To Leave a New Message Please click here to start a new Section. Remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. (I will respond on my talk page unless you specify otherwise.) Thank you.
I prefer to maintain the continuity of threads by keeping them in a single location when possible. If you post a message here I will almost certainly reply here. If I've left a message on your user talk I will watch your page for any reply.
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:I agree that the article presents problems. There has been input by other editors on the talk page, though. Perhaps you could provoke interest in resuming some method of for addressing the situation. Tiderolls17:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's gonna be a different look, professor, to be sure. Minkah's back (bless his heart), and Hurts and Scarbrough should be able to slice and dice. I'm sorry...I miss #22 and #56. Phreaking Ho-meric.<---it's a The Quiet Man reference. A bit before your time but ya can't beat the Fitzgerald brothers...and John Ford's brother has a cameo. Tiderolls12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling an experienced editor an vandal. I only did that to Jim1138 (talk) because he is only an online fraud and vandalises many people's edits like mine's. You really deserve a barnstar for trying to do the right thing. Can we be friends?Thechinesekid (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your barnstar for doing the right thing. If you want to help me, please delete Jim1138's account if you can. He is making a lot of trouble for us so far. Thechinesekid (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That could have gone a bit better, but it could have gone a lot worse. Defense was good, and OL showed promise, though I'm sure we all want to see domination from the start. But the first W is there. Take it easy Tide--drop on by in your state capitol one of these days.
I guess I missed you on your many trips to the heart of Dixie. Ah well. What do you think? Are we going to give up a TD on this drive? Are we going to put some pressure on the QB or what? Is the taco meat I'm making too spicy? After how many does tequila become a bad thing? Is there any use to Boy Scoutism at all? Questions, questions, Tide rolls, and you're not answering any. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I still wore a shirt--just not my lucky shirt. I'm saving it for when we need it. Take it easy, and remember I got your coffee ready in the Capital of Dreams. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my recent log and ask yourself if I could have any thoughts left, haha! The sheer repetitivenes of semi-protecting and proxy-blocking...I'm going to get more coffee and pretend to do some work. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
In response to the message you left on my talk page, I respectfully disagree. It is more important to avoid providing obviously incorrect information / misinformation, than it is to follow some "policy" on providing so-called references, which may, or may not, be scientifically correct, depending upon the age of the material in question. Therefore, I regard the failure to obtain consensus or to state a valid objective FACT that may support contradictory to my edit to be outright vandalism, where the challenger fails to obtain consensus. Especially, where the revisionist was clearly attempting to elicit a negative response. Mind you, this is my interpretation of policy, where policy appears to contradict itself at best, in my opinion.So, again, I reiterate the fact that I respectfully disagree with everything you have to say on the topic. That said, it is still clearly WRONGFUL to modify other people's edits without at least having brought any issues to their attention FIRST. (Thats called having basic RESPECT for others!) Therefore, this guy was clearly in the wrong, either way you want to look at it. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person is giving no explanation for the change in the Edit summary or in the talk page. I think the page needs to be locked for a little bit-Æ-202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Æ-202. The most recent edits I saw didn't appear to be vandalism. That's mostly due to my inexperience with the subject matter. Has there been a long term effort to change the information in the article against consensus? Could you direct me to where the consensus was determined? There could be a case made for disruption if there has been a long term problem. Thanks for helping watch over the article; I'd be glad to help out where I'm able. Just get the info to me that shows the disruption. Tiderolls13:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this edit and felt it was a stellar explanation and was very encouraging. It's everything Wikipedia should be, and often isn't. It's also a good reminder to me of how to approach an editor who really does appear to be trying but doesn't seem to be finding their legs. Well done! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Walter. I was trying to restrain myself; your positive feedback helps my confidence. I'll try to make the same effort in the future. Happy New Year Tiderolls13:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to undo vandalism from IP address user[2] who gives no source links in order to prove the changes they've he/she made, but user Ifnord[3] is putting the vandalism back on the page without providing proof either.108.82.12.132 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in your message is not reinstating vandalism. Please see WP:NOTVAND. Additionally, you are edit warring and employing juvenile edit summaries. I implore you to stop these behaviors and begin discussing your differences on the article talk pages. Tiderolls20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there--I've never seen this page about bicycles let alone edited it, yet I have a note telling me my edit was reverted. I have a login, and no one has ever used this computer IP address except me, ever.
How could this happen? The edit also looks homophobic; I don't want to be associated with it.
