User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: asking Doc to participate

Since an admin has asked Doc not to participate, I think it's better for you not to ask him back in. He's not obligated to listen to either of you, but maybe we should respect that admin's wishes. Furry-friend (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I can participate if I want to, and nobody is asking me back "in". What he said made more sense than what Boing! (who has a bad history with me and threatened me because of that) did. Doc talk 12:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Given Doc9871 is an admin himself, neither of us get to tell him what to do Furry-friend. He asked a question, I endeavoured to try and answer it, that is all. I don't care whether Doc involves himself or not, that's up to him, I just wanted to respond to his inquiry. Delivered harshly as it was. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure he's an admin? "autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker". Also, not telling him what to do. He's welcome to participate if he wants to. I thought it's best to respect the admin's wishes, and specifically said he's not obligated to do anything. Furry-friend (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend I stand corrected, he's a senior editor but does not appear to be an administrator. I recognize his comments were rough, and that perhaps he should take a break from the discussion, but that's up to him. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually since I thought of it, for clarification, a non-admin can also close a discussion at AN/I, I have multiple times and I'd be very surprised if Doc hasn't done so a number of times himself. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank God he said he won't. There are other interested parties, admins in particular, that want to take part in the discussion. Closing it now, before they have a chance to reach consensus, and before BMK even has a chance to respond, would be premature. Furry-friend (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If he had closed it, somebody would have reverted the close as inappropriate. No involved party should close a discussion, I was merely noting that any editor can close the discussion. I don't entirely know why he's being as critical of you as he is, but I believe I can trace it back to a comment I believe was by made him about WP:FRINGE and a statistic about tattoo's and crime. Also, may be worth mentioning, but the reason he so quickly responded to you here, is that he has my talk page watchlisted. Hey Doc. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I was warned for questioning participants' motives... maybe you should avoid it too. Not just Doc's motives... Furry-friend (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend Casting aspersions, that's a good reason for me to question somebody's comment. I didn't question the motive (or, that wasn't what I was most interested in). I am also not at all questioning Doc's motives. I am quite aware of the policies here, I appreciate the thoughtfulness in trying to keep me from making an actionable mistake, but, I think I'm well within boundaries with my questions. I find the insinuation that I commented on the threads for BMK to have a pound of his flesh, unfortunately misguided (if I'm being generous). Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

