User talk:Two kinds of pork

Hello, Two kinds of pork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for PRISM (surveillance program). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Capscap (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think your edit in the PRISM article was meant to be in the Boundless informant article?? I removed it from prism, but if I'm wrong, feel free to readd it with a source. Thanks! Capscap (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was something called Boundless informant. I was reading the prism article from the news section and it doesn't say anything about the name origin which is related to breaking up and reassembling colors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

no problem. I think the information you added may describe the heatmap at the top right of the Boundless informant page, so maybe you can add it to that article? All the best, Capscap (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious to know why YOU think the Israel lobby and Israel in American politics cannot be considered a third rail issue? CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Undid revision 592147600 by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) restoring sourced and relevant opinion, as an objection without a stated reason has no place on wikipedia)

Please attend the on-going discussion at Soundgarden Talk Page[1]. There are very well-reasoned arguments for the edit. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Why does my user name appear in red while others I see are blue?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you haven't created your user page yet.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== Susan Lindauer

I would suggest to insert the following sentence in the related article :

Susan Lindauer claims to have been arrested under the Patriot Act and held under indictment for five years without trial Targeted for 9/11 Warning, Voting Rights for ‘Some’, Obama’s Mandela Hypocrisy, RT, July 1st, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.52.124 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Two kinds of pork,

Instead of just deleting large portions of the article and venting your prejudices against Mr Perry, would you be willing to engage in a constructive discussion about how we can wikify it and bring it into line with WP best practice? Edit wars have a nasty habit of attracting attention. Orthorhombic, 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Daniel Morgan Perry. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GB fan 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears only one person is fighting over keeping this ridiculous content.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Augustus Dunbier has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Augustus Dunbier was changed by Two kinds of pork (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887954 on 2013-07-23T20:56:17+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Augustus Dunbier with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism. I removed what appears to be a cut and past job from another sight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Why am I getting accused of being a vandal by random editors? This makes no sense.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize for the mistaken action as a vandalism edit. Might I recommend you clearly indicate in the edit summary what actions you are taking and why... This would assist folks who are reviewing the edits and allow them to have insight into the thoughts behind your actions. I have removed my warning from above, again my apology - happy editing. TRL (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a possible explanation above. Please use edit summaries for now on. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. Yes, I see it now. It was totally inadvertent - we were involved in an edit conflict, and although I thought I had preserved the previous comment, obviously I hadn't. Once again, I'm sorry. StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm glad it was a misunderstanding instead of seemingly yet another person looking for an argument.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there a formatting tutorial for usernames and highlighting?Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "usernames and highlighting", do you mean customizing your signature? APerson (talk!) 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, but I mean hyperlinks to articles, users, formatted text (like green quotations, bold, italics).Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - you can use regular HTML, but that's about it. Mdann52 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby warned that as Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage is under discretionary sanctions for the duration of the active arbitration case, this notice will serve as warning that your behavior on that talk page (as well as the other 2 pages under DS via the same injunction) from now on can be sanctioned.

Posted in my capacity as Clerk to the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware. Was there anything I specifically said, or is this just a general warning?Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General warning; the interaction between you and SqueakBox isn't exactly that courteous. It's here in case it gets worse. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I personally feel that any rude behavior is one-way.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provoked by Pork because I DARED to challenge his criticising me for saying Bradley is a BLP vio, hardly unacceptable behaviour on my part, sigh. I have the right to vote in RMs without being told to shut up♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I saw your Arbcom evidence. I think that since April Arcus has admitted it was in a moment of frustration, apologized, and agreed not to do it again, I think you should let it go. People make mistakes sometimes.--v/r - TP 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against her, but was pointing out this was happening nonetheless. As there is no need to get her in trouble (at least I don't) I removed it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's the right thing to do. The community is burning so many bridges on this issue, it's helpful to see some courtesies extended to help build new bridges.--v/r - TP 20:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved your message, I don't see the problem with my comments, as I do suggest policy reasons why Bradley Manning should stay at Bradeley Manning, and I'm not attacking anyone. Let me know which comments you think are out of line,please.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're looking for some work to do. Are you interested in helping me rewrite Kenneth Frazier? It was a total BLP catastrophe when I found it. I cleaned it up as best I could, but really it needs an overhaul. I'm compiling notes at Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Notes. When that's done, the writing of new content can begin. My goal for this project is to pass a GA review. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. I've no idea why I've been following this Manning thing in the first place. I'll take a look at the article and see you on the talk page later. Thank you!Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Whenever you're ready, can you pull up one of the references listed on the notes page and scrape out as much interesting, relevant, and unbiased info as you can? DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read all of the references in the article first (at least the ones I can get online) to get some familiararity.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. 