@Syelle: One of the advantages of registering an account is that your IP address is, for the most part, known only to you. Hopefully that will alleviate any worry regarding being associated with the edit in question. I can't help explain how the edit occurred; further, I believe that to pursue the matter would mean revealing personal information that would be best avoided. If my post is unclear or you'd like further discussion please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your explanation. You gave a much better explanation than the other editor for why we should not use flags in the climate article. His or her best explanation for why we should not use flags...it's too much clutter. So he/she unilaterally decided to undo about an hour's worth of work because he/she felt it was too "cluttered". That looks and sounds like vandalism. G. Capo (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, @G. Capo:. If you check WP:VAND you'll see a definition of: ..editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Edits may be frustrating in their result, or even incorrect, and still not be vandalism. I apologize for harping. My aim is to provide sufficient information to help you understand. Thanks for your patience, Tiderolls15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User DasallmächtigeJ[6] is stating the on Mad Max video game page that's it's both a prequel and a sequel to Fury Road[7], however the source links on the page don't support that claim.
"A Mad Max game is coming, but it's not going to be related to any of the movies, because of Avalanche's radical position that movie tie-ins are pretty terrible."
"A Mad Max game is in development, but don't call it a movie tie-in. Developer Avalanche Studios is making it clear that their upcoming game, based on the long-standing franchise, is not tied to any of the films, particularly the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road."[8]
"The studio is very clear that this game is in no way associated with the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road movie starring Tom Hardy, that it is very much an original, standalone story, set in a standalone world."[9]
The official comic book doesn't show the events of the video game[10] and the Mad Max wiki doesn't use the events of the game on the character's page, "Do not put information from the video game. It is not canon.".[11]
DasallmächtigeJ is not only putting in his opinions on the page but links to opinions from people who didn't work on the game and had nothing to do with it.108.208.136.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I expanded the article with several sources on how the film and the game are connected. The user appears to be some sort of errate fan, his only excuse for removing my content is that it a.) doens't appear in a comic book (because obviously you put out a comic book with the exact same content as a game and of course they can't have two separate stories) and his assertion that b.) because the developers stated that it is not a frame-by-frame reproduction of the movie it of course cannot be a prequel. I tried to reason with him, but he simply reverted the edit and cleaned his talk page. I actually don't like doing this, but I will have to report him now and suggest to protect the page.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User DasallmächtigeJ is still not providing any real proof from the studio, the developer or from George Miller himself that would backup his claim that's it's connected to the film. The video game's story doesn't even fit Fury Road or any past Mad Max film. Mad had a baby boy, not a preteen girl, Glory in the game isn't the same from the movie and comic book (written by Miller). Max meets her and her mother differently, the car he has at the end of the game is not the same as the one seen at the beginning of Fury Rad. Like I said, user DasallmächtigeJ is just using a review's opinion and speculation, that's not how wikipedia articles work. The way he's editing the page, it doesn't make any sense, it's not connected the film... and yet... it somewhat is...108.208.136.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Last year you blocked User:Dino nam for edit warring. That I know of, this user was involved in a protracted dispute over at Battle of Ia Drang with User:Tnguyen4321. That user is now subject to a restriction on editing the article. Since October last year, new user Special:Contributions/Day_to_day has been sporadically editing the article with what looks to me like the same agenda as Dino nam. Day to day has only ever edited this article. I don't actually necessarily disagree with this person's edits, but if he is a sock of banned user Dino nam, then in all fairness they should not be allowed to stand. I don't know how to go about confirming these suspicions. Could you advise what I should do, please? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Factotem, thanks for your message. I agree that the circumstances are suspicious but I have not seen enough behavioral similarities to convince myself of the possibility that the two accounts are operated by the same individual. I also agree that Tnguyen4321 should not be penalized by their commitment to stay away from the article. I would offer this option: gather some diffs that demonstrate your concern and file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The procedure is relatively easy to execute. That way you will be able to obtain more input. Thanks for the help with the article; don't worry, it's still on my watchlist. Tiderolls18:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the same person who is undoing edits for no reason other than to get back at someone. Something needs to be done (if anything can be done) about this person since it's pretty clear that there not going to stop at all.
