Welcome to Youreallycan's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

	Welcome

This user helped promote Ed Miliband to good article status.

I left you a note on Talk:Hugh "Skip" McGee III Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 23:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What recent discussion? Did I miss one? I've been ineffectually lobbying against user page blanking (and other ritual humiliations) for blocked users for a while, but always came up on the wrong side of "no consensus". Can you give me a pointer? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was all started after Timidguy and Will Beback's arbitration outcome. This comment from Risker just about says it all imo - diff - the thread is also worth a read and there are a couple of links in it to other discussions on policy pages, regards - Youreallycan 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User_pages

Thanks, will take a look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're trying to get at with your suggestion of a "two-way" interaction ban, but I'm afraid it would be completely meaningless in practice. Are you aware that DC is maintaining a "diary" on me on WR in which he's currently accusing me and Wikimedia UK of financial corruption? He's trying to stop me pointing out how abusively he's behaving. If you ban him from doing things on WP he will just do them on WR instead. He needs to be kicked off WP, not given interaction bans. Prioryman (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look but didn't find this diary? Have you a diff - or if you don't want to link it on wiki, you could email it to me to investigate. Youreallycan 00:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here it is: [1] Note that it was completely unprovoked and complete bullshit to wit, as well as being very likely libellous both of me and WMUK. This is what DC does: he keeps running threads on WR on people he doesn't like, in order to churn up the banned users who post there. He did that to Cirt, he did it to Fae and he's evidently intending to do it to me too. He is not someone with clean hands, to put it mildly. Prioryman (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - thanks for the link. Those micro-grants seem really useful. Those guys like to investigate all stuff like that, funding etc. I support a bit of investigation to keep them on their toes. - I don't support continued and intrusive focus on a single user as it borders on harassment. You clearly did nothing wrong, in fact , the opposite. It is upsetting to be discussed off wiki and high profile users here create a big internet footprint for themselves. It just goes with the turf, so to speak - if I was you I would not go reading wikipedia review and I would avoid DC - much better than feeding the fire.

Keep doing what you do best - write high quality content about uncontroversial things like the titanic and the roman helmet and hopefully many other such in future. Many thanks for those high quality contributions to the project. Regards - Youreallycan 01:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You popped into Prem Rawat awhile ago and now I noticed that you help at the Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I have a question there and thought you might give me your opinion.[2] Thanks.Momento (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take it upon yourself to hat, archive, or otherwise try to short-circuit threads I start on ANI. If the community does not wish to impose an interaction ban on Prioryman, they won't, but that is not for you to decide by closing discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will bear your objection in mind in future, excuse me if I trod on your toes. Youreallycan 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I responded to you on the Deletion Review page. Do you have any specific objections? Also, greetings to your new username; I hadn't seen you around for a while, maybe that's why. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 09:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the full reputation quotes per your comment. It's here. I know you take a hard line on BLP subjects but I think you somehow got the wrong idea about my intentions. I've put a lot of time into developing a comprehensive and balanced article. Please give it a close reading. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the help with Biljana Srbljanović article. В и к и T 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - Lovely - thank you very much indeed. A little gratitude goes a long way. - Best regards to you - Youreallycan 09:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence R. Goldfarb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Haven't seen you in a while, Rob, let alone said hi to you. Here it is: Hi! How's it going? I dropped your name on ANI re: Lawrence R. Goldfarb, and article you may be interested in. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Drmies, thanks for the note. Spring is in the air and my life is busy and going fine, happy days indeed. Your fine edits seem to have resolved the resume issues. I have watchlisted it and will have a chat to anyone returning and replacing the excess. Thanks for passing by. Youreallycan 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spring is indeed in the air, Rob. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Harrison Binnie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here's one to sink your teeth into: William Harrison Binnie. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already improved it by 43% - it could use a little more perhaps - I have watchlisted it to see how it develops and I will have a deeper look tomorrow at the controversial content, thanks for the note Drmies - regards to you - Youreallycan 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was reverting an earlier commit, which was *not* discussed on the talk page. I have rollback permissions, as you can see, but I was unable to roll back because there were intervening edits. Again, I am *not* adding anything that was not there. Thanks for the concern, but I will be restoring the edit, unless you can point me to a place where the revision I reverted was discussed on the talk page. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives, it has been exstensively discussed. Arzel (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rob, you know he won in my home state? Drmies (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, he has done well considering his support was so low originally. Romney and his flip flop rich guy persona aren't winning the day it seems. Its clear that although the majority are middle of the road with liberal beliefs, some millions of Americans do appear to hold conservative views comparable to Santorums. Personally I wouldn't want either of them in charge of my local council. Obama's the man for the next five years. I would like to see Newt drop out, and any other minor candidates, drop out and leave the two front runners to fight it out. whoever wins the rep nom, Obama's a shoe-in imo for the next election imo. Youreallycan 10:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then why was the change made without a comment reflecting that there was consensus? The fact that the change was made citing an irrelevant policy indicates to me that someone was attempting to get the change in hoping that no one would notice it, as there was not consensus to make the change. If you can show me a section of the talk page in which this consensus was reached, I'd be glad to read it. Otherwise, my revert is entirely reasonable. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome you both to discuss it on the Talk Page with me. Thanks. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - Gallagher (comedian)