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

You are engaging in a slow-moving edit war which is not appropriate; please discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. Rschen7754 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, dum dum dum dum. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [2]. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that collection of jerks do is threaten me. I tried to come and suggest improvements and I get them calling me names, claiming I misrepresent sources (I DO NOT) and threatening me if I "misrepresent sources" again meaning if I speak and I'm not agreeing with them. This whole place is fucking corrupt.

Not a fan of Andrew Carnegie, eh?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinstate such rants again. I have no idea why you feel the need to champion those BLP violations--and I'm getting a bit tired of cleaning up the history of that talk page. This is not the first time: please consider this a final warning. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP violations were in that? The person who made those comments are obviously frustrated at all of their comments being removed. Have you ever thought of that? If something is truly violating BLP, then redact it, and maybe even possibly engage. There are a lot "20 question" rules jokers around here. Are you one?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat them. For your benefit, I'll cite from WP:BLP: " Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Parts of that are in bold in the original. You yourself participated briefly in discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive186#Patrick_Califia, and maybe you should read the rest of that discussion. Also, I don't know what you're getting at with "20 question rules jokers". "Are you one?" What, an admin who enforces our BLP policy, in this case by redacting and rev-deleting blatant accusations? Sure I am. And consider engaging instead of insulting: I explained at length on the IP's talk page last month, User talk:68.118.64.249. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However in the last rant (and it was a rant) the guy posted about the writings, which as far as I can tell are far game. I'll take your word that something was amiss. In any case, I'll try and be more careful. As for "20 questions", I've seen a lot of nitpicking people with "rules" one-at-a-time and it was obvious to me that they were laughing at people behind their sleeve. Regards.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They basically repeated the same claims, which boil down to "he wrote fiction and non-fiction and in his books promotes [you know what] and thus he himself promotes it". I'll grant you that it's not the worst kind of violation I've ever seen, but it's bad enough (and as a scholar of literature I can't stand that confusion between storyteller/author and "real" person). Now, I thought it was indeed bad enough to revdelete, which is a pretty serious thing (the next-to-most serious kind of redaction), and if I abuse it I'll get in real hot water. In other words, you are welcome to ask another admin to check it out and see if it was justified. But as I said on that user's talk page, they are welcome to discuss the topic, and I think they can do so in a more careful manner, one that complies with our policies. Seriously, I don't mind engaging about engagement and I'm all for discussion. The subject is plenty controversial, but whatever that subject says, as long as they're alive they are entitled to some kind of protection. Regards, Drmies (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being sane and reasonable. If you get into any difficulty over this with an admin, let me know. Shelly Pixie (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your comments on drmies page. I noticed you stood up for Sportfan5000 too. I thought this was very fair of you, and really respected you for doing this, despite your disagreements. Shelly Pixie (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw what happened over on the Tara Platt article, and I boldly restored the filmography and biography section since there are still plenty of sources that can verify this information. I personally think it is a good idea to just leave filmography sections as is, and source roles that can be sourced per the policy on WP:V and WP:BLP (it's pretty difficult to find sources confirming a role without using a work's end credits, especially for English dubs where reliable coverage is almost non-existent) but without blanking the whole section. The problem is that blanking or commenting-out a section is just not a good practice because it would remove most of the information on the page. While sources are admittedly very difficult to find, this does not mean that such sections should be removed. If needed, I think that simply citing an official website or the work itself would be enough. In the future, I would recommend that you please do not nuke any filmography sections, but instead just tag them. Please be careful next time. If you have any questions or concerns over my edits to an article, discuss here, on my talk page or on the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added refs to the biography, so that is ok with me. Personally I don't care much about the filmography refs, though some might. But too many of these voice actor bios are unsourced with claims that are BLP issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GiantSnowman 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What "page content or templates" did I blank or remove?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3], [4] Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I wiped the page clean, I removed content that violates BLP. And please have a care with the "drama" accusations.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Two Kinds. Not sure why you asked on the AfD if someone can just recreate a deleted article? Jasmine Waltz hasn't been deleted/recreated, has it? Therefore I'm answering you here: yes, they can. Or at least, they can create an article with the same name. They mostly can't recreate the deleted content, since only admins can see what it was. But if someone does go to create an article with the same name, they'll get a warning window that points out it was deleted before. That'll discourage some people, not all. However, depending on the reason for the original deletion, the second article is quite likely to be quickly deleted, too. And once that chain reaction has started, some admin is sure to "salt the earth" — protect the name against recreation. It's really simpler than it sounds… ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, I was just thinking out loud and hoping for an explanation. Your explained it all quit nicely. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Awarded for sticking with it! BlueSalix (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the message you left on my Talk page. It looks like the major objection(s) to your recent edits is based on WP:WEIGHT rather than whether the Deadspin article you are citing is a reliable source. Dezastru (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the objection. I was just giving you a "heads up" that I tried to implement your suggestions. Perhaps it needs tightening up. In any case, I appreciate your time. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As mentioned on the First Opium War talk page, I'm answering your question here:
Your Question: What sort of potential losses? This might be a very useful addition to the article.

