"Somebody thinks something is wrong with this page"

Thank You! This is awesome, best Wiki laugh I've had all year, please hang onto that attitude. Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I stole it from somewhere but I cannot remember where. Have a nice day, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised to find another echoer around here! — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you even more surprised to find a potato who edits Wikipedia? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just figure that whenever someone says that they need more eyes on a particular article they are calling for your assistance... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always keep my eyes peeled! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you are such a good spec *cough* tater. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One sad day The Quixotic Potato was injured while showing off for a sweet potato. I took him to the emergency room, and after a long wait, the doctor finally came out to talk to me. He told me "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that your buddy is going to pull through. The bad news is that he's going to be a vegetable for the rest of his life". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: You can't argue with a potato, atheists! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. If you have time, could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: [1] It may be possible to find a more elegant solution for the sentence about the chessboard problem. I prefer using parentheses inside a sentence (like this). (This looks weird.) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to mention the discrepancy between the fundraising goal for December 2014 (20 million USD) and the amount that was actually raised (30.6 million USD). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. I have copied the above to User talk:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial and will respond there. Let me know if you object and I will undo it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use my comments/edits as if they're public domain. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking up the work to improve Wikipedia by ridding it of articles on non-notable beauty pageant contestants. This is difficult work, especially since it will at times lead to attacks from a group of people who defend these articles against normal standards of notability. Keep up the good work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think WP:GNG is a good idea, even though it means that some of my favorite artists are considered non-notable. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here:.............................. TAKE THAT! (p.s. i couldn't find a potatoL.S. inc. (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this, its full of beautiful potatoes! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic Potato,thanks. L.S. inc. (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	you're a hard worker on Wikipedia and I appreciate it. L.S. inc. (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe I am rather lazy. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when you comment in an RfA, say so in the edit summary, - I thought until looking that you opposed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Haha, no, I was among the first few who supported. I even dared making a silly joke about Samtar's vote!. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, but those not looking closer may thing you opposed if you don't say something like "cmt" or "reply" in the edit summary. I had no time to look at the candidate but will, and probably support as well. Did you know that I passed your quote collection to someone who needs one per day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely find editsummaries useful, and I rarely use them. I love reading (my father has more books than my local library) and I am extremely curious so I never think: "Reading that editsummary saved me some time, now I won't have to read the actual edit". I hope they enjoy the quotes! Of course I do not agree with every quote (let alone every author of those quotes), but I found the quotes interesting and I hope others do too. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at my watchlist for a day, I get about thousand entries. I skim by edit summary. - Yes, "they" enjoy and quote from there ;) (I passed the permanent link when they were not visible here, and "they" also enjoyed their return!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. My watchlist contains 93 pages, and I think it is quite long. See singular they and Third-person_pronoun#German. Quote: "German is special as it uses the feminine form sie both for basically all plurals, and for polite address Sie ("you" sing./plur.).".(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the Stephen Miller page alters the tone back to biased. It should be neutral in Tone. Whether or not the National Policy council is anti-Semitic and white supremacist is obvious when you click that link. Thunderclap Thunderclap (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted by someone else. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ANI recently opened against me for contributing to AfDs. I am trying not to over react, but it is frustrating so I feel a need to mention it somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a good place to vent. I've been offwiki for a while. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Can someone please fix the article Ralph Yirikian? Please ping me when responding."

If everyone who reads that request deletes a couple of blatantly promotional sentences, there'll soon be nothing left. I've done my bit. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wikipedia is not a good place to promote companies. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... about countering systemic bias. Not ready to join the conversation myself yet, but what you wrote was good. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 10:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 10:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I want to report the user ( ZxxZxxZ ).

I saw some of his contributions and some suspicious things..

He removes things that offend his country ( iran ) and add lines that offend a country that is an enemy of his. From a qatari-owned news channel ( Knowing that qatar is an enemy of Saudi Arabia which means most likely it's fake news with the aim of offending Saudi Arabia) as his sources. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202

Technical Peace (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Technical Peace (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" And found suspicious things " even though it's obvious Technical Peace (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Technical Peace:!