107.77.229.4[12] (blocked but that's not really doing anything by the looks of it)
I don't mean to get off topic here, but I want to be honest, so please believe me when I say that I'm not here to cause any trouble or get into an edit war with anyone. I came here to someone like you to let you know about this, I have no control over what IP address I get, I'm at the mercy of AT&T's DSL connection and anybody who owns this thing knows that it sucks.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.137.111 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see vandalism; you'll have to pardon my ignorance but what I'm seeing is a content dispute. Tbe other editor's changes may be disruptive and/or incorrect but due to my lack of knowledge I can't call tbe changes vandalism. My advice would be to contact other editors on whatever Wiki project talk page that applies and make your case tbere. What you've described is complicated and best addressed by tbose familiar with tbe subject. As for the issue of dynamic IP addresses; register an account. Thanks for taking the time to post here. Tiderolls02:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a discography that I copied in its entirety from the Italian wiki page...which I carefully cleaned up and translated into English. So, congrats on improving this pathetic page for Rise Stevens? No, of course not. Instead some fool editor shows up and decides to randomly delete parts of it, no explanation given other than "unsourced" (as if I have to prove to his perfect satisfaction - it's always a he - that every one of these widely known recordings actually exist). No discussion, certainly no investigation of the actual facts on his part, just vandalism to prove he has the power to delete whatever the heck he wants.
And you show up once I restore it and declare, absent any evidence, that I am a sockpuppet - rather than the obvious fucking explanation that my ISP assigns new IPs every time I log on.
Is there an ounce of sense in any of you puffed up Wikipedia editors? Any sense at all in there? Yikes, every time I deal with one of you types I decide I must be the fool for thinking that any of you can actually be reasoned with.
I realize I'm being trolled but on the off chance you really do give a damn, go to the article talk page and attempt to discover what the consensus for your changes may be. Tiderolls19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no discussion, neither initiated by you nor by the fool who deleted my posting, nor by an earlier fool who waded in a week or two ago (using a bot) and deleted my additions arbitrarily. It's just one self-important editor after another deleting stuff which is either borrowed in its fucking entirety from another language version of wikipedia, or basic consensus among people who know anything about the opera singer.
And wtf constitutes "trolling", apart from the fact that I have rightly criticized your arrogant assertion of power? Do trolls improve wikipedia pages by adding needed fucking content? Jesus H. Christ you people are pathetic.
That was enjoyable, Tide rolls--though not as enjoyable AS THAT CRAZY SH*T TUA PULLS OFF EVERY SINGLE WEEK. You ready for tonight? I got pork in the slow cooker, and some low-budget but not too low bourbon. Plenty of beers. Note that I'm NOT wearing my lucky Bama shirt since I don't want to use up all its mojo when we don't need it--if you think Missouri is going to be a dangerous game, let me know and I'll change. CUZ U WITH UR ARROGANT ASSERTION OF POWER HAVE AUTHORITAY Drmies (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I come back here to report, Tide rolls, that I just blocked this same person and his entire range; they've been fucking around since 6 May 2016, and I saw that they left a comment on your talk page. Who would think that I would have responded at that time--and that my good friend Shock Brigade Harvester Boris dropped by? I am going to get me some Evan Williams in his honor; Boris was a Midwesterner, and respected a good football team if he saw one, and I learned a lot from him. Hope you are well, Tide rolls. What a mess, huh. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, Professor, when I saw "What is wrong with you?" in your edit summary I was somewhat concerned. Thinking I may have clicked a wrong button somewhere and RevDel'd 40 or 50 FAs or blocked Jimbo, I was relieved to find it referenced an old section header. Things here are much the same as everywhere; folks are grumpy for dozens of different reasons that none of us can control. I'll join you in the Evan Williams project, if only to help the folks over at the Alcohol Control Board with a cash infusion. Thanks for the heavy lifting on the troll deal and I hope you and yours are well. Tiderolls12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to update the page for Barton Peveril Sixth Form College - I work for the College and it is within my job description to do so. Please could you help me do this?