One of the things that really annoyed the British is that the southern Chinese had no interest in buying the heavy woolen materials and other stuff spewing from their dark satanic mills that were totally unsuitable for the warm southern climate. The northern Chinese weren't interested either, they were quite happy with their traditional quilted cotton stuff. Normally, the British would have exchanged these goods for tea (and other things like rhubarb, which the Chinese were convinced the British couldn't live without), but there could be no deal - if Chinese merchants took unsaleable goods then they would face financial ruin. Silver became the sine qua non until opium came along, which the Chinese did want. There was another reason that the Chinese wanted silver, which is often overlooked - the Qing government had big problems in Xinjiang on the north west border (not much has changed there) with rebellious individuals like Jahangir Khoja. To keep things under control the Qing had to maintain a massive army to contain the problem - and all those troops wanted payment in - you guessed it - silver. This is an oversimplification but you get the idea. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

corroboration not collaboration Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty. Autocorrect. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your good contributions to the project! Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Two kinds of pork. It seems to me that you are up to three reverts on the Eich article. If you revert again it's likely you will be blocked. In my opinion the issue that concerns you won't be accepted as an exception to 3RR. The BLP exception is intended for unsourced defamation, which this is not. At most the Eich matter is a question of WP:UNDUE weight, which needs discussion and consensus and is not a justification for unilateral reverts. My suggestion is that you stay away from reverting others' changes for several days, while discussion continues on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the polite message. Yes, I have raised the issue of weight already. As I've said already I'm ok with adding the information in a way that is not leading the reader to come to a conclusion that somehow Eich is defective because of the resignations, and let's be honest - that is how the text read, and how it was intended. The new source which discussed the resignations puts this in the proper light, which is much ado about nothing. Remember, BLP,policy says we must be fair to our subjects at all times.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of the BLP policy doesn't give you permission to break WP:3RR. Whether or not you are 'ok with adding the information', if you revert again you may be sanctioned. The relevant policy is WP:3RRNO item #7. Should you find a consensus to back you either at BLPN or on talk, then matters would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interpretation, but see no need to belabor the finer points of BLP. Everyone who claims A BLP exemption takes a risk. But fortunately that won't be necessary, as it appears the discussion will take place. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Two kinds of pork. Seeing that you are a relatively new editor, you may not be familiarized with other than the basics of Wikipedia policy. When debating controversial articles, it's important that you focus on the disputes around the article's content, not the behavior of other editors. I'll gladly clarify for you any doubts you may have, about my concerns with the current reporting of the psychotic break, if you're interested in debating about the neutrality and balance of the section.

Please consider that in order to make a constructive contribution to discussion, you are expected to try to understand what point is being raised. Asking another editor to stop participating is against behavioral policy, and frankly quite ineffective; and stating on the talk page that I'm here to "make a point" (rather merely assuming than I'm trying to improve the article) is a personal attack, and you should avoid it. If you don't want to engage in the about neutrality nor make an effort to understand my point, you can simply stop reading the discussion and let others arrive to a consensus. If you're concerned about the quality of the Russell's biography, I expect that you'll agree to collaborate, and help me avoid the inclusion of cheesy descriptions about his psychotic incident. Cheers. Diego (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute away, but this whole underwear-gate business is ridiculous. Just drop it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you're free to ignore whatever discussion happens at the talk page. Diego (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep haranguing about the underwear issue in spite of how the RfC is turning out, I will bring this to the attention of the BLP and admin boards. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems unlikely that this is your first Wikipedia account. Could you set my mind at ease and confirm that other accounts you've used (if any) were not blocked, banned, or otherwise subject to sanctions? There's something about your editing that reminds me of a very banned editor, but since I can't crystallize my intuition into diffs I thought I'd just ask you directly rather than beat around the bush. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you count ip addresses, then yes this isn't my first account. If you mean a named account, then no, this is the only one. And the reason I created the account was because an article I wanted to fix was preventing all ip addresses from editing. I'm guessing between this and all the others, I've made about a couple hundred article changes, mostly correcting simple errors or facts. The only sanction I've ever received was a warning (see #13 above). And while I appreciate it that you don't mean to offend, but what is it about my editing is ban worthy? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Off2RioRob/Youreallycan? Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are talking about/Ireallydont. Did you see my post right above this one? Explain yourself or leave me alone. Same goes for MastCell and other creepy stalkers.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it. Your point about the differentiation between resignation and boycott was spot on, however. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go to the talk page please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, responded there. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to this article and to the talk page were wholly inappropriate. In the article you inserted an unsourced quote and a sentence that wasn't noteworthy and wasn't even well-crafted. On the talk page, you reverted the archiving bot saying stuff was recent. Most of the material was from March. The latest post I believe was from April 30, which is not recent. Worse, having reverted the bot, you left the archive alone, thus not even cleaning up after yourself. I've reverted your edits to both pages. Please try to edit more responsibly in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the reference, my apologies. But it's not my responsibility nor do I care about the bot. I care about the talk page and it removed everything, including the RfC. Does 3RR apply to bots too? Since it can't participate in BRD, what am I to do? Sheesh. Can you please just put the RfC back?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw you edited the Offside (association football) wiki page so that it claims that offside IS the most confusing rule(etc.) But, in my personal opinion, it's pretty easy to understand. I changed the page so it doesn't say that offside IS confusing(...), rather that it has been CALLED confusing(...)