All the same, discussion about the discussion... maybe we could discuss the discussion after the discussion is over. Your (and my, and several others') motives were questioned, you question the motives of the person who questioned your motives back... Next thing you know there's a giant chunk of off-topic discussion and we're being accused of clogging up AN/I. Furry-friend (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed part of the comment, I still want Fortuna to answer the question. If they don't respond, I won't push it, if they do, that'll be the end of that. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your guidance and input. This is long overdue. You've been a great help to me. Robert Brukner (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the token Robert Brukner, as always, whenever you need help feel free to ping me or send me a message on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help :) Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Good call. [1] Sometimes the best thing is to ignore a comment like that and trust the closer will give it the consideration it deserves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's for the best, there's naught that I can add usefully and much that it could add as fuel. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If y'all had listened to me in the first place we wouldn't still be in this exercise in futility! I've seen a LOT of AN/I threads. I kinda have a "feel" for them. Ignore my dripping sarcasm, but understand that it comes from experience. The most BMK was ever going to get was a warning. 1RR on an article he said he's done with? So much time is still being wasted on the thread. I cast my ivote, and I will not be participating in that thread again. Good day to you, Sirs. Doc talk 05:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I understand what you were going for. A warning rarely serves a purpose, especially since these warnings are not the first, nor likely last, and thus won't have much of an effect, if any. In a way, it feels as though an action is being taken, simply to say, here we did something. That's one half of why I removed my comment, yeah, it was sarcasm, but, like I said in my edit summary "you do have a point". Don't think I'm against you Doc9871, I'm not. You summarized it well, "an exercise in futility", I just hope a lesson is learned. A lesson learned negates futility, I'll AGF and hope to see that it is. At least then, it won't have been a complete waste. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't seem futile to me. You do realize that there are editors in that thread with significantly more experience than you, right? And, it seems, a better understanding of how ANI can work than you. And we're supposed to base our analysis on an editor's actions, not if we've known them "a long, long time". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, it's futile in that BMK won't listen, a warning isn't going to work. Yet, It's all that we can realistically do, not sure about 1RR though, so can't comment. If a lesson is learned, then it wasn't futile, if not, then what exactly did we accomplish? granted, it's up to BMK to show he's learned a lesson, well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're still pretty new here so I'm not sure how much you know about how we handle long-term editors who can be problematic. Basically, it's not hey, you're suddenly getting a block for disruptive editing. They get chances to stop the behavior seen as disruptive. Informally, they get told to knock it off. More formally, they get warned via an ANI thread closure. If they still don't stop, then it can be a block via an ANI thread or an Arbcom case or an admin taking their life in their hands and doing the block. In all cases, other editors/arbcom will want to know (and rightly so) if the problem was addressed in the past and if the editor was formally warned. Note I'm speaking in general terms here, not about specific cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN I know, what I meant is more from the perspective of editors who have high regard for other editors who have been here and have contributed much to the community. You'll notice that transgressions are sometimes overlooked in favour of their positive attributes, I believe this is called "looking through a rose tinted lens" (but I'm not sure). What I am conveying, is from this perspective, if the editor doesn't change the way he interacts with other editors we stand to lose a valuable editor. No editor is irreplaceable, and this is the perspective from which I, and I think you, view it. If the editor doesn't change, that's his loss not ours. I personally, don't want to lose editors but also don't want editors to think they can waltz around and behave as they so choose. Aside from that, there's also something else. The thing is... there's a couple comments in BMK's wall response that... worry me. I hope they were heat of the moment, rather than deep seated depression. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The futility I mentioned is this; we have a good editor with less than stellar behaviour, we want to keep the editor but improve his behaviour, unless the behaviour changes (significantly) our attempt to help the editor by warning, falls flat. Greater measure is needed, and the editor could feel pushed away. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an expression: YMMV. I'm not much interested in NeilN's opinion of my "experience". He's just an admin, like so many I have seen come and go. Some agree with me, some don't. You can't learn the experience that BMK has, nor what I have. So... YMMV. Doc talk 06:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not familiar with the expression Doc, YMMV stands for? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It stands for "Your Mileage May Vary". (I guess it would be "YKMV" outside of the US ;P).

Here's a little experience example. There are other well-established editors here that I used to trade vicious barbs with. We were basically sworn enemies on certain issues. In those cases, the other editor and I thought we'd never see "eye-to-eye". But then, "something magical" happened. We mutually respected each other as editors who have the audacity to fight for what we believe in. And now, we get along just fine. True story! Doc talk 06:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, got it Doc, I get the general gist of what you mean. You can respectfully disagree with another editor on an issue, and, since you disagree, no point in arguing with each other about it. So, if we can't agree, agree to disagree and move on. Sound about right? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much! Also, quite a few of the editors I speak of are/were administrators, so don't be intimidated by the fact that another editor is an admin. Admins are not infallible; and any admin who thinks they are needs a reality check. No admin involved in any thread I've participated in recently would be what I'd call a "bad" admin, BTW. Doc talk 06:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Doc, admins are and were always members of the community like any other person. The difference being that we entrust them to administrate, not rule. I am yet to meet an admin that I think is incompetent, so for now at least, I won't be starting any feuds. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen admins at the top of their game, with tons of power and influence, get taken right out. I've also seen some really good admins quit over some bullshit reason, usually concerning another editor, that was their "final straw" on how bad this place had become at the time of their departure. The site will go on regardless. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

hesitant

Hi! I'm hesitant abotu the Iban, as I have a strong feeling that two other accounts may be related to Fouette. They need to be checked to see if they connect IP wise or by Geolocation or whatever other criteria CU use to determine related accounts. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You must file a SPI report if you want to determine if sockpuppetry is happening. The evidence must be quite compelling to get a Checkuser's endorsement. Doc talk 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc is right, you'd need to file an SPI, and bring forth compelling evidence (diffs) that the two people are one and the same. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Noting the updates to the thread Exhausted and Fed Up, it's probably for the best to see if Bbb23 will respond to your request. I am unfamiliar with the CU process and have dealt very little with SPI investigations, only marked involvement on AN/I when there is an SPI issue brought up. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not for fishing. Doc talk 09:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My talk page