Kind regards,
George Robson
@Ggrbsn: Hi, George. I addressed this issue on your user talk page (found here) with this edit. Basically, you are advised not to edit the article directly. If you have content to add or believe content needs to be removed, leave a message on the article's talk page (found here). Let editors that do not have a close relationship with the article's subject make the changes. Regards Tiderolls14:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, @N1631:, you'll have to find someone that can translate that for me. I'll check the article revision history to see if anything obvious jumps out at me. Tiderolls12:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, @N1631:, I see part of the problem. First, you need to stop reverting the changes on that article immediately. You are jeopardizing your editing privilege by edit warring (see WP:Edit warring). Your next action needs to be determining consensus by discussing the content on the article talk page. Before you do that please consult WP:Article titles. Tiderolls12:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely fouled up on a cu report this evening and more or less have seem to have been ignored by 2 cu's as a result - which gives one a complete sense of despair as to when this guy comes back again...(see block history) - he simply keeps going the same way - I have Indonesian, but most of the language and words used are gobbldegook - as confirmed by a since retired admin with good dual language capacity. The editor is incapable of editing in english by the way. JarrahTree14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, @JarrahTree: I'll look into the matter further but I'm at work so someone else may act before me. In any event they seemed to have stopped for the moment. Tiderolls14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
very sorry to have interfered with processes - the editor has been blocked, and my ineptness at spi reporting has been picked up by a couple of very considerate cu's... if only the real world had the equivalent level of help...JarrahTree14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the blame, won't change reality. That's why Nick gets mad whenever the media takes these games lightly. You always have to play 100 percent. Tiderolls20:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this will be a wonderful night for me to do some real admin work and stuff. Can you believe it? The opposite of last year? And two great teams, much respect to Georgia? Unbelievable. Mrs. Drmies and I are still teared up--love Jalen Hurts. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tiderolls! I would like to apologize to you and the wikipedia community in advance for not providing you with an explanation as to why I removed the text that you had highlighted. The reason being is that the underline portion that was deleted did not sufficiently match the definition of a nuclear family, which is definitively considered to be a two parent household, composed of a man and a woman, with children. What was previously there was a misconstrued, minsinterpreted version of the term that doesn't match with the definition that I provided above and is considered to be the correct definition. I apologize for the inconvenience that this brought upon you, and I hope that this had given you clarity to the subject matter. Along with this, I'd like to thank you for keeping me on track because I acknowledge that not providing a reason for editing was very negligent of me. I will take your advice for the future when I edit (add or remove) content from the website.
Hello Tide rolls, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tide rolls. Since this person still did not stop his disruptive editing through various IPs until 2019, I have decided to create the long-term abuse casepage of him. In case there is something that I missed there, would you mind to add additional information there? Dl2000 are also invited to share any additional information since he also have been dealing with the person several times before. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts at achieving excellence at Wikipedia, but your admonishment to me that I should "exercise restraint" in my summaries is off base and unnecessary.
In summarizing my edits, I would rather err on the side of diligence than negligence as instructed by Wikipedia. I don't assume people have prior knowledge in understanding my edits so I make an effort to be clear, also as instructed by Wikipedia. In writing edit summaries, I am aware that some of the people who might read my summaries are either quite tied to the subject and sensitive to edits or beginners who are learning how and why edits are made.
Wikipedia encourages editors to be thorough in their summaries, recommending restraint only as it pertains to not "...writing essays about 'the truth' or longwinding arguments with fellow editors."
Finally, in the scheme of things, how do my thorough summaries possibly impact you or other Wikipedia editors? Surely, there are far more important ways to spend your time, energy and skill to improve Wikipedia.
My comments are correct and it is counterproductive to revert the talk page to the previous revision. When incorrect material is the subject of lengthy discussion that is five years old, it is an impediment to readers. No one will bother to sort through all the text that I deleted, nor should they have to. I see from the talk page guidelines that there is an acceptable way to clean up pages so I will look into that. THX.