The reference you used was an american source and the world already has enough people who are prejudiced against americans with regard to their understanding of soccer, so I am making this note on your talk page in case you might want to remove that part entirely from the page.

Cheers!

-anon

No.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on that page. I still think it's atrociously confusing. In normal English, the opponents' goal would be the place they are aiming at in order to score. That's what a goal is, outside association football. Something you aim for. So the opponents' goal line would be there too. I manage junior school soccer teams in Australia, where it's not the major code. We have a lot of enthusiastic beginners. In winter, my school fields teams in Australian football, rugby union, soccer and (field) hockey. The latter sport abandoned the offside rule decades ago. The kids remain confused forever. So do I. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offside position is fairly simple; don't be ahead of the last outfield defender towards the opponents goal without possessing the ball. Technically you could posses the ball and have the ball behind you and still not be offside. It's the sanction that confuses most people.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the language you used there. You spoke of "the opponents goal", meaning the goal I want to get the ball in. In normal English, that's MY goal, the thing I'm aiming for. Have a think of the impact of that reverse meaning on people not imbued in the language of the game since birth. It's confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objective is to put the ball in the opponents goal and prevent the ball from going in your goal. This is supported by the language FIFA uses, such as "attacking" for kick offs and "defenders" for corners.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be FIFA's language, but it's not normal English. Outside soccer, a goal is something we all aim for. I have a goal. Make a million dollar. I what I'm aiming at. I just wish soccer could explain itself in normal English. It would make my job a lot easier. It's confusing right now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable if it's "normal" or not. However the attack theirs/defend your goal is a common theme in many sports, with a "goal" such as basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse, polo (both land and water) for starters. But for our purposes, we use what the sources state.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion began on the matter of whether it's confusing or not. I could find plenty saying it is. And it's part of the problem for the growth of the game where it's not already strong. Many people who have grown up with the gsme seem to find it impossible to accept that. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it's confusing; in fact I added text supporting it is the most misunderstood and confusing law of the game. But IMO this confusion is due to the sanction, not the offside position itself, and certainly not my goal vs their goal terminology. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "the sanction". Ice hockey, lacrosse and the polos are rare in my country. Basketball is common enough, but I don't hear the same sort of language about my goal and your goal. Yes, it has defence and offence, but that's about play, not places. As I said, I look after beginners, in a country where the game competes with bigger games without offside rules, and where goals are what you aim at. It's very difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rules" for soccer are officially known as "The Laws of the Game". Sanctions are the result of handling violations of the laws. When the ball crosses a touchline, the "sanction" is a throw-in is awarded to the team that did not last touch the ball. Pushing, grabbing and holding an opponent are all against the laws of soccer. The sanction is a direct free kick may be awarded. It is up to the refs discretion as to whether or not to sanction a violation. For example, lets say a player shoves the player with the ball, yet the player manages to hold their balance and make a good pass to his teammate in the open field. The referee would wisely yell "advantage" or "play on" and make a sweeping two handed gesture. This is the ref telling the players and spectators that, "Yes, I saw the push. But in my opinion the team that suffered the push had an immediate opportunity to advance the ball, so I'm not enforcing the sanction". If there were no advantage, then the free kick would have been awarded. Being in an offside position is a violation of Law 11, however it is only enforced, or sanctioned if the player in the offside position got involved in the play. It's too bad you dont have ice hockey, because this is very similar to the delayed offside rule of that sport. Why not sanction EVERY instance of a player being offside? Because it would slow the game down.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm used to the word "sanction" meaning to permit something to be done. Ain't English wonderful? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you are right in that there is a COI editor involved.

If the subject of the article is verifiably in favor of deleting (via the OTRS) and if I remember the sourcing correctly, the only marginal claims of notabilty rest on dropped criminal charges, then I would not be opposed to deletion.