This is not the correct place to report users. You can use WP:ANI for that. When you start a discussion about an editor on WP:ANI, you must notify them on their user talk page.

Have a nice day,

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

Sorry for .. I couldn't find any page to report a user in since I'm a new Wikipedian. Thanks Technical Peace (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the criticism you posted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/Special report. I know from experience that a large number of Wikipedia readers and contributors agree with your sentiment, as do most people who hear about the project incidentally. I wanted to give you a heads up on another piece I submitted to The Signpost at User:Bluerasberry/signpost_draft. If you have further criticism, I would appreciate your posting it if/when the article comes out. Thanks for your thoughts and the conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have explained my position in the Signpost comment section a bit better and I've fixed a typo in the draft. I have watchlisted the draft. I may end up buying one of these things. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the detailed answer to my question about changing the caption color on my website. I really appreciate it! OldTimeNESter (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Feel free to ask follow-ups! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quix, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page was lacking in cuteness :-) = paul2520 (talk) 14:44, 7 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:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying up, the place looks much nicer now.

I found this fly on my windowsill and thought you might like to have it as a pet. →

I think they look after themselves, pretty much. nagualdesign 07:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! All the girlies say I'm pretty fly for a dark purple potato. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't been online for a while. I hope that everything's okay in your off-Wiki life. Since you're not around to keep your pet fly fed and watered, and I'm regularly being given bits of shit from other editors (which flies love), I'm going to move him to my talk page for the time being where I can look after him in your absence. I hope that's okay, and when you return (which I hope will be some time soon) I'll bring him back. All the best, nagualdesign 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got there first at Wikipedia talk:WikiCV and put such a well crafted response. I know I would have been somewhat blunter in my comments coming to the same conclusion as you. Nthep (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I try. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I couldn't find a potato. But this pie will do. Just pretend it's a potato. Hastiness (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, thank you! Nom nom nom. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sweet potato pie could work. Now, the reason I'm asking about the parens is that I was thinking of doing likewise. My dilemma is that I also sympathize with the Palestinians to some extent, and I don't want to be seen as some kind of Israeli hard-liner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am both for and against both sides, depending on how you look at it. I am pro-peace. http://www.trbimg.com/img-589158a7/turbine/ct-jewish-muslim-fathers-viral-photo-met-20170131 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“	May God protect the civilians — and take the rest.	”
— Ruqia Hassan

	"The Inquisitive Potato"
	I award you the first Inquisitive Potato award. For your inquiring, curious, probing mind as you seek to make Wikipedia better and for the useless drama that seems to follow you around here as a result. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh sexy! Thank you! Wikipedia is the perfect website for me because there are very few things I am not interested in. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bottle of my fathers favorite drink,good American rye

Happy Holidays--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I followed WWBToo to your talk page. I am a wikipedia reader from Germany. As a 'Nederlander' would you give your expert comments on paid editing disclosure under European Union directives at Talk:Hilary_Rosen. I am especially worried by wiki markup like hidden headers, nowiki markup and false header descriptors being used by WWBToo on this article's talk page to deceitfully suppress the extent and scope of employers advertising drafts which are being inserted into articles at WWBToo's request. 91.49.40.172 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the consumer survey which is part of this page, Customer satisfaction form. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you better. Please help us by taking a few minutes to tell us about the service that you have received so far. We appreciate your business and want to make sure we meet your expectations. Please check all that apply.