hello, could you please specifically tell which part of my edit is out of MoS and out of guideline version? I was very careful to make wholesale reversions. It took me sometime to get that info with authentic sources and insert it in Elections in India. My objective was to make that page one place for all Lok sabha and Vidhan sabha elections more interactive (the insertion of maps & tables) and easy to consume for readers. Please help me in finding out what exactly is wrong as all my edits are factually correct. So please quote the specific guidelines which i violated. thanks--Shoonyea (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
I fail to see how such information such as this[21] is needed when it does nothing for page and just comes across as Trivia.108.208.136.189 (talk)
I'd advise bringing this point to the article t page. Oh, and stop reverting the article content until consensus is determined. Tiderolls06:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are u talking about dude i didn't see any pervious post of u dont know what post are u talking about just what edits are u talking about if there's something wrong hey im sorry ok didnt want to piss u or anyone ethier way i wont repaet again i promisse ok.CCVolk23zx (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh IM SO SOOOOOOOOOOOO SO Sorry i though didn't know of that i though that was something u could remove and that's it but IM SO SO SO SORRRRYYYYY!!!!!!!!! I WON'T repeat THIS EVER AGAIN IM SOOOOOOOOOOOO SO SORRY DUDE im SOORY i didn't knew of that rule ill promise i won't do THIS EEEEEEVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEER AGAIN IM SOOOOORY.CCVolk23zx (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DUDE IM REEEEALY SOORRYY because i didn't and i dont want to mislead anyone if there's something to be said will say it ok IM JUST SORRY and I WON'T REAPEEAAAT THIS EVER AGGGGGAAAINNNNNNNNN OK SORRY :( IM REALLY SORRY OK.CCVolk23zx (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By The Way to finish that subject about Fox Sports Asia u guys were right IM SOOOOOO SO SORRY Next Time i Will Check more my sources ok IM REAAALY SORRY AND THE Consensus is already done it will still be kept FS Asia im REEEEEEEEAALLLLLLLLLY SOORRYYYYYYYYY PLEASSSE IM REALY SOOOOOOOORYYYY :( . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCVolk23zx (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is in case of u didn't see the messages now u know ok just read what is below im SOOOO SORRY OK.
Fine dude i wont revert anything PLEASE DON'T block me OK IM SORRY OK i wont revert anything IM SO SO SORRY lesson dude i wont revert anything OK SOOOOORRRY OK if its to do that i'll talk to u or one of them in order to have no trouble or any problems OK IM SOOO SOOOOO SOORY i dont want to make problems or anything such ok im just to do this for hobby and to have fun and avoid problems SOORY for the problems next i will behave better OK thanks.CCVolk23zx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw ur first ur next to also avoid any trouble im also going to talk to them in talk page of the articles to avoid what's happening recently ok im SO SO SO SOOOOOOOOOORYYYY :(.CCVolk23zx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If u dont see my message read this ok in case u forget ok
I just read the article u want competence that's fine i have that now u said that u want me to prove u wrong right then will do it ok i already said give me one week if fail then u can block but if succeed then u prove right i already talked what is need to be talked ok thanks.CCVolk23zx (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Chris, I share your pessimism. Best practice is to let another admin (or two) make their assessment, though. Kinda make sure I didn't overlook something. Thanks for helping out on those articles. Tiderolls20:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a splitting headache and missed Eli's play-by-play (I ditched the satellite). I was a bit taken aback by the score but I had a reassuring report from my boss who attended the game. Tua is supposed to be ready by LSU. I DID see them play...it will be a game. Roll Tide Tiderolls13:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Yes, damn. Well, I'm ready for next year. Wore my Alabama t-shirt to Rouses Sunday...was the recipient of many compassionate stares. Hell, we do this every year...let's go again! Tiderolls13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Tr. MarnetteD|Talk21:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wishes. They are yummy but beware - as with most warm alcohol drinks - they go down easy and one or two go a looong way :-P MarnetteD|Talk22:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tide, from my understanding, you have rollback my edit along with others in The StarHub TV page. May I know the exact reason why? I get that the removal of the channels from that page would easily fall under the WP:NOTDIR, but I don’t entirely get the reasoning behind the removal of the entire set top boxes models section and the smart card part. I understand that for the set top box model, the pricing part could be considerable as WP:NOTPROMO, but I feel that the other parts of the set top box section and the smart card part would bring encyclopedic info directly related to how StarHub TV works, similar to, but not exactly, like, for example, Mac Mini page, where information about the tech specs of each model is listed clearly. I would like to hear your opinions, as, me as relatively newly active member could be wrong in my version of understanding how wikipedia pages should contain info. --Vincentneo (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the honors to Ponyo; they may have knowledge about the situation unknown to me. I normally don't get wound up about what anonymous folks post about me on the internet. Tiderolls20:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tide Rolls - I see you have recently been following some of the Bidhan Singh socks, and you semi-protected Indian order of precedence earlier today. As can be seen at User:Arjayay/B S, the sock only very rarely uses the same IP for more than 24 hours, and has never gone back to an earlier IP, making blocking the IPs pointless, whilst their ranges seem too large for range-blocks? I have previously asked for several pages to be protected: the first four were protected, for a month, but I requested protection of their replacement pages too soon, and was told there had not been enough disruption. I wonder if you are willing to semi all the recent targets that are not currently protected? These are:-
Of course, the problem with protecting the articles is that he will just choose new targets, making it more difficult to clean up after him - any thoughts? - Arjayay (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arjayay:, of course I will take a look at these. At the very least I will add them to my watch list. If the individual chooses to move to other articles someone will notice and we'll pick up the pieces then. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Tiderolls17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you mind considering revdelling the edits of 82.41.59.191 (talk·contribs) on Continent? They appear to be targeting a specific person, and provide a discord link. My understanding is that these would fall under revdel policy. Best, CMD (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, CMD. Apologies for the late reply. I've revdel'd the edits you pointed out (we EC'd and I see that you are aware of my actions) and contacted Oversight for suppression. I don't know if the edits were a real risk, but I decided not to take a chance. Oversight will let me know if I've over stepped. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Tiderolls13:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tide rolls Thanks for blocking todays Bidhan Singh IP at List of state leaders in 2017. As you may know, I try to log all the IPs used at User:Arjayay/B S The range of IPs being used has recently reduced possibly as a result of Covid 19. I put the latest set of 106.207.**.*** IPs (listed on the edit page in hidden text) into a range-calc tool and it returned
IPv4 Range: 106.207.0.0/17
Size: 32768
IPv4 Subranges: 106.207.0.0/17
I don't understand range-blocks - Is this too many to cover? - I'm sure it won't stop him, but should cause inconvenience - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.
