User talk:ToeSchmoker

Welcome!

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

OK. I will maybe look when I have time.

Yours with love, ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angry white man

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll jump through hoops in the talk page if that's what you want. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the WP:3RR Rule

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You obviously know what edit warring is, based on your comment "Consider starting a discussion instead of starting an edit war". Yet you then go on to violate the bright line WP:3RR rule by reverting four times in the span of ten hours, as seen by your reverts here: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Are you planning on admitting your mistake and self-reverting your 4th revert, or do you intend to leave this to administrator action? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so terribly sorry for doing 4 reverts back to the established version of a page. I will now proceed to right my wrongs and undo my edits. Out of curiosity, are you planning on adhering to WP:BRD in future? Continually editing a page away from its status quo and then using 3RR to snare editors trying to restore said status quo isn't a particularly productive way to go about editing. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self-reverting. I haven't been endeavoring to do any "snaring"; I thought you would stop at 3RR, and was surprised when you continued. If my position about consensus is confusing, I'll post on the Article's Talk Page about that on my next edit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Art and Ideas

Hello, ToeSchmoker,

Just a reminder that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), you must post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. I find it easiest to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion and post notices...once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these notices for you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the use of self-published sources when they are on themselves

Hi, you recently removed my section in the Black Midi article about how during the 2021 tour, Geordie would change the lyrics of 953 to lyrics referencing The Orange Tree Boy's demise before the show. The source I used was from Reddit, but is still allowed to be used as a source as it is about the content sourcing it (that is, the statement that 953's lyrics were changed to be about The Orange Tree Boys.) You removed it, claiming the source isn't about itself, but is about black midi. I agree, it is about black midi, but something they specifically did. On Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, it says that sources from user-generated content sites, such as Reddit, are allowed, and at Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Using self-published sources it gives the example of "'The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control,' the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published.". Isn't this the same with my Reddit source? The video in the source shows the band changing the lyrics of 953 to be about The Orange Tree Boys, supporting the claim I made on the article.

Also, I gotta say, you got a killer userpage.

JungleEntity (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ion give a shit ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/r26yq3/the_wikipedia_page_titled_mass_killings_under/

FUC K I NG F AG YOU COM M IE SH IT HEAD, DONT DELETE THE ARTICLE OR I'LL KILL YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.238.144 (talk)

May you find happiness in your life. Yours with love, ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[1]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]