I regret I have no personal information if The Quixotic Potato is...

corrupt

Zionist

gay

straight

Illuminati

Masonic

fascist

Islamist

feminist

Dark suited

Cthulhu

Marxist-Leninist

Christian

misogynist

SJW

socialist

capitalist

Reptilian Overlord

Also the collection of such personal information is not allowed in European Union. 91.49.40.172 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on anything, not even potatoes. I don't really know anything about Hilary Rosen and disclosure laws. Maybe someone else does. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting old! Thanks Gerda. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three years. Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

four, still --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this discussion [2]. Looking a bit more, it seems the editor who brought up NeilN's comment at ANI was Vote X, probably also the editor at Jimbo's talk page. There are a bunch of other comment left by the IP which I've let be since I don't know enough about Vote X other than that they normally geolocate to the UK to say this is them, but possibly you do. Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was Vote, someone else has reverted. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why the small? -- ToE 10:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinking of England: Sometimes I use <small> when I think that my comment isn't important (e.g. a link to the relevant article for convenience instead of an answer). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see now that they were asking for counties, not states, so your link didn't explicitly answer the question as stated. (Though I still think your link was probably the best answer.) Your mention of "a link to the relevant article ..." reminds me of this case of a courtesy link, explicitly labeled as such, which was received with anything but courtesy, though the OP was kind enough to later apologize. Cheers! -- ToE 15:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to apologize for failing to assume good faith in some of my recent posts.

By way of explanation (not excuse), I am a high-functioning autistic (Asperger's syndrome) and sometimes have trouble with certain social interactions. In particular, I sometimes categorize people into two classes ("This person is my friend. Anything they do is to be interpreted as positively as possible" and "This person does not wish to be my friend. Anything they do is to be interpreted with suspicion") when in reality there is a continuum. It isn't rational, and when I catch myself doing it I apologize and try to avoid making that mental error again.

Again, I apologize. This is something I struggle with. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Thanks, but there is no need to apologize. I like you, even when we disagree. I've worked in IT my entire life so I am used to people who are on the spectrum. Almost everyone I look up to in my field of work is somewhere on the spectrum. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PING. Where do I go, I'm messing things up?

Thx tho Potato. HNY too!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyLH (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShelbyLH! The people over at the WP:HELPDESK and WP:TEAHOUSE are always willing to help. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Nederlands, two of my dearest friends live on Herengracht in Amsterdam (and I can pronounce it correctly). My favourite Dutch street name is Lijnbaansgracht. It doesn't get more Dutch than that :-) Guy (Help!) 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Have you tried stroopwafels (preferably balanced on a cup of steaming hot tea)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have coeliac ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“	The discovery of the cause of coeliac disease may also be partly attributed to the Dutch famine. With wheat in very short supply there was an improvement at a children's ward of coeliac patients. Stories tell of the first precious supplies of bread being given specifically to the (no longer) sick children, prompting an immediate relapse. Thus in the 1940s the Dutch paediatrician Dr. Willem Dicke was able to corroborate his previously researched hypothesis that wheat intake was aggravating coeliac disease. Later Dicke went on to prove his theory.	”
— Dutch famine of 1944–45