The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.
The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
Are you ready? Alabama shirts and hats totally outnumbered Auburn shirts at the Farmers Market and at the Winn Dixie--that's a good sign. And who knows, Ole Miss and Kentucky might win too! Drmies (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read your message. Thank you very much. I am really frustrated with decision of Admins that judged me unfairly. I really want appreciate your good will to help me, but I know that nothing is going revert my ban decision. I am very emotional person and you can't believe that decision here affected me in real life. Last two days I am aggressive because injustice I faced, specially non of admins even didn't read my defence and comment on it. Hence, I decided to continue do things that don't not frustrates me, the start is just to vanish my account from wikipedia in order never come back.Mirhasanov (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: But you are not being judged, your actions are being judged. Plainly, we do not know you. All we have to go on is your actions here. When one violates a topic ban there are a few different possibilities. The easiest to overcome is misunderstanding the terms. If the problem is misunderstanding the cure is to listen to those who know. If one persists in forging ahead in the face of advice that will surely help, then how are we to assist? The decision to stay or go is entirely yours but I submit that your leaving actually helps nothing. Taking the advice of editors that have experience, learning to operate within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is the way forward. Good luck in whatever choice you make. Tiderolls18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are really emotionally intelligent person. I am very glad to see admin like you who tries to understand other side. I tried to defence my actions in ANI and AN. I spend my 1 day to proof Admins that I am not interested to disturb the topic. I even explained them that I don't have capability to issue a good article, all I can do is fact checking and making sure that references are proper, which I tried to do. However, in the end I was reported by people who I challenge and eventually got blocked. Admins even didn't explained me which rule I did break. The admin who blocked me first time stated that I don't cross any redline but, somehow again the decision is to block me. I could at least have warning by admin about my action, which would motivate me going back to him and asking his help to make sure I don't act aggressive, destructive or partisan. However, none of this happened even during independent review of my case. I felt no one cares what I write to defend myself. Instead I received below provocative comment that really hurted my believe to admin board.
No. My question was clear and concise, and your obfuscatory answer I take as being, essentially, a "No". Therefore, I stand by my endorsement of an AA2 topic ban, and the block that has been imposed on you, and would also support an indef block or a site ban. I don't think we need or want you here, you should be posting to some ultra-partisan anti-Armenian blog. Beyond My Ken (talk)
In conclusion I again asked them to explain which Wikipedia rule I went again to receive block. I asked them to show evidences like I did to defend myself but, I received only silence. However, when I raised case against user who really violates wikipedia rules, I started get bombarded by admins, which before preferred not to answer me.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Thank you for quality articles such as Ruby Jane Smith, for fighting vandalism, disruption and "grafitti", for patiently warning and explaining ("There's nothing wrong with kidding around, but if you want to seriously help out we would appreciate it.") - user liking all kinds of music, repeating from ten years ago: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
French
Deutsch
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC) 147.158.109.90 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC) 
Just curious...
Austin 1300 Mk.III four-door saloon
Austin 1100 automatic Mk.III four-door saloon
Austin 1300 GT Mk.III four-door saloon
Morris 1100 Mk.III four-door saloon.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 