I'd rather you didn't comment on others' posts to my talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I assume you refer to the EW notice, mea culpa, won't be talking on your page to other editors. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to this

"Deb, don't insult other editors because you don't like the variation of English they use." I made amendments to the article to put it into better English. There was no "error" in what I did, yet I got dragged into an edit war and received responses from the article's "minder" which included "I've told you already, this article is not in BrEng—in NAmEng likely is also used as an adverb (look it up). Now quit it."; "An edit comment like hat [sic] is straight-up trolling."; " Perhaps you could explain to everyone what your "this is English Wikipedia" edit comment meant, if it wasn't pure trolling, in light of the fact that you'd already been directed twice to why your edit was incorrect."; "Taking offense to that is beyond silly"; and worst of all, the comment was made on the ANI that "Someone should snoop around and see what connections he may have with Deb", with the clear implication that I couldn't possibly disagree with him unless I had some secret connection with another editor he happens to dislike. You know that an admin has to tread very carefully in such cases, so I would like you to tell me which of my comments you consider to be an "insult". Deb (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright hang on, let me try address all of this, Deb. 1. Is likely, likely going to be confusing as opposed to probably? 2. I don't think I said you made an error, I said the dispute over likely/probably was pointless (that was directed to all parties, not just you, in fact least of all you). 3. Which comment was insulting; "This is English Wikipedia". Yes, and clearly that article was written in English, I use likely in the place of probably very, very, often. Why? because likely can mean probably as an adverb. Is likely being properly used as an adverb, just using google define:likely, definition 1 and 2 are adjectives, definition 3 is an adverb. The Oxford dictionary is inclined to agree as is Cambridge. Whether you realize it or not, that comment, insinuated that Curley Turkey doesn't understand English or at least, not well enough. I don' think that was the intention, but, that was the result. That was how I interpreted it as well, to be entirely honest.

I also warned Curley not to call other editors trolls, because I don't think that you were trolling, I even said, probably would look more professional. To address the parts that I didn't, you bring up a set of fair points, 1. Curley Turkey violated WP:NPA with both trolling and the insinuation of sock/meatpuppet. 2. He took offense to a rather mild comment, only to accuse others of taking offense to rather rude and PA comments. So, taking into account your comments here, Curley violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Is there something you'd like done about this? or would you prefer to let it slide this time? I ask because, it's going to be a pestering drama with a predictable end. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not asking you to do anything about it. Looking at his general conduct towards other users, I can see that this is part of his M.O. and to challenge it would be a waste of time. I just don't think it was insulting to point out that we are in English wikipedia and the fact that he chooses to talk a "Canadian" version doesn't mean that a legitimate amendment should be immediately reverted. My explanation was that it's (probably) better to use an English word that's universally acceptable rather than a word that's considered grammatically incorrect in some forms of English. I know not everyone agrees on this and that "likely" has crept in (and is increasingly doing so) because "Americanese", as I call it, gets everywhere thanks to TV and film. So okay, maybe my comment sounded dismissive, but I would not call it an insult. And, frankly, I don't think he saw it as an insult either. But thanks for smoothing things over, anyway. I appreciate your efforts. Deb (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem Deb, I understand your dislike of "Americanese", I live in Australia so our education is based largely on British English, I actually was unaware that in some forms of English "likely" was only used as an adjective until yesterday. I'd always used it as an adverb. Curley, from my experience, falls on the defensive very quickly, and to an extent assumes a comment that disagrees with theirs is an attack against their position or themselves. Note, they were very quick to tell me not to "discredit" myself and then went on to "demonstrate how ridiculous you're being". Both comments were because I applied the strict to the letter wording of WP:3RR and WP:3RRNO. I supported the early close partly to avoid the thread becoming about someone else, who, should have remained uninvolved, for their own sake. In any case, hopefully you won't be dragged into a thread that has nothing to do with you again, you were used as a strawman to deflect the argument to a different party. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"why do you assume there will be a next time"?

