User talk:Mjr162006

Welcome

Hello, Mjr162006! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Yo.

What's shakin'? --kaoskastle (Talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaat? Dude, you've clearly been on since I posted that. ANSWER ME. >:( --kaoskastle (Talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

True, I guess you CAN'T be too careful, but whatev'. But yeah, I found you here and was like "wtfohsdoljghjit's matt" and so I said "yo". And YES I am an internet stalker. Ask any of my friends. :D --kaoskastle (Talk) 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget me! Yesh, I just signed up today. I've always stopped registering with wikipedia because of how freakin' busy the place is. Oh, look vandal-oh, it's already reverted. Hey look, anot-Oh, that too. Maybe I can get th-GAH!!!! FRIGGIN' QUICKNESS! Thi place is nothing like ZeldaWiki. That place goes hours sometimes without vandalism/edits. Then again, that puts us at an advantage, because we have less vandals. --TheSeaIsBlue (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, and thanks! I was using Huggle and eventually I just gave up on visiting any other pages and just sat on my page hitting revert! RainbowOfLight ^Talk 06:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

bat article moves

As I just explained to user:Sandahl I'm not renaming articles, simply sorting the capitalisation of bot-generated article per WP:MOS because they stick out like sore thumbs in the list of bats article. If that creates problems elsewhere that I'm not aware of then please let me know, it seemed like the right thing to do on a boring evening. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason I should know about for you seemingly reverting my moves? I've discussed them with User:Sandahl and got the go-ahead. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A vast majority of those were formal animal names. Those are supposed to be capitalized. That is why.Mjr162006 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm reverting the whole lot. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to discuss this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_bats#Taxonomy_and_the_use_of_capital_letters_in_common_names -- Timberframe (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: How was that better?

Hey I was reverting back to what the anon user wrote because I had a tough time understanding if what he wrote was vandalism or not. Cheers! Maxis ftw (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism, correct. But not better than the original.--Matt (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, it was not better. But I am glad you were there to provide a second opinion/editor judgment. Maxis ftw (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

I decided to get a regular Wiki as well, because editing my profile kicks ass on wikis, ^_^ Thanks again for all the editing tips back on ZW, its helpful. Zapdemon (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hey man, I hate to sound so stupid but, could you give me a link to the userboxes? I can't seem to find them. Sage of Cosmos (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar problem. It took me some time to find them. They are here. The nav panel at the bottom will take you to them.—Matt (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This site is a lot different from ZW. The recent changes page makes me dizzy. I seem to perfer our quiet wiki. Sage of Cosmos (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Dayton shooting

You're very close to personal attack territory with your comments about MelanieN. Please dial it back. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion:I was entirely unaware citing a violation of Wikipedia policy is a personal attack. Though in hindsight it probably was not a good idea to speculate on someone's motivations for ignoring policies and can see how it could be interpreted that way. I should have put more thought into how I worded things. For that part at least I apologize. --Emma (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

