User talk:Rockypedia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

3RR Notice

An issue involving you has been filed at at 3RR ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your WP:BATTLEGROUND filing, after the non-neutral RfC that you started began shaping up with a massive consensus against you. I already responded. Good luck with your revenge seeking. Rockypedia (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noting the result here for reference: "Frivolous report, which is only tenuously connected with edit warring of any kind and not in the required format. Please don't misuse our boards." Rockypedia (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Taylor talk page

If you think that IP is a sock I'd suggest filing an WP:SPI, unless it's actually look at by an admin you run the risk of getting blocked for violating 3RR. — Strongjam (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a sock, but it's near impossible to figure out who it's a sock of. I don't see how an anon IP's vote on an RfC can be considered valid; literally anyone that has a registered account could log out and vote again as an IP. Also, that IP has contributed nothing but edit wars since their debut. I'm confident I'm not removing anything of value when I revert them. Rockypedia (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you also don't have a mop, and edit-warring before an admin steps in isn't a good look.. The way things are headed there's going to be a long WP:ANI section about this, and probably an arbcom case. - Strongjam (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still don't think there's any place for IPs, or even newly-created accounts, to weigh in on such a contentious issue. But I appreciate the the advice. Rockypedia (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Was just dropping by to add a friendly suggestion & note of caution here myself. I know it might look like an obvious sock to you, but we are obliged to go easy on such IP's and WP:AGF. Admins will bite you for it eventually if you don't, and it's a pretty safe bet that the closing admin will ignore their (pretty clumsy/transparent) arguments anyway. It's not worth sticking your neck out to remove their comments or post snark like this in my opinion. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, but it gets frustrating. I reported him once already - check out the 18 reversions he made earlier, many of them removing sources and the sourced material, and he didn't get blocked for that. It's crazy. I appreciate the advice though. Rockypedia (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I hear yah on the "it gets frustrating" part for sure! And for people on both sides of these debates, clearly... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I meant specifically when it comes to an anon IP that already made 18 reversions and didn't get blocked. I mean, christ, what does it take? Meanwhile, they can always just change IP addresses and do it again. What do you do? Rockypedia (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking at what to do about the ip as well, and have removed a few of its comments. The talk page violations, incivility, baiting, harassment, and IDHT problems are disruptive to the dispute. I'm wondering if the article falls under ArbCom enforcement (WP:ARBR&I maybe?). Otherwise ANI might be the best place to take it. In the meantime, don't take the bait. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I have decided to disengage with the IP entirely and not take the bait. You're absolutely right. Rockypedia (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Riley Martin

So why not leave the date of death as "c. December 22, 2015"? You seem to accept the "few days before Christmas" quote, which would at least merit a "circa" tag as I have indicated. O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to Riley Martin, I suggest you keep the discussion on the article talk page, as recommended by WP:TPTHREAD Rockypedia (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello, I'm Super48paul. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bogaczów, Lower Silesian Voivodeship without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See my comments on that page... All the best. Super48paul (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi Rockypedia,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Scouts Edits

Thank you.68.47.65.239 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Spencer page

The page already uses the Daily Wire as a reliable source. Why can't I use it for a topic besides race and ethnicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You should keep this discussion on the Spencer talk page. I'll look at the other Daily Wire source and reply there. Rockypedia (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Singularity (2017 film)

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa 🍁 (talk):It wasn't copied. It was a summary, and was certainly not word-for-word, not that anyone can verify that since you deleted all record of it as if some BLP was getting vandalized with libelous claims. And now you've deleted a bunch of other useful edits as well. Seems a bit heavy-handed. Can you revert that, or is it gone for good? Rockypedia (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it appears you did restore the other edits. Still, the plot summary was not a copyright violation; I formulated it based on a handful of summaries that I found online. Rockypedia (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap, which was pretty substantial. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I re-wrote it. Rockypedia (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The new version checks out okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OCD

Name calling is not good. If you believe another editor is a jerk, has mental disabilities, whatever... you're probably right. But don't call them an "OCD editor". It can only hurt you, as it will come back as incivility, a personal attack, use of pejoratives, etc. Don't sink to their level. Jacona (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point, and I've reached the level of frustration with Alansohn that others have before me. I have actually been emailed by TWO editors who said they didn't want to get involved but they could corroborate that Alansohn is WP:OWN personified. One of them said "I don't want to get my blood pressure up by getting involved with him again." He's a problem - because he contributes a lot of positive stuff, but he also reverts anyone that tries to edit one of "his" pages. I suppose I let him get to me for a moment when I typed that edit summary. Lesson learned. Rockypedia (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

footnote: I have a mild OCD disorder myself, but I haven't (yet, I don't think) let it affect my editing here. Rockypedia (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

On that same note, I'd recommend removing everything after "it's a blog" in your RS board post. Wrong venue at the best. Arkon (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

good advice. Rockypedia (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about Alansohn and ownership and also that he does much good work. My choice has been to let him own it. I certainly don't have time to do the work he does, and I don't need the pain. At least he's not so uncivil has he once was.Jacona (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

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:

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

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. !dave 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey !dave, I indicated that is my last revert before I go to WP:ANI on that editor. He's not responding to talk page requests. I don't intend to revert again. Rockypedia (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, I see you've already taken care of it. Thanks for that. Rockypedia (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it is just that you did indeed break 3RR but no action has been taken against you. The other lad, however, has been indeffed. !dave 21:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought 3RR was for a 24-hour period. Rockypedia (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You definitely didn't come close to violating 3RR. Edit-warring, arguably, but, given the other editor's disruptiveness and disinterest in consensus, I can't imagine anyone holding it against you. Rebbing 23:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't see the date of your earlier reverts. !dave 08:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clearing that up. Rockypedia (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PLACE / Gdansk vote

Could you please explain why you regard this book unreliable? HerkusMonte (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How can anyone verify that the volumes of information you are adding, purportedly from this book, is accurate? Are we all supposed to buy it? Rockypedia (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Taylor

I hope you don't mind that I removed your response and the initial comment at Talk:Jared_Taylor#How_can_you_people_live_with_yourselves?. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's probably the best course! Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Not your call. Calton | Talk 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't delete or edit legitimate talk pages comments. The comments I hatted were, and are, a pretty obvious attempt at generating clicks for that article, and as such, it qualifies as spam. But if you don't think it's spam, fine, leave it there. You're just helping the troll that originally posted it, I guess. Rockypedia (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)