Hi YouReallyCan, After seeing this edit summary, "Not sure "notable" is correct here...these aren't exactly The New York Times or Atlantic Monthly", I took a look at this section and tend to see the same thing. I'm not sure the sourcing stands up and/or might be fringe. This appears to be a BLP issue...but I could be wrong. Your BLP expertise would be useful in making sure this is in line with policy.

He also suffered a serious heart attack last night and at least one Wiki editor has offered confirmation of his death although I have been searching and haven't seen anything like that. There are plenty of articles about the heart attack but not his death. Extra eyes watching that article would be good...storms may be driving me offline soon. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look Berean. Best of luck with the weather - Youreallycan 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your edits are a good trimming and placing proper weight on the subject.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Electoral_fraud

You are at the limit of 3RR for the electoral fraud article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you feel the need to "summarize" the discussion? It wasn't that long to begin with. It's not a football game, we don't need to recount the play-by-play in the results box. 28bytes (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary is beneficial in regard to overturned administrative judgments, for any future occurrences of similar poor judgment. Youreallycan 19:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend,

I enjoyed reading your capsule summary of the U.S. presidential race above, and it is quite perceptive in your distinctive and inimitable style. I also want to bring your attention to WP:HighBeam where you can learn about free access for experienced Wikipedians to a massive online paid database of research material. Good old fashioned "reliable sources" in abundance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, good to see you around. I have learnt a lot through contributing to the wikipedia. I will have a look and see if there are and highbeam accounts still available after the serious content contributors have all got one. Best wishes to you amigo. - Youreallycan 20:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cousens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was reviewing edits by high-count editors (not you) and saw your edit summary on this page. Why is this even an article? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohnish Bahl removal of section 'Controversies'

You removed a section 'Controversies' in the article Mohnish Bahl which had verifiable sources sustaining it. Your edits have been reverted. Please do not remove sourced and cited material. I have reviewed your edit summary quote: "remove - facebook is not a correct reliable location ot cite such tittilative gossip" and found it unnecessary because news reports had been cited to sustain information contained in the section. If you have a contention regarding the section which you removed (and which I have restored), you are requested to discuss it on the article's talk page. Thank you. Centaur81 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the section here and remove your comment? Was it because I said you botched my username in your comment? That part was meant in jest.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got six of 'em trying to comment at AN! That's got to be a new record. 28bytes (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a different approach -Youreallycan 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just overwrite your comment, you mean? I've thought about doing that, but it's always seemed a bit rude. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need more RAM - Youreallycan 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be suitable for recent edits lest an editor accuse you of outing or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan, please redact the sexual slurs and personal attacks you have made on this AfD. You've been around more than long enough to know that WP:NPA applies to everyone, including you. You're also operating on the fringes of WP:ARBEE by carrying out this behavior on an Eastern Europe-related page. I encourage you to redact your comments and disengage from the AfD and the editors you're battling on it before a block becomes necessary. Please consider this your only warning on this matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now done so. Thank you for your quick response. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/off2riorob. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in the discussion, but it does not appear you've been properly notified yet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Youreallycan 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for plainly unacceptable personal attacks as documented in the ANI thread. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unjustified block: The idea of a block was still being debated when this block was pre-maturely imposed. The incident revolved around the use of term "queer agenda" which is not an insult or derogatory term, with the common meaning of "queer" as being "odd" (or even "GLBT" which is also acceptable, as noted in an RfC mentioning "queer editors": RfC-diff-4374). Meanwhile, some editors expressed a prior hostility, wishing this editor to be blocked for past actions, already sanctioned by a warning