From the thread: "You're clearly advocating your own personal beliefs and gaming the system to support your beliefs... You don't simply get to declare they're invalid because you're personally prejudiced against trans people without saying why and how. This information is well-sourced by extremely notable outlets, you have nothing to stand on. I'll have to report this incident to dispute resolution if you do not stop edit warring with people over your entirely personal views." That isn't an acceptable manner in which to address a good=faith editor who is concerned about your compliance with Wikipedia policy on BLP. You're attacking the person and not addressing content. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned the talkpage and article in general terms at WP:ANI - I didn't mention any editors specifically and don't see a need to at the moment, but I think it best to let you know. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion:I'm going to tread as carefully as possible and I want it on the record that I told you I'm making every attempt to be civil. I do not believe you are using your administrator powers appropriately in this case. I am doing as instructed in WP:ADMINABUSE in informing you I believe you are using your status as an admin to shut down opposing points of view. I disagree that your statements regarding me have any validity and I believe that I am not being held to same standard and are not being given the right to have Assume good faith applied to me. You immediately assumed my attempts to point out policy was being disregard to be a personal attack when you did not do the same when yourself and a fellow administrator made the exact same declaration. And you have repeatedly scolded myself and others for not following a policy that you have been very explicitly shown does not apply by that policy page's own very clearly worded clarification that leaves absolutely no wiggle room to apply in the manner you're attempting. This does not strike me as you being impartial. You belittled and humilated people in doing exactly what you just accused others of doing. I sincerely believe you need to step away from this issue and let another administrator handle the case at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting. As an act of good faith on my part, that is precisely what I am going to do myself. I am not going to participate in the Dayton shooting discussion any further. It's getting too heated and I feel I was being personally attacked simply because I did not agree and I do not wish to be subjected to more of that or more of these baseless accusations. --Emma (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There's already a thread at ANI about the talkpage conversation. You are welcome to complain there if you feel you need to. However, your language, as you have observed yourself, was intemperate. As long as you moderate your tone and remember that everybody,as far as I can see in that conversation, was acting in good faith, I see no further issue. I have not involved myself in the specific discussion and don't intend to. The discussion has clearly not been shut down, but the interaction between editors has improved. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been around the block. You could say this is not my first rodeo. Behavior improved not when you said the things you did, but after you put up a listing in the ANI. I would really appreciate it if you did not speak to me as if I am ignorant of these things. I have been a wiki administrator almost as long as you and I have been one of the main people in charge of one I actually co-founded for over eight years. We founded that wiki explicitly because staff members at the old one believed that their status made them better than everyone else. They participated in an extreme amount of bullying. They considered pointing out that they violated the rules to be a personal attack against them. I am going to tell you a story and I must stress right now it's not about you or anyone here. I'm providing it for context so you can understand my behavior and my position. That's all.

With the excessive abuses and bullying that went on at the older wiki I originally worked on fresh on everyone's mind , in my position at my newer wiki I have had to remove admins for conduct like that as well as admins who utilized their authority to protect conduct like that. We didn't want a repeat of the disaster we had at the first one. We just wanted everyone to get along without unnecessary drama. The solution I had to prevent abuse like this worked miraculously well. And that was to not allow anyone whatsoever to even issue warnings of any kind without discussing it with other staff members first. By taking away that ability, you removed the temptation to abuse it because if you know you're in the wrong you'll know you're not going to convince a group of others to do what you want. And if you were unaware of how you were being biased, having to prove your case first would almost always expose that bias before anyone was hurt and vastly help people self-improve and catch themselves when doing something they didn't realize they were doing.

I have lost very dear friends that let power go to their head. I had three very close and cherished friends that got promoted into staff. I took no part in their promotion, I recused myself because of the obvious conflict of interest. They proved themselves to be pillars of the community, defenders of everyone, striving to be fair and equal. Always trying to make sure no one was hurt. After getting power, they turned into complete monsters that bullied almost everyone they could and actively undermined the place. And I'm pretty sure they even got close to endangering people's lives with such severe bullying. There are some people I know were crying over it that I never heard from again. I was forced to advocate for their removal despite prior to this being among my closest and most precious friends. That's why I'm adamant about this policy. You can't have an experience like that and not take this seriously. It protects people, including those it's applied to. This policy keeps good people from being taken in by power they're given. Even the best of people can be taken in and become that which they swore to oppose. I kept my objectivity because I guilt-ridden over a case where I bullied someone pretty badly (to the point they cried, many times) when I was younger and I never stopped regretting it and it's always in the back of my mind when I conduct myself in any way that uses my experience to back it up.

With that little story, hopefully you understand where I am coming from a bit better. I know we're not going to change Wikipedia's policy overnight, but I think it's a good idea for you to embrace this consensus-driven policy yourself. Consensus is a principle building block of how wikis function and it should be a part of every part of the process because it's fantastic at one thing in particular: diluting or even eliminating bias. No one is all-knowing. Before I started talking in there, it didn't occur to me that an official report of fully completed police investigation would be very helpful. Everyone can learn something everyday and everyone can have a blind spot they can have others help them with. I am always looking out for accidentally hurting someone, as it's something I want to avoid doing again--Emma (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)