Because Lugnuts gets blocked for edit-warring once a year. Check his block log. If he doesn't receive the (standard) increasing blocks, and his opponents always get blocks of increasing lengths, that gives him an incentive to engage in further edit-warring, which might explain why he has consistently received one EW block per year for the last five years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I understand, but, to be fair and just, to propose such a sanction it would have to wait until the next time. That thread, could have had Curly Turkey blocked far quicker then it would have had Lugnuts sanctioned with 1RR. There is a repeated pattern of violations of WP:3RR, that's true, but it's been three months since Lugnuts was blocked, and they haven't edit-warred (as far as anybody knows) since that block expired. If and when they edit-war again, then propose your 1RR sanction, because only then will it be taken seriously by the editors at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that now. I hadn't looked at the recent edit war involving Curly Turkey (as I specified several times) and so Lugnuts's somewhat ABF claims that I was "tag-teaming" with Curly Turkey are ridiculous (CT actually told me by email before I opened the thread, but I didn't notice it until later, that he was against it). The fact is that Curly Turkey's recent edit war has nothing whatsoever to do with Lugnuts's other recent edit war with Legacypac, or with Lugnuts's long history of getting blocked for edit wars. For this reason (I wasn't responding to any particular recent incident) I probably should have gone to AN rather than ANI. But I'll take your advice and wait until next time.

By the way, my apologizing to you for a poorly formatted sanction request and poor timing does not justify Lugnuts and one other's very aggressive attacks on me both in the ANI thread and Lugnuts's talk page (pointing out that my block log includes blocks for the same supposedly repeated offense that were of increasing length actually is an argument against Lugnuts, mind you). I'm going to let it go for the time being, but if it happens again that will be reason enough for some sort of request to be made.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

" I'm going to let it go for the time being" - and yet you come back here about an hour later to continue. An observer might see this as being a pathetic witch-hunt from a bitter editor. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "an hour later"? The only break I took was last night when I slept. It's not like Mr rnddude is an admin whom I am asking to block you. I am merely responding to some of the things he said in the thread that was closed before I could respond there. I am not frankly interested in responding to your bizarre personal attacks, though, and I doubt Mr rnddude appreciates you coming to his talk page to continue them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"What do you mean "an hour later" You post that at 04:29 and come back for the below at 05:45. About an hour later. Duh. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As I already said, Mr rnddude is not a sysop, so my engaging him in a conversation (or, rather, passively responding to his comments) about how bizarre your behaviour is is not the same as actively seeking sanctions against you for said bizarre behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, I have about as much power to enforce a sanction here as a cat has to enforce the day/night cycle. So, let's all go do something productive with the limited powers we do have, the edit source button on most articles could use a push. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Lugnuts' talk page, all I can say is Huh? nobody received a BOOMERANG. The thread was closed with no-action. I won't be sitting here justifying any of the comments on the thread. Like I said, if and when, then we can propose 1RR. Till then, everybody should just take a deep breathe and, carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Both you and Softlavender mentioned BOOMERANG on ANI, I believe, but me receiving a boomerang was never on the cards -- I was uninvolved in all of the disputes under discussion. Technically, even if my opening a thread about Lugnuts had resulted in sanctions against one or more of Lugnuts's opponents, it would still not have been a boomerang, as it would not have "come back and hit the thrower". A more accurate (though still not ideal) term for what happened to me is WP:TROUT, but Lugnuts would not want to admit that because he no doubt wants me to be too scared to bring up the bizarre (and still unexplained) block record the next time he edit-wars.

But misquoting PAG, wiki-essays and humour pages that serve a similar function to wiki-essays seems to be a recurring feature with Lugnuts: notice his equally bizarre link to WP:POINT early on in the ANI thread?

