User talk:Skyring/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Skyring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A cold one for ya

Here's to a real nasty dumb cunt! The Pastafarian Church (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of 1812

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:War of 1812. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Establishments

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Establishments. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Britain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Britain. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Governor-General of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economic history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economic history. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of India. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greco-Italian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greco-Italian War. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political correctness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

COI

I have mentioned you here [1] -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Odinism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Odinism. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azov Battalion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Azov Battalion. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Head of state

Howdy stranger. In order to avoid a potential 3-way dispute. I've chosen to revert to the earlier lead image :) GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack Ruby

I cannot upload the sources for Jack Ruby criminal actitvies . Internet is not working propley. Will upload them when I get it working right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.250.12 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. This sounds like irrelevant conspiracy theory material. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atlantis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jesus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Italian invasion of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Italian invasion of France. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Karbala

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Karbala. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edward VIII

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward VIII. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iranian peoples. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Green children of Woolpit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Green children of Woolpit. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox language

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox language. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elagabalus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elagabalus. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taqiya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political correctness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Temporary work

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Temporary work. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA for English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for English. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political correctness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bijeljina massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bijeljina massacre. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

list of fastest motorcycles

Can you look at this the talk page of the list of fastest motorcyles .Not sure who contact about dennis bratland. I think this guy is doing this because I spoke against him on the dodge tomahawk page and is now doing this. Or at least tell me who to contact sorry to post to you talk page I do not know how to just message someone. 72bikers (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

has been resolved. 72bikers (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Architecture by country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Architecture by country. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello !

Hi Skyring, I'm sure you've seen my edits on various articles, talk pages and ANI reports. And it's nice to meet you. Regarding the use of the term "winningest" I agree with you, that it is an awful term to use in an encyclopedia, for many reasons. After removing it, and finding some editors a little less than happy with me replacing it with "most successful", I had an idea, that I put into play on the Harley article. What is your opinion of using the term "victorious" instead of "most successful" or "winningest" ? I think the arguments of ambiguity that have been used against "successful" are not relevant against "victorious" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Most excellent suggestion! Has the same meaning and won't bring our fine encyclopaedia into disrepute.

Oh, hello, Dennis! How odd to see you here. Just remember, look, but don't touch. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest

Based on your recent edits, you may be interested in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles regarding the use of winningest. You are invited to join the discussion to help from a consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skyring. You have new messages at Talk:Emma-Jayne Wilson.
Message added 04:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laksa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laksa. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion: Restore status quo.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. When there's ongoing discussion, you don't keep reverting to the status quo as you see it. That is the very definition of an edit war. You have 15,000 edits already, you should know this by now. But let's assume you didn't; so now you know. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 14:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 60 hours due to the aforementioned edit war. You can see my comments at AN3 as well. I have chosen not to hold your extensive block log against you so you should consider this block as being quite lenient. Please keep in mind that edit warring over something that is under discussion is generally counterproductive towards dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Guidance needed

@Swarm: Looking at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Administrator_guidance, I see:

"Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

On looking at the history of Emma-Jayne Wilson, I see:

0854 16 January: [2] User:Montanabw reverts my edit, claiming "better phrasing".

0515 18 January: [3] User:Cbl62 reverts, claiming "restoring status quo during discussion"

2319 18 January: [4] User:Bagumba reverts, claiming "no consensus on the talk page", referring to the discussion I began a day earlier.

Two points here. First off, this is tag-team edit-warring. All editors were participating in the MoS discussion and were aware of it. Checking their user talk pages shows exactly what they were discussing.

