing it. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Talk 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in a 2 months you can help me edit it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha, oh damn, I am so upset over Wikipedia banning me Ohnoitsjamie, of course I'm being totally sarcastic, really, you are an inferior administrator and I will decimate you under the the power of LEG XVII Andiar.rohnds (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Fantasy Type 0 article talk page is not the place to carry on about your thoughts on corruption of Japanese video game industry. You were many times asked to stop, but refused. Even after your block, you want to continue it on your talk page. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate your thoughts on this, but you refused to stop.
You were asked to propose constructive, actionable changes. You refused, continuing with inactionable rantings outside the scope of the article.
If you want to discuss the Featured Article process, go to WP:TFA. If you want to change consensus on source reliability, go to WP:VG/S. But you've refused.
Even in your unblock efforts, you couldn't stop insulting/complaining, which you were warned about multiple times. You still refuse to stop.

This is why you were blocked. I again recommend stopping, or your talk page access will be revoked too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. Here's a hint - WP:POLICYSHOPPING is not a recognized thing, so it's a dead give away when you, and this mysterious IP address who appears out if nowhere and just happens to argue in your defense, both use it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block has been extended for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]