It does not seem to have been picked up widely as one of the iconic misapplications of the War on Terror laws which might be a target for a merge or redirect?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Someone seems to have removed the request for deletion. Was this ever resolved by consensus, or did someone just remove it? I too think it should be deleted. It does not stand up to wikipedia's standards for BPL. SpringandFall (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 Ferguson unrest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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.
It seems that you are edit warring with Cwobeel over minor wording changes. - MrX 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which "minor wording" changes are you talking about? The POV language ones? Are there ones that have been reverted more than once? I'm not aware of any.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry for the in-your-face warning, but it looks like you are very close to breaking WP:3RR. I count two plain reverts ("Undid revision...") and several where you and Cwobeel are going back and forth, mainly on the word "peaceful".- MrX 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of those was changing the text from "arson" to "burned by looters" because he said the source didn't say "arson", which is a little petty. The other was a BLP violation. The first was clearly fulfilling his request to find a source or fix the text. The second should hold up per BLP. If he wants to discuss "peaceful" I'm all for it. But per NPOV, V and sometimes BLP I don't think he has a leg to stand on.Two kinds of pork (talk)}

Fly on the wall here. "Arson" refers to a crime, whereas "burned" does not. I would be careful to follow the descriptions and assertions available in RS references. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is why I changed it. My original issue was "shell" had no adjective in front, and seemed awkward. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that this is correcting a BLP violation, then I question your understanding of the policy. Please tell me that you're referring to another edit.- MrX 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm conflating this edit with another one. That one you mentioned was a POV removal om my part. My apologies. For the BLP you would have to look at the recent history where the caption claimed in the image he was pointing his weapon at the protestors, which (that image ) was not RS. Additionally, claiming they were peaceful, when we don't have secondary sources stating such could be BLP. What if the crowd was threating? That would possibly justify the cops emotionally response. In my personal opinion, in lieu of secondary reliable sources making this statement, you don't add it. Hope that helps. Now I've got to go get new tires. Thanks and cya round.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at Shooting of Michael Brown and 2014 Ferguson unrest. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm sorry about that 2KoP. I specifically recommended against blocking, but I guess other views prevailed. Don't let it discourage you from editing once your block expires, or ends early if you can convince an admin that you will not edit war any more.- MrX 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a bit hasty on the block IMO, but whatever. Not your fault. I was more annoyed with the Wikipedia version of "20 questions" where someone tries to use the "rules" as a strategy to keep their preferred version or get you busted by the admins. I've seen it happen to others a few times, and now it's happened to me. I've had my cherry popped. My Wiki-Bar-Mitzvah.

In any case, please see this secondary source which used the term peaceful protestors with respect to the video. It should be added to the caption. I have more to say about how the lack of "peaceful" does not mean the opposite "violent", a trap which several people were caught. There is a cognitive bias called anchoring, which causes people to latch on to the first thing they hear, in this case "peaceful". If in another universe the Ferguson protests were violent, and the wiki in that universe said "violent protests", removing "violent" would not make the protests peaceful. My goal on this article is to be able to read it and come away feeling like it was written at the news-desk of the NYT or Washington Post. Last time I checked, it felt "off", and looking at the associated references there were many instances of editorializing and completely unverifiable claims. Hopefully those can be cleaned up soon.

A bit off topic, but I have no overriding interest in standing up for LEO, whereas some seem quite intent on painting them in a bad light. I've dealt with asshole po-po before (ask me about my airport cop traffic ticket sometime -- I had the last glorious laugh). I can ignore my distaste for some police tactics enough to edit outside of myself in order to keep the articles accurate to the sources and have an even keel.

Anyways, thanks for the kind words. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Van Dyke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the gesture. Yeah, we all get worked up sometimes, but it is nice when we can acknowledge that and move on in a better, more collegial manner. Thank you and happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw your proposal I was suspicious, but since I've taken advice not to read too carefully/focus on/respond to questionable comments, I didn't remember the exact details of your past comments. Only when responding to your comment on "WP:AGF" did I go past your past comments and discover that you actually might have been joking. Since another editor removed the whole thread, including the below, I thought I'd post it here to make sure you saw it.

Your first posting to this Task force was at this diff:

This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal? Ignoring verification for the moment , this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard suggested on Wikipedia. This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal?

At this diff you made a joke(?) about paying teenage girls from the Phillipines to edit. So you can see how your putting a proposal to pay women to edit on the main page seems to me to be a similar proposal.

You've also at this diff doubted systemic bias exists. At this diff you yourself closed a section because "the sniping is getting out of hand". I was happy to see it cause it was mostly nitpicking. But soon after you at this diff started a derisionary thread about something that just needed a little text tweak to correct a mis-impression.