By the way, you didn't have to agree with Cassianto: I was not proposing punishing someone for the same crime over and over again. Bringing up block records of a user currently behaving disruptively (templating the one party to an edit war with whom he disagrees on content, when all parties to edit-wars should be told to cut it out) is perfectly acceptable; heck, even randomly bringing up another user's block record on the talk page of an article in attempt at a "gotcha!" is apparently no longer considered unacceptable (just "rude").

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Mr rnddude, and thanks for your input at the administrators' noticeboard discussion. If you were interested (and there's no pressure at all if you aren't), we currently have an RFC open at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling in which to discuss the changes to the article that I have suggested. As you took an interest in the noticeboard discussion, you may also be interested in the RfC. But if not, no matter! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Midnightblueowl, I'll take a look at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

You have a clear head, and speak sense. Thanks for the sensible comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 I could have been a little more composed, I don't think the IP editor meant harm. It's just that when policy is applied imperfectly it heightens other editors annoyance. Note, they were correct in suggesting a consensus existed but very much incorrect in suggesting how large and solid it was. They also failed to account for WP:NOTAVOTE and to bring up the fact that only policy based votes would be counted in a discussion. I gave them benefit by claiming 3 against when in reality one of those was a sockpuppet vote and one was a me too vote. It was informal between a few editors and with at least two people who didn't cast a recognizable vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for reviewing a total of 1 Milhist article during the period April to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks for the award, I wish I'd gotten around to do more B-class and A-class MILHIST reviews but alas, maybe next quarter. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiousity

I just want to see what Suggestbot is going to suggest as pages that I could work on, I figure it's worth a shot. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
48		Maximinus II (talk)						Add sources
2,172		Ancient Rome (talk)						Add sources
82		Persian Corridor (talk)						Add sources
70		How to Start Your Own Country (talk)						Add sources
5		Makaji Meghpar (talk)						Add sources
72		San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest (talk)						Add sources
113		Valentinian II (talk)						Cleanup
6		H3K27ac (talk)						Cleanup
203		Christianity in Pakistan (talk)						Cleanup
16		Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko (talk)						Expand
5,316		Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (talk)						Expand
13		210s (talk)						Expand
4,621		Al-Qaeda (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
2,250		Shooting of Oscar Grant (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
775		Micronation (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
7,555		Shooting of Michael Brown (talk)						Merge
74		Archaeology of Northern Europe (talk)						Merge
41		Legatus legionis (talk)						Merge
56		Serbia in the Middle Ages (talk)						Wikify
37		Kingdom of EnenKio (talk)						Wikify
174		Galerius (talk)						Wikify
27		Wonderland (Gugudan song) (talk)						Orphan
8		Husayn Fawzi Alnajjar (talk)						Orphan
39		Champs (band) (talk)						Orphan
4		Stefan Berislavić (talk)						Stub
43		February 2016 Kabul bombing (talk)						Stub
73		Leo II (emperor) (talk)						Stub
26		Painted Faces (talk)						Stub
24		Philippus II (talk)						Stub
78		Xiaomi Mi Band 2 (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks suggestbot, I'll have a look at these articles, cheers to the people who had created the bot. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I should thank you for your advice

I see that you have removed your comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk, but the advice was totally justified. :) My comment was indeed snarky to an editor who seems to have started editing just 3 months back. Thank you! Checks and balances like these are what helps editors grow and understand Wikipedia better. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, I was in the middle of writing a message to you on your talk page. The contents of which are (or were); "That was a rather nice thing you did back on the talk page. Many editors would have just left their comment as it was on the grounds that it was true, toning it down to de-escalate the situation is something done by the relatively few. Thanks for showing respect to another editor even though they showed none to you. Happy editing, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)"

