User talk:VoiceOfreason

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mcgyver2k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC) If I find something on the internet that doesn't have a copyright or contact information for the person who put it there then I am pretty sure that the person doesn't care if others use it. In order for there to be "ownership" there must be an "owner" that is identifiable. Think of it like this, if you find a penny on the street, does it belong to you? Could I spent a huge amount of time trying to find out who the penny belongs to before deciding to spend it? Let's be realistic here, shall we?[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Passive infrared sensor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bicycle 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bicycle 01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bicycle 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bicycle 02.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Stop typing on my page.voiceofreason 22:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history 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.
Warning is in regard to this edit [1]. Please discuss on talk page and seek consensus - edit warring and pointy-editing is not the solution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 11 November 2014 (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:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I'm the one that initiated it.

This is something completely separate from the dispute resolution board discussion you imitated. And definitely more serious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, you're scaring me. ;)

3RR

You stated, "I also have no idea what a "3RR" is". It seems that at this point you don't understand a lot of things Wikipedia-related. If you intend to keep editing here, it's advisable you learn what things like "3RR", "vandalism", etc. mean in relation to Wikipedia and its users/editors. And please start using four of these little things ~ (called tildes) to sign your posts. Adding "voiceofreason" and a date stamp is not enough. Your signature needs to be clickable and include a link to your talk page and contributions in order for it to be in line with policy. See the following for more: WP:SIG as well as the point covered at the top of this page here: [2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always sign every post I make otherwise it wouldn't put "voiceofreason" in there genius. Would you please just go away and find someone else to harangue? Maybe someone who may take you seriously?voiceofreason 23:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Something is wrong with your signature, look at "Preferences" (at the top of each Wikipedia page) and you should be able to determine what the issue is. And no, I won't "go away". Wikipedia is a community, not a social networking site where you can block people you don't like. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your signature

Hello Mcgyver2k. I hope you can take care of two problems with your signature:

It is supposed to contain a link to one of your pages. See WP:SIGLINK: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" You can fix this at Special:Preferences.
You can't have 'voiceofreason' as a user name, because it is registered to someone else, User:Voiceofreason.

If you don't like Mcgyver2k and want to change it, you can check Special:Listusers and take any name which is not shown as being in use there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?Truevoiceofreason : Talk 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That user "voiceofreason" hasn't used their account in over 10 years.

It answers the WP:SIGLINK problem. But why would you use an account called Mcgyver2k if you intend to mark yourself as Truevoiceofreason on talk pages? You have the option of renaming your account to Truevoiceofreason if you want, since that name is available. Consider requesting a name change at WP:CHU/S. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should/would you care what I use as my nickname? It seems you are buddies with another person who has a beef with me. Seems kind of typical as of late though.VoiceOfreason : Talk 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to keep using Voiceofreason to identify yourself in your signature an admin may decide to block you per WP:SIGFORGE. You can't use someone else's user name. Varying the capitalization doesn't make a difference. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. :)140.194.140.17 (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 12 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Counter-IED equipment page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. A test edit that you recently made to Talk:Electronic counter-countermeasures is not appropriate for an article talkpage. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The edits referenced are found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_counter-countermeasures&diff=prev&oldid=633688412 -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it seconds after I posted it. Quit stalking me.— VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason 19:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you removed it, and I saw that you did. That said, it never should have happened in the first place. Articles and article talk pages are not for tests or experiments. Use you own user space or the Wikipedia Sandbox for such things. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up and go away.— VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason 03:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm reporting you for Wikihounding me. In case you don't know: Wikihounding[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:User analysis tools and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing § Campaign to drive away productive contributors

Shortcuts: WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUND WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.— VoiceOfreasonVoiceOfreason 03:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the current coordinator over at DRN and closed your request there because DRN does not handle conduct disputes. In that closing I noted that ANI was the proper venue for conduct disputes, but in looking at your contribution list saw that you've already been there. The fact that you made the request at DRN makes me wonder if you saw the result at ANI. Just in case you did not, you can find it in the archive at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Need assistance with a Wikihounder. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowe Bergdahl

Please don't insert editorial comments into Wikipedia. While you may have a strong personal opinion about certain articles or issues related to Bergdahl, Wikipedia is not a platform for you to express them. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would quite putting obviously biased information on Wikipedia then I would quit adding my comments which identify it as such. If you persist in doing so then I have other remedies for your graffiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

January 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bowe Bergdahl. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Like I said in my edit summary, this is not how we edit Wikipedia. Each of your personal opinion statements will be removed. If you continue, you will be blocked. Please contribute in a constructive manner. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quit adding totally bogus/biased sites and all will be well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

Word to the wise – Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground. Rather, we edit according to the rules and with consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bowe Bergdahl 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.
Please stop. If you continue you will be blocked. Get with the program. – S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it is he/she who is engaging in an edit "war" with me as he/she posted the erroneous/biased site in the first place. Banning me will do no good as there are several remedies to that. The true solution is for a disinterested third party to simply click on his garbage link and see that it's totally biased and not in any way a "source" for objective information and to delete the whole section. That will likely not happen though from my experience here in WL. Good day young man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs)

Please settle down and learn more about Wikipedia. If you are not here to build the encyclopedia in a constructive and cooperative fashion, perhaps you should find another undertaking. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 7 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:VoiceOfreason reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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. Gamaliel (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

VoiceOfreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "VoiceOfreason". The reason given for VoiceOfreason's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: Gamaliel (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, VoiceOfreason. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)[reply]