So you can see why a rational person might be getting skeptical at this point. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] </small> 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

}} Nevertheless, I did try to assume good faith by putting my original question back. If you are withdrawing the proposal, feel free to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely serious proposal. English is taught in the Philippines, and the wage rate is low. It would be a better value than paying American girls.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me your support with my work on Wikipedia best of luck to you for the rest of 2014 and the future. --Smokeyfire (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire[reply]

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think it over first, though you should consider adding Evergreenfir.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your comment here. I didn't want to distract from the relevant discussion or potentially embarrass you there, but I wouldn't want you continuing to misunderstand 3rr. The policy states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." So it is the fourth revert that breaks the rule. In this case, the fourth revert lay outside the 24 hour period so there was no 3rr violation. While editors can sometimes be blocked for persistent edit-warring without ever breaking 3rr, I saw no suggestion that this was the case in the situation described. In general I try to avoid blocking good faith editors unless absolutely necessary. So I closed it as "No action". I hope that makes sense and I hope you don't mind me raising it with you here. --John (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misunderstood, because I've seen many times where some admin stated that users can be blocked for less than 3RR. And some have said the 4th revert just over 24 hours can count as well. Again, I didn't think Dmries did anything wrong, but there is a perceived feeling by some that non admins are 2nd class citizens. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can relate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some users can be blocked for less than 3rr, but as I said, there would have to be other factors or a pattern for that to happen. The "bright line" 3rr rule is 4 reverts in 24 hours. I promise that I would have taken the same action for a non-admin with no form for edit-warring. --John (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new sig. I can't recall who I got that kind of markup from, but its much more fun than the boring default, yet it doesn't take up too much page space like seems to be more common lately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I copied it from someone else Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what did I do?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) TKOP, it's obvious that this Wikiproject talk page is already under a lot of stress and tension. You're adding to it by doing things like unarchiving large threads from the past, and repeatedly reverting other editors' comments. I've given you a 24-hour break to consider your contributions to this Wikiproject. When the block expires, please either contribute to the discussions in a constructive way, or don't contribute at all. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 19:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is under stress, however the reason for my restoring the archive was because a section I opened in good faith was removed by SlimVirgin. Not knowing how to restore just that one section, I undid it. I sheepishly learned yesterday I could have just cut and paste that back in. Was I unwarranted for wanting a section that was only a day old being restored? The "edit war" OTOH is at least 51% Milowent's fault. Can you look at the edit history of that section (and his talk page) and come to any other conclusion that he was doing this to jerk my chain? If anyone deserves a block for disruption, well.... I can only say in honest sincerity that the proposal was made in total good faith and am someone irked if anyone implies otherwise. I thank you in advance for examining the edit history and await your reply.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you don't just revert another editor's comments on a talk page, unless they are overt vandalism. If you don't like the comments, you could have asked Milowent to self-revert. If he doesn't want to, then the comments stay. (If you objected to Milo closing the thread, you could have just removed the hat/hab templates and left his comments intact.) In most cases, if you revert another editor's comments on a talk page, you probably won't get blocked for it. However, in this case, on a talk page that is already pretty intense and under a lot of scrutiny, and because you reverted multiple times, a short block is warranted in my opinion. After the block expires, please be more careful and think twice before doing anything that might be potentially disruptive, especially on this particular page. Further disruption (by any editor) on that page will likely result in blocks of increasing duration. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page StalkerConsidering the lack of warning here and the reasoning behind the block - I think it's inappropriate and premature. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I'm somewhat disappointed in your decision because I can't see any other reasonable interpretation of Milowent's actions of other than being intentionally inflammatory. But I'll get over it. How about if I volunteer to stay off the page for a few days. Would that work for you?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Preliminary: Education and warnings, warnings are not a prerequisite for a block, especially if the user is experienced enough to be familiar with the relevant policies. I believe TKOP is experienced enough to know that edit warring is not allowed, especially when it's to suppress another editor's comments on a talk page. Additionally, I've already mentioned that tensions on this particular talk page are high, and therefore any disruption needs to be handled decisively to prevent further disruption. It's only a 24-hour block, not the end of the world. Please use the time to think about how you can contribute more constructively to the Wikiproject to further its goals. If you'd like to disengage from the Wikiproject for a few days, or permanently, that is your decision to make. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume since you mentioned it was ok to remove the hat, that I may safely do so without fear of reprisal?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would be much more preferable if you had a discussion with User:Milowent about why he closed the thread, what you believe the purpose of the thread is, and how the thread can serve the interests of the Wikiproject; in the hopes that you can come to an agreement with Milowent to re-open the thread and keep it focused on a constructive topic. That type of approach is almost always preferable to just bluntly reverting someone's edit without discussion. And, there are very few legitimate reasons for removing someone's comments from a talk page discussion. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:ONLYREVERT. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but it appeared to me that Milowent stepped into a good-faith substantive discussion and ripped it to shreds with false statements, gratuitous vulgarity, and other BS. I thought that his action was way out of line, especially given the sensitivity of the group (of which I'm a member) and other readers of the page. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this was an unintended mistake by TKOP, and a block is unnecessary. Blocks are not punitive and my reading of the above shows that the user understands the mistake. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, but it was the fight over the comments that caused the block to be issued. SPECIFICO has the situation pegged quite well. I'm afraid Scott came to the wrong conclusion after reading the page history. Hopefully something good will come of this;the bad faith comments will cease or their author will dealt with accordingly. Once again, thanks for the support. But I would apppreciate if everyone just let this go and I'll see you all tomorrow. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for standing up to harrassment [[5]], I appreciate the fact that I'm not the only one! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know I was discussing an episode of harrassment by User:Neotarf, as it seems you may be heading to arb anyways you may wish to wait that out but since I aqm mentioning you here's your notice [[6]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware, but the Belle Knox AFD has been relisted. As you are the only !vote remaining from the original AFD , you may wish to review things to either change your !vote, or confirm that you still think that !vote is correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And here come the sockpuppets :(Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: I had a question about the evidence submission. There are some allegations that I wish to make that are clearly my opinion. While it's certainly nice to have diffs for everything, some things i just don't want to have to do the work for. Not ideal I suppose. Instead of diffs for certain instances, is it ok to use the citation needed tag? Obviously anyone can choose to ignore what I've said with or without diffs. I guess what I'm asking is someone going to insist I remove a statement unless it has a diff? To get an idea of what I'm talking about, my sandbox has a very rough draft of some evidence I plan to submit. Im looking for guidance so I don't waste time on things that would not be permitted, and minimize time on things that would likely to be ignored.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that most of what you have in your sandbox would require supporting diffs, but you may also include your own opinions and analysis on the diffs you provide. Regardless of the fact that most of it would require diffs, it is in your advantage to provide them; diffs are of much more use to arbitrators when examining conduct than are text summaries of someone's behavior. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. What about evidence from the wikimedia mailing list? Is that allowed to be used?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: you might have missed my last question because I failed to sign it properly. I just want some clarification about the mailing list. Thanks. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes, I did...I'm not sure about it; I'll check with the arbs and either I or one of them will get back to you on that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a definitive answer) Remember that there's a jurisdiction issue; the answer may even depend on which mailing list you're thinking about. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: This is the archives of the list in question. At the archives from Aug-Sept are contain the relevant entries.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, everything in the Sandbox is unacceptable without diffs. I'm also unlikely to take that into account privately without evidence to back it up. I have no problem with Wikimedia-l emails being linked to if they're relevant, Arbcom does consider evidence beyond on-wiki. As the lines get blurred, for example if outing or other privacy issues start coming up, feel free to send the evidence to the arbcom list. I hope that helps. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility of evidence, admissible evidence includes "posts to official mailing lists"; the expression "official mailing lists" links to Wikipedia:Mailing lists. So, posts to lists enumerated on that page are generally fair game, unless for privacy (or other important) reasons it's advisable not to publish their content. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll post the link in question as it doesn't appear to have privacy issues. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 11:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I must say Porky, your input into a lot of the silly heated debates is very welcome here. The voice of reason for the normal person on here. You're like the orange-scented Febreze of wiki stinky situations LOL. I feel like I know you but don't recognize the name. Keep up the great stuff! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That bad eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have false information in there that is no supported by any diffs. (No, I don't have time to tell you what.)