Thank you for your kind words! Happy editing to you as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I just looked at my comments and I have absolutely no idea why my comment managed to be inserted above yours. I was composing that comment for maybe 3 minutes so I should have got an edit conflict notification, but there was absolutely none! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 I imagine it's because you started editing first, an EC will usually happen in this order. You start editing, then I start editing, you finish editing, your edit doesn't show up on my page, and therefore when I finish editing I get an edit-conflict. In your case, since you started editing first, it doesn't matter that I finished editing first as the page had nothing it felt needed to be reconciled. That at least is how I understand it. Hope it makes sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. Yes, that sounds plausible. Thank you! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No harm intended

Hi there,

1, let me thank you for trying to help. 2, sorry, but I don't think asking someone politely to stay out of something is considered an insult! 3, This whole episode has been very unfortunate, but it wasn't me who started it. Therefore, do not blame me for someone else's mistakes. Thank you Mona778 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mona778, perhaps I may clarify, your request to have somebody stay out of a discussion (anywhere on Wikipedia) is one that is rarely appropriate (this is especially true on articles and discussion boards, but also, on user talk pages as well). The only appropriate time to do so is to have somebody drop the stick before they make an actionable violation (usually used at AN/I) or on your own talk page if you feel discomfort at another editor's actions. My initial comment was not with the intention of blaming you, rather, with clarifying policy. I removed my second comment about civility, which was not directed at you, because I saw no function in it. If anything it could have escalated the disagreement further. I can always direct you towards those policies that may apply, but, few people, if any, want to take the time to review them. Yes, the episode was unfortunate, so were the reactions to it. A note about civility, what you intend and what you say often end up being two very different things. I will try break it down a little further by referring to your comment;

Hi Lemongirl942, would you please stay out of this and mind your own business. I don't think I have mentioned you anywhere in my post, which prompted you to make a comment here. By the way, I mean no disrespect, but I think your edits need to be tagged and copy edited as well, especially after those I saw you made to that article. Ah, I almost forgot! Do not ping me again, please. Thank you.

— Mona778

• "mind your own business" - wholly inappropriate to tell an editor to mind their own business, Wikipedia is their business and so are any discussions on any page on this site. The only exceptions to these are; 1. if you are blocked, 2. if you are under editing restrictions (that prevent you from joining a discussion without violating that restriction) or 3. if the pages require authorization for you to access.
• "I think your edits need to be tagged and copy edited as well" - When you make a claim, even outside of mainspace, back it up with examples. I am certain that Lemongirl would have gone to those pages and copy-edited her comments if needed.
• "Ah, I almost forgot! Do not ping me again" - Unnecessary don't you think? not in any sense a violation, but, a bit combative as a response.

I could make similar points towards Lemongirl's initial response, however, because she removed, out of respect for policy and others, the "snark" from her comment I see no reason to do so. If you need any help or have any queries you can of course post them on my talk page. Lastly, I responded to the comments on FIM's page because they are part of my watchlist and I am notified of any changes made over there. In any case, see you around in hopefully better circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, no harm intended, and I thank you again for trying to be helpful. Regards, Mona778 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work on GANs. Have a nice month! Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Borsoka, appreciate it, it's part of the ongoing backlog drive for the month. I'm hoping to help clear out as much of the backlog as possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal thank you for reviewing the Augustan History article

Hi Mr rnddude,

Just a personal message of thanks for all your help in getting the Augustan History article over the line. It was a pleasure to work with you on this, and your input and help were very much appreciated. Have a good day :) Oatley2112 (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Milam Building

Thanks for your help in the review. i look forward to the collaboration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Self-pinging

Oy. You're right. And interestingly, no, it doesn't appear to have notified me.

I would go back in and change it, but then he might think I've just added something new to continue the disagreement, so it might be safer if I don't.

I must say, it's been very collegial interacting with you. It's nice when editors can hash out their differences — or their non-differences, pretty much in our case! — in a civilized way My kudos to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Any time Tenebrae, my goal is not to argue points but rather discuss, back and forth as required until we have a viable resolution to the issue. That's really the only way to get anywhere on AN/I. Far too often does a stringent and literal interpretation of the rules block any chance for discussion, as such, while I call it how I see it, I am open to amend how I see it if given a good reason to do so. Feel free to ping me if any assistance is needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)