@JzG: A weird place for a smiley. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one reason I love the Netherlands. It is very easy to find safe food. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you tag the article Interactive Brokers with {{COI}} and {{advert}}? I am a historical researcher; I wrote the article from a neutral point of view. There's no fluff, merely plain information about the company. If you don't agree with that, please provide examples. I had many others look at the article to ensure its neutrality, and ultimately, a totally uninvolved editor reviewed and published my draft of that page, the version live now. Can you please remove the tags, or explain in much further depth why you believe why the article "may require cleanup" or "contains content that is written like an advertisement"? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your version was a lot less messy. The COI tag was placed because a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I may be just a simple potato from a humble background, but I believe that the "Interactive Brokers PR team" probably has a close connection to Interactive Brokers. The lede starts by claiming that they are the largest this and the largest that, and what follows is a lot of nonnotable detail about how one genius against all the odds defeated the evil bureaucracy that would not allow his computers to rule the stock market. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I highly recommend that you contact the users Jytdog and David Smith 111 (preferably by pinging them from the article's talkpage). Jytdog has experience dealing with COI issues, and David Smith 111 makes edits like this one... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that’s not how it works. You need to provide a giid reason for being unblocked, show insight into why you weblocked, etc. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked because I pissed Alex Shih off by pointing out that his comment was BS (because it didn't make any sense) and because I asked him to read the relevant policy (which he should've done a long time ago). WP:PUNITIVE and WP:COMMONSENSE are both good reasons for an unblock, not to mention my todo-list and wikimood. Block doesn't protect encyclopedia but actively damages it. Am not going to mention anyone's linkedin for a while, and I won't tell people who are younger than me that they are younger than me. "Fuck off" is not a personal attack, it is a rude way of saying "go away" (note that I didn't actually write that, I wrote I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram which is both funnier and more polite). Writing: "In real life you would be very polite to me (and vice versa) so you are basically a keyboard warrior." is not a personal attack, it is factually correct information. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/keyboard_warrior Note that ɱ made several personal attacks recently. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi QP. This isn't you first block for this kind of thing, ist it? If people such as Drmies, GorillaWarfare, and KrakatoaKatie have blocked you in the past, then you are clearly not learning from it. Like Doug Weller says, you'll need to make a convincing claim that you will not make Personal attacks or harassment again. You may wish also to consider moderating you language if you want any sympathy - remember, talk pages are very public, and we strive to project a professional image of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC) (univolved)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Kudpung: As an exercise in precision, Drmies' block was self-requested. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: If by "this kind of thing" you mean "running into people's ego" then I'm guilty as charged. Unsurprisingly I still haven't received an apology. As you are well aware there isn't much us hoi polloi can do when admins do stupid shit. Making false accusations and posting personal attacks are relatively mild offenses compared to what I've seen some admins do. In a fair and just world this kinda stuff wouldn't happen, but this isn't one of those worlds. I wouldn't want certain admins who do stupid shit once in a while to be deadmined because most of the work they do is good (you know, netpositive). Even an admin who has a very emotional and irrational reaction to being criticized can still be a net positive. Of course I wish people were able to deal with criticism a lot better. Have you ever seen a potato giving a fuck? This indifference to both blame and praise makes potatoes better companions than humans. I would love to be able to believe that we, as a community, can project "a professional image of Wikipedia" but I have accepted the fact that we cannot. Call me a pessimist or a realist; I am indifferent to both labels. If people would stop taking themselves so damn seriously then there would be considerably less violence on this planet. Sympathy is not something I am looking for. Heck, I prefer being honest over being well-liked (isn't that obvious?). Being blocked does not affect me negatively (I often use wiki as a procrastination tool when I should be doing more important stuff and I am not a paid editor); but it damages the encyclopedia. I have to file my taxes before the end of the month. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of anyone, Wales is the last person who could get away with crass incivility. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he didn't get blocked for it. [3] Doc James isn't the kinda guy who writes bullshit. I don't think that de-admining JW for that diff would've been a good idea. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably stop posting personal attacks and false accusations. You may think you've "won", but in reality no one won and Wikipedia lost. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy was not blocked for any of that. And MJ fwiw I suggest that you not participate here further. I will be addressing your behavior in WP generally later today or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic, am trying to understand what happened here.

Let me recap it.

First MJ and I have been in a dispute over the Culinary Institute of America article due to their BOOSTER edits there, and I recently barred MJ from my talk page, here. But MJ is still apparently watching my TP.

QP has pinged me a bunch of times in the past few days to deal with various COI things. For example

• here from the HelpDesk about David Smith 111 at Interactive Brokers on January 10
• here at the help desk about NBC News on Jan 11
• and the most recent was here at DGG's talk page.

That last one, and my comment at the interactive broker's TP here (which was about David Smith 111:, not Mj), were the immediate prompts for the funny non-barnstar thread at my TP, here - you can see this clearly in Quixotic's contribs.

MJ then chose to commnent on that thread at my Talk page, which he shouldn't have done at all since a) he has been disinvited from commenting there and b) it had nothing to do with him.