[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]] applies to talk pages and sand boxes. Putting up a draft with adequate diffs like that a day or two before you put it on the Arbitration page would not be a big deal. Putting up unproved charges against other editors and letting them sit for weeks is a well-known no no.

Just noticed Worm that Turned comment "From my point of view, everything in the Sandbox is unacceptable without diffs" and that is what he was talking about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. Note the "citation needed" placeholders? If I get the time I'll be updating this. If I don't, then it won't be submitted. You say it's "false", I say it's true. I guess opinions will differ. Going through the page histories will provide supporting evidence if my theories are correct. But this will be very time consuming and my time is limited. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I don't have to waste my time replying, here's two obvious errors.

• Wheres the diffs??? Carol has also canvassed off wikipedia using a wikimedia mailing list: [Gendergap] Easy thing that would help the en.Wiki Gender Gap Project Carol Moore dc [Gendergap] WP:ANI on Disruption of Gender Gap Task Force
• Reread it - they will: Mandatory sensitivity training Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has that nonsense ever worked, except to deflect blame from management in court? "But company XY can't be held culpable for generating a hostile work atmosphere towards women, it has mandatory sensitivity training repeated every year!" 24.97.67.118 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Two kinds of pork. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why you have trimmed the lead? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary, neopaganism is a scant part of the article. The lead should reflect the balance of the rest of the article. Perhaps it could be expanded, asHellenic isn't even mentioned. I suspect someone with interest in neopaganism expanded the lead at one point. It's still linked there, but not overweighted as it was before.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've already seen, but there are new FoF/Remedies up involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And on that note: revert if you like but realize that this is ongoing, and I think this was unwise. I say this as a colleague, not as an admin. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know the odd thing is I learned of various aspersions being cast towards me from several in that clique, who were not parties and I have never said word one to any of them, much less have them even approach me with a question so I have nary an idea what their beef is with me. And I'm almost certain I know who the ringleader is and who it is not. While she can get under people's skin at times, Carol is not a coward and wouldn't have someone else do their dirty work for them. When she's allowed back I won't have any issues with interacting with her.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope that everyone can learn to live with the decisions, which I am sure all parties are displeased with. I think that given the evidence (or "evidence") they didn't do so badly. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