Second. Consider the behaviour of User:Cbl62. 20 reversions of articles pending discussion:

0921 15 January: [5]

0922 15 January: [6]

0922-0933: 17 reversions, as per Cbl62's user contributions

0933 15 January: [7]

For truly breathtaking edit-warring, consider User:Dennis Bratland. I stopped counting at a hundred reversions, well after discussion had commenced. This reversion is one of a great many. This one is also interesting, considering it is quoted in the WP:3RRN report. It is clearly baiting, with the expressed intention of provoking a revert. See his contributions over several pages. This editor quotes WP:NOCONSENSUS as if it justifies his vast number of edits while discussion is underway. The wording he seems to rely upon is this: "Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action." (My italics). However, looking at the ongoing discussion at WP:MOS, the one thing it has not supplied is a result. Editors are still adding their voices, and a sister discussion has commenced. Growing consensus looks like:

There is no need to alter the Manual of Style to include guidelines for a particular word, in this case "winningest"
Incorporating WP:TONE in the MoS to some degree is worthwhile. This would have the effect of deprecating informal words such as "winningest".

However, discussion continues, and anybody claiming a result is in error. Your comments with respect to the initial quote on fairness welcome. If you consider a block of 60 hours for 3 edits during ongoing discussion to be fair and reasonable, given your comments of "…it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus…", what fair and reasonable figure do you propose for the 100+ referred to above? --Pete (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

60hrs for 3 edits? is way too harsh. I recommend an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Swarm, it appears you are लोप on this issue. if you are unable to respond at the moment, that's fine. We'll take it up later. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

As per the section immediately above. This lengthy block for three edits reverting to status quo during discussion seems unfair given the behaviour of others in the same dispute claiming to be doing the same: 20 in the case of one user, over a hundred for another. Block or unblock, I will make no more such edits, in this dispute or any similar in future. --Pete (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block appropriate for reverting things to "your way" during an active discussion. The duration might have to do with the fact that you've been block a few times before. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

Very good, Ohnoitsjamie, it seems as if you are of one mind with Swarm. Now, as friend Swarm is apparently otherwise engaged, perhaps you could address the other points above, relating to an administrator taking all sides under consideration, and your concurrence that engaging in reversions while debate is under way deserves a block. In my mind, there is a lack of understanding as to the fairness of Swarm's decision and your concurrence. As Plato tells us, excellence is dependent on reason and understanding, and if instead of understanding, folly rules instead, then the result cannot be beneficial. Can you explain why I sit through a block, but others in the same edit conflict with far more reversions in a far shorter time rest undisturbed? --Pete (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cut the self-victimization crap and the assumptions of bad faith on an administrator who is exercising common sense. You weren't singled out for a draconian block for no reason, you were reported at WP:AN3 for a straightforward reason which, according to the reporter, was taking part in a larger edit war and then giving an apparent disingenuous acknowledgment that you would not continue to do so as the topic was under an active discussion, and then continuing the exact same edit war after that despite the discussion reaching no resolution in the interim; this certainly constitutes disruptive editing and edit warring. Looking at your edits I found the report to be pretty obviously factual, and you received an exceptionally lenient block in the context of your block log because I don't believe in holding people's pasts against them. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I'm not questioning the block at all. Set that aside, please. Are you able to respond to the points I raise? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dimeji Bankole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alliance for Democracy. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maya civilization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maya civilization. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

pox on all

Was just wondering if maybe you could explain all this so that a new comer like me could fully understand. As I believe this is not final yet but looks to go that way. Just not entirely clear on interaction and as far as editing on motorcycle pages with that editor all over the place. 72bikers (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You may like to add an email address for private messages. Or send me one. --Pete (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A few general comments.

The structure of the ANI discussion. A report of misbehaviour, followed by a proposal to prevent further reports. First part will not be addressed, second part will.
Proposed solution is an interaction ban. This is intended to keep two antagonistic editors apart to create peace. A parent putting two brothers at opposite ends of the dinner table, so they can't nudge or kick each other.
In this case, five editors in two groups: 4 and 1.
Four may interact freely with each other in the same way that any other editor may. However any interaction, reverting edits, lodging incident reports, discussion etc. of the fifth editor will attract sanctions. And vice versa.
So it's not an interaction ban with five mutual participants, it's four interaction bans involving one editor.
All clear?

There's also a topic ban involving "winningest". None of the five can participate in any discussion of this word, whether in general (eg. on the MoS talk page) or on article talk pages or anything in between. Or make any edits involving that word.

All five are placed on notice that they must be civil to other editors. No comments "on the other person's character, honour, intelligence, motivations, etc."