In any case, QP replied in anger at MJ at my talk page and gave MJ a facepalm at MJ's talk page and then came back to my talk with the harassing comment, as rightly noted by Alex Shih here in the warning. The harassing comment was this edit, in which QP changed his edit describing MJ's apparent immaturity, by first writing " In which year were you born? " which QP changed in that diff to "in your linkedin profile picture you look younger than I am (I am 30+)".

QP replied dismissively to Alex's warning, reverting with edit note "bs" and this kind of snippy note at 06:29, 14 January 2018, which is what led Alex to block QP at 06:34 per the block log.

Looking back over all that, the block is on the borderline but I believe it would be upheld at AN if it were to be challenged. OUTING was not indeed not strictly violated as the off-WP material wasn't actually linked. What QP wrote was however very harass-y due to the "I know who you are in the real world" aspect of it, the product of "opposition research" and written in the context of an interpersonal dispute. My sense is that if QPhad replied to the warning with "oh, yeah that is really harrass-y, I see what you mean" or even authentically asked what AlexShih found problematic, then QP would not have been blocked (just warned). it was the dismissal of the warning, showing that QP didn't understand that the reference to off-WP stuff was not ok, that led to the block - not getting it means it is likely to be repeated so the block is preventative. Alex ~could~ have explained the rationale batter in his warming to QuixoticPotato but the warning was clear enough.

QuixoticPotato I know you are quixotic and that you do not tolerate bullshit and I like those things about you but you did overstep and you should not have blown off and challenged the warning. I hope that you can see that what you did there -- the diff you warned about -- violates the spirit of the harassment policy for sure and possibly the letter, and you that you should not do that. Off-WP stuff needs to be handled with care and never in that kind of exchange. Would you please acknowledge that and say that you understand that, and that you should not have blown off the warning?

If Quixotic is able to do that, they should be unblocked in my view. This was a kerfuffle built of several layers of misunderstanding and anger. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was blocked was because I mentioned the fact that BS is BS and asked someone to read a policy they should've read a long time ago. The Dutch in general (and especially those who live in Amsterdam) are infamous for valuing honesty over politeness (which can be perceived as rude and blunt). I am not here to make friends; I do unpaid volunteerwork because I believe in our mission. Unfortunately many people on this planet are arrogant and thin-skinned. We give people extra buttons to protect the encyclopedia, not their ego. I don't get paid for editing here, so being blocked does not affect me negatively; it only hurts the encyclopedia. WP:OUTING was not violated in any way, shape or form. People who make false accusations should be blocked imo (yes, even admins). Most kerfuffles are built on misunderstandings. The article Hanlon's razor does not get enough pageviews. The thing about filing taxes and procrastination was not a joke, I have to get everything ready for my accountant. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not why you were blocked, QP. I am not a bullshitter and I explained as clearly as I could why you were blocked. There was an issue with the WP:HA policy. Please read what I wrote again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. We agree on a lot of other stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you need for me to quote OUTING to you.. I already referred to it in my explanation above. It says "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". You posted the results of opposition research, and you did so in the context of an interpersonal dispute. This is not OK. This is what Alex warned you about, that you did not heed, and it was not the not heeding that led to the block. He was going to let you off with just a warning. Do you get it now? Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He would've only given a warning if I wouldn't have mentioned the fact that BS is BS and asked him to read a policy he should've read a long time ago. The sentence you quote does not say: "if you google the username of another person then that is a blockable offense". For example, I have Googled your username, and Jimbo's. I agree with that sentence you quoted, but it is irrelevant here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not bulshit. This is quite important, and I value your presence here, which is why I am trying to make sure you understand this.... I was indefinitely blocked for violating OUTING, btw, for doing pretty much what you did (in a different context) but I actually included the link to linkedin. This is important stuff to understand. Please take off the combative persona for just a moment, my dear potato. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was bs, but we can agree to disagree on that point. What you did was OUTING as described in WP:OUTING (and a blockable offense), what I did was not. Very big difference. I am a stubborn potato because of years of experience with people who are factually incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry my stubborn potato. Even if you will not back off this now, I hope you never do that again. If you do you will (and you will) get a longer block and they will pile up into indefinite blocks. What you did was icky. How would you feel if somebody wrote to you here about your linkedin picture or some other RW aspect of you? It would be different if MJ linked to it here in WP but he didn't. The community takes the "chinese wall" between what is on WP and what is off-WP very, very seriously. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is allowed to Google my username. Heck, everyone is allowed to Google my real name. And if I call someone who is older than me immature and he replies by stating that I look a lot younger than him then I wouldn't see that as a problem. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