   If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

   If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

   The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
10. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [7]
11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Those bastards didn't have anything pork lol. Happy holidays, here's a holiday laugh [[8]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response with a link to a 2000 commentary on Canon Law in the thread on the humanities desk. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Two kinds of pork! Related to your recent edits of the Grateful Dead article, feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Grateful Dead#2015 reunion concerts: Grateful Dead?. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy, such as Draft:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Pretty sure everybody is aware, but may as well make sure. Strongjam (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually the start of one of your edit summaries at User talk:Beeblebrox. Unfortunately, despite his having basically come just short of directly telling you to stop posting on his page regarding this matter, you don't seem to apparently have the self-control to do so. If you really believe that there are issues regarding the arbcom case involved, then feel free to post them to the arbcom case pages. But, as it seems rather extremely obvious that Beeblebrox does not want you to post anymore to his user talkpage regarding this topic, you probably should stop doing so. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one forced him to sign up for Arbcom. I asked him a reasonable question regarding what seems to me, Arbcom hypocrisy. Admins are supposed to answer reasonable questions regarding their actions. It seems rather obvious that Arbcom should have the same obligations. If that's not the case, he should say so and that might be the end of this. I find it galling that he chastised The Devil's Advocate for the very same behavior he condoned in a different case. The reply I received was tantamount to "fuck off, go away". If he doesn't like being questioned, he should strike all of his votes and then don't let the door hit him where the good lord split him.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the difference between 11th hour accusations which require time to rebut and Arbcom's iterative process, you are (at a minimum) two kinds of stupid. 166.137.252.127 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create an account? I see onekindofasshole (talk · contribs) is avaiable.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with a small part of anon's atatement, there's a huge difference between a last-minute submission of a large amount of evidence to the committee and new findings in the PD. Your continued comments about 'hypocrisy' are uncivil personal attacks; if you continue, you will be blocked. I do have to add that anon's comment contains a personal attack and they will be subject to a block if continued. Dreadstar ☥ 07:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if that were the difference, but it's not. I'm afraid you aren't familiar with the details, it's not even related to the GG PD. But they know damn well what they did. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 11:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Gamergate controversy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- when reverting my edit, you claimed that my language was unneutral. I don't see how, but I invite you to discuss this at the talk page for Gamergate Controversy. If you'd rather not discuss it, that's okay, but in the event that I don't understand why my edit was unneutral I'm going to reinstate it. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, additionally, as you also reversed that- it would be nice to know if you agreed or disagreed with my further definition of 'commentators' to 'commentators in mainstream media'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Please start a thread on the article's talk page. Are there sources that support your position? That the sources overwhelmingly disagree with the thrust of the GG'ers position, we need a source that actually says this. As an example, consider climate change. By an almost 100% margin, scientists agree that climate change is real. The sources state this, thus we can say that. If they didn't state this, we would have to count the sources and draw our own conclusion, which we can't do.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had started a thread- it's called 'Overwhelming Majority' vs 'Most'. My objection to 'most' is purely that it's also a quantitative statement, and if we want to make one of those we need to make an accurate one. I've made this statement at the talk page, where you'd be welcome to participate. Thanks in advance. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver is female. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice. My apologies to anyone who may have taken offense.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism is discrimination based on gender, often incorporating the belief that one gender is better than the other. Misogyny is simply hating women -- you can be both misogynist and misandrist if you hate women for being women, and hate men for being men, without technically being sexist because you're not biased toward one or the other. There is a small, but existing nuance.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist is when one says a woman's place is in the home. Misogynists are just downright mean about it Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're both technically wrong. Sexism is systematic or overt treatment of one gender differently by another gender that holds power.--v/r - TP 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gender that holds power? I've never encountered that sort of formulation. It seems undefined and undefinable. Do you have a source for it? SPECIFICO talk 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. [9]. -Isms are a type of discrimination as a result of power, dominance, or control.--v/r - TP 18:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see anything the least bit convincing there, let alone a demonstration of any accepted common meaning of the terms. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep googling then.--v/r - TP 02:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botulism.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TP, if you're very certain about that definition, you should bring your sources to the attention of the sexism article, which I had paraphrased.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]