Sounds reasonable enough. My misgivings arise from the way I've seen it applied previously. If two editors have an interest in a topic or an article, the first editor to make a post in a fresh discussion effectively stakes his claim and any other party to an IBAN cannot also comment, because they are seen as responding to the first, and the first guy can then complain that the second breached the IBAN and should be punished. I have no interest in motorcycles, so this is no big deal for me, but others should direct their behaviour accordingly.

One admin will be selected to administer the IBAN. Complaints of breaches etc. will be made to this admin, who will investigate and decide on action.

So how it works out is that you don't interact or discuss or refer to in any way with the other party to a mutual IBAN. Don't discuss or add or remove "winningest". Be polite to all other editors. If you see the other party breaching any of these conditions, point it out, without any passion or rancour, along with a diff, to the supervising admin.

This assumes that the proposal will be carried, and looking at the discussion, that's a slam dunk for any admin bold enough to close it and assume the role of supervisor.

That's how I see it, anyway. Corrections welcome. --Pete (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the clear up. What concerns me the most is motorcycle pages. Party a can not revert or discuss party b but can they both edit the same article just not at the same time or make any changes to the others edits. Also what would be the best way to give you my email just post here or is there another way? 72bikers (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Email addresses may be added, changed, or deleted under Preferences or go here. A paranoid or vindictive editor will complain that he is being hounded if he edits somewhere first and the other party to the IBAN comes in later. The language at WP:IBAN suggests that there is more freedom than that, but there is some flexibility, and if an editor chooses his admins right, he can work the system to advantage. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was concerned about. So if party a edits a page then say party b edits that same page say a day latter thay can claim hounding even if the edit itself was of different information on that same page. oh ya mail. 72bikers (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There has to be some link, say the same paragraph, or the same discussion topic. Or, if one party follows another around and edits the same article or talk, even if it's quite different sections, and they usually don't edit in that area, then it would be a breach. One thing to look for, I guess, is new accounts springing up, or IP editing. Some of the accounts I've seen recently have been extremely odd. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Right I would expect that as that is easy to do. And that sounds a bit tricky as far as editing and hounding. 72bikers (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI and topic-ban request

I have closed the requested topic ban as successful; permanent link, in the "Civility/Personal attacks" section. Here's my closing summary:

From here on out, Dennis Bratland is interaction-banned from Skyring, Spacecowboy, 72bikers, and Zachlita, and vice versa, although none of those four are banned from interacting with each other. All five are topic-banned from "winningest". Per WP:BANEX, they're allowed to report ban violations, but uncivil or personal-attack-laden reports (remember that WP:WIAPA includes unsubstantiated accusations as personal attacks) will result in a block instead, or as well, for the reporter. And finally, you're reminded that further conflict with other editors will probably result in swift sanctions.

As I said elsewhere in the same process, I've closed the request earlier than normal, but in the spirit of WP:SNOW; you're free to reopen it, without notifying me whatsoever, but discussion is so strongly in favor of the topic ban that I don't imagine anything changing if you reopen it. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magna Carta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Magna Carta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maya civilization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maya civilization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

THANKS

Just wanted to thank you for your support. 72bikers (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute

Some of the editors don't fully appreciate how determined you are, about the Australian head of state topic. They don't realize, that you'll fight to the dagger ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced and notable. Some editors think their own firmly-expressed opinions negate those of reliable sources. I take no side in the dispute, apart from noting that there is one. Perhaps I take a little too much pleasure in demonstrating to others that they are ignorant. Socrates did the same, and look where that got him! --Pete (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You forget who you're posting to. You've been overly attached to this topic for over a decade. It would be best, if you'd step back & let somebody else defend the article. PS - I know, you'll never do that ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of defending the article. Heaven knows there's always more to learn and room to improve. It's about maintaining neutrality, rather than leave it to the ignorant and the partisan. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In case there's any confusion. I want you to understand that I'm not trying to drive you away from the Australian head of state topic. My concern is that you're going to drive yourself away from it, via ending up with a topic-ban. Again, walk away from that article & let others work on it, without your input. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)