really? I see no place in WP where you have disclosed links to your real world identity such that anybody could say they looked at some real world information about you. I think you are now bullshitting and would find it kind creepy if somebody said they had RW information on you and even said something about it that you found accurate. But more importantly, the community has said that this is not OK, and you have to respect that; respecting the policies and guidelines is part of the deal here. (it is not just about personally agreeing or disagreeing -- everybody has to respect the community norms) Like I said I am pretty confident the block would be upheld at AN. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikipedians are aware of my real world identity. The community has said that outing is not ok, and has defined it in WP:OUTING, which is policy. I did not break that policy. I am not a fan of argumentum ad populum. Look at the amount of people who believe in, for example, homeopathy... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps privately they are -- this is not general knowledge tho.

You remain focused on whether you violated the letter of OUTING. This is like talking to someone who actually believes the queen of england is a giant reptile.

Alex'a warning was unfortunately garbled -- This edit is as close as being a violation of WP:OUTING policy; I am sorry, but please do not make any edits like that again or I will immediately block this account for harassment. -- but he was trying to tell you were absolutely on the very very edge if not over. Calling that "bullshit" is just silly.

In the "real world" of Wikipedia (the one outside your head), a) you have been blocked; b) your unblock requests have been denied; and c) I have tried to explain what is problematic. I thought you were a reality-based potato. Ah well I have other stuff I want to do today. I hope you have a good day in the actual real world, regardless what happens here in Wikiworld. I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Your intentions are good, and I appreciate what you do onwiki (but you know that already ). We agree on lots of stuff; the fact that we disagree on some stuff does not bother me much. Being blocked does not affect me negatively; it damages Wikipedia. Filing taxes is boring, but it should be done. Have a nice day, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: First off, show me exactly where you think you have the right to ban (or 'disinvite'?) me from your talk page? I think there's no policy supporting that, and I will take this further if need be. I won't allow you to take my rights away without any authority to do so. Secondly, QP did post that comment to your talk page directly after interactions with me about Interactive Brokers. So regardless of his intention, it can both subjectively and objectively be seen as inappropriate and as potentially targeting me. Next off, I'm not sure why you're trying to have me not respond here, that comes off as a little rude and shady. I'm also not sure why you'd be "addressing [my] behavior in WP generally later", as we settled our past issues, and in this issue I've been beyond civil even around the harshest of incivility. I seriously believe you have an axe to grind and are severely biased against me. And regardless of your view of unblocking, the user has to show insight into why they were blocked and prove that they will not repeat those actions. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been beyond civil" made me laugh out loud. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is inappropriate. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your insults and false accusations are inappropriate. You should apologize. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just re. the whole "banning from talk page" thing, cf. WP:NOBAN, which addresses this very issue: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to."^{My emph.} Just for info. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little weak, it doesn't mean I have to stop, but it is sensible advice. I will follow it, but note well that Jytdog could not enforce it or punish me for breaking it, like he seems to imply above. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot "punish" anyone for anything, nor does the community. The community has and does and will continue to block and ban people who violate policies and guidelines, including this one, in order to prevent further disruption - especially when they show no sign that they are willing to understand what they are doing wrong. The diffs you are providing here are digging your hole deeper, btw. This is why I advised you not to participate here. But you will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that guideline's wording is not strong enough to be actionable. And your advisement to keep me off this page is beyond terrible, indescribably. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "including this one" I meant that. You can search ANI and find examples of the resulting blocks/bans. Jytdog (talk)17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: In response to your email: I used Google. It was definitely you. Please stay off of my talkpage from now on. You are welcome back after you've posted a sincere apology. I recommend reading Streisand effect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Functionaries are discussing this matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Well, the optimal solution is pretty simple. I wait out the block (file my taxes and get some stuff off my todo-list), even though I strongly disagree with it, and we focus our attention on improving the encyclopedia instead of all this metacommunication that distracts us from our goal. It's not like this is ever going to happen again. This is not the ideal solution, because this world is far from perfect, but it is probably optimal. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. As an uninvolved admin, I have declined the unblock request so you can get more important stuff done. :) ~Anachronist (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with other functionaries, this block has now been extended to indefinite for the following two reasons:

1. Continued claim of knowing another editor's real life identity ([4]) when the information is not disclosed anywhere across Wikimedia projects.
2. Pattern of similar offensive behavior in the previous year ([5]) without seemingly understanding the gravity of this concern.

Harassment is not funny. It's not something to be wikilawyered about, nor something you can choose to overlook. Due to misuse of this talk page, I have also revoked the talk page access. Moving forward, please use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System instead for any further unblock requests. In your rationale, you must show understanding of why you were blocked, in which Jytdog have summarized fairly well. A different administrator will review your UTRS request, and decide whether or not the block should be referred back to the community (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard). Depending on your unblock request, if there is no consensus to unblock there, then we will be moving into standing offer territory. Alex Shih (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex Shih--you said there was a discussion with functionaries; I can't find it on the functionaries email server. Where did it take place?

  Never mind, I found it. Hey Quixotic Potato, you are in a real bind here. I read your email, and I read the discussion here, and I don't agree that you were blocked out of revenge or so. I would love to disagree with Alex Shih but that's kind of hard, and I also agree (as did all the functionaries on the list who weighed in) that the LinkedIn comment was a form of harassment. Sorry.

  Now, you said you wouldn't be commenting on people's real lives anymore (I am paraphrasing from your email); that is, I think, a bare minimum for folks to let you back in. I think I can tell you that there is a consensus that you've been guilty of harassment before--I don't know about that, not knowing you very well, but that is what I hear--and that is also something that you'd be well advised to address in an unblock request. Sorry, but these are the breaks. I hope you'll give this some thought and that we'll see you again. Alex, I'm sorry, but I don't really see the talk page abuse--as long as QP doesn't like insult people or leave racist remarks about shithole countries and stuff, can they get it back to formulate an unblock request? BTW I think also that AN is the best place to handle it; given the consensus among functionaries this shouldn't be decided on by just one admin (which is, my dear Potato, why I couldn't do anything other than leaving this message). Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I would disagree there wasn't misuse, but no prejudice to restoring talk page access. I am on mobile now so cannot do it myself at the moment, please feel free to go ahead. Alex Shih (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored talk page access. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup This delicious cup of Rosy Lee is to remind you not to take things too seriously around here. I'm also baking a venison steak and kidney pie if you're hungry. I hope to see you back here soon. nagualdesign 00:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

despised and rejected

the desert is a good place for introspection

Handel's birthday was yesterday, he composed He was despised, and I made it a redirect in March 2012. For you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: To be honest I don't really give a fuck. Since Alex has already used the most drastic option that was available to him there is nothing he can do. Your proposal is of course a bit silly. You are saying that you are going to copy my request from a page that I can edit to a page that I cannot edit, and you expect me to want you to do that? No single admin has the balls to overrule an unnamed group of "functionaries", their conversation was held in secret, and they haven't asked me anything. They cannot understand the situation without asking questions. In order to fully defend myself I would of course have to provide proof of the undisclosed conflict of interest, which means I basically have to do the thing I was falsely accused of doing. Might be better to go to the press... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Quixotic Potato: I usually hit the 'thanks' button when something here makes me laugh out loud (it's a sufficiently uncommon occurrance), but I don't think I will this time...but Yala's correct, that was pretty specialist stuff. You ought to get your arse back here quicktime, and to do that you've got to tell the community what it wants to hear, but not just because it's what they want to hear. How do you think you can go about that, any thoughts? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer being honest over being well-liked. People telling the community what it wants to hear instead of the truth is the cause of many of our problems (e.g. successful RFA's for people who don't have the skills required). This block is punitive, it doesn't prevent harm to the encyclopedia but actively causes it. I've already said that this isn't going to happen again. A long time ago. What else can anyone ask for? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not meaning to imply that copying your request over to WP:AN is a one-shot sort of deal. Of course, if people ask questions, I or someone else would copy over your responses. You aren't obligated to do this, though. If you wish to make another unblock request, I won't stand in your way and would let someone else review it. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: That would be way too timeconsuming and confusing, and it would make it almost impossible for me to defend myself. It would be better to unblock me so that I can edit WP:AN, and then ask me to not edit elsewhere except my own userspace. But that still doesn't solve the problem that I'll need to present evidence which is confidential. Alex has intentionally made it nearly impossible to get unblocked because I called him out on his bullshit. We give people extra buttons so that they can protect the encyclopedia against (for example) undisclosed COI edits, not to defend the ego of an admin who can't handle criticism. WP:GAB may be useful in cases where the block is justified, but in cases like this is it counterproductive. Why do people value the uninformed opinions of people who have not asked any questions and haven't done the research required to understand a situation anyway? To complicate things even further, the incriminating information that used to be publicly available has been hidden (I have an archived version). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I have evidence that User:Ɱ/COI is missing one or more COI declarations, which are required by our TOS iirc, and that that same person was intentionally bullshitting over here. I am allowed to Google every username I want, I am allowed to do COI investigations whenever I want, and if someone uses personal attacks like "childishly" and "immature" (amongst many others) then it isn't very shocking that someone points out the fact that they is in no position to do so. Of course the reason I was blocked was my response to Alex's message; if I wouldn't have mentioned the fact that what he wrote is bullshit then I would've simply been warned instead of indeffed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm willing to temporarily unblock you under these terms. You are still considered a "blocked user". You are restricted to User talk:The Quixotic Potato and to WP:AN. On WP:AN, you may only post to discuss getting yourself unblocked, but this is to be broadly construed. For example, it is inappropriate to discuss, say, Example (talk · contribs) even though you may believe that user has a conflict of interest, because that user did not play a part in your block. However, you may discuss another user's conflict of interest, if that played a part in your block and to the extent permitted by WP:OUTING. Any admin is free to reimpose your block if they disagree with my actions, or at the conclusion of your unblock discussion if the consensus is not to lift your block. Is that acceptable? I'm happy to clarify any points. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would recommend using User:Example in examples. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have modified my comment, above, as you suggest. Are you good with those editing restrictions? If so, let me know. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Yep. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you should be able to access WP:AN to discuss your block, now. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'll be watching WP:AN so you don't need to notify me when you start your discussion there. --Yamla (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note you were unblocked so you could raise this issue over at WP:AN. If you have no intention of starting a thread there, I'll have to reimpose your original block. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have not posted anything over at WP:AN, I have reimposed the original block. --Yamla (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

among the despised in the desert --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Quixotic Potato! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2020

missing Brian

We miss Brian, and I miss you. Enjoy whatever you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firmansyah (fooballer born 1984). Since you had some involvement with the Firmansyah (fooballer born 1984) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Anna Blume died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

I miss you. If you still read here watch images 2021, with best wishes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Hard to manage without you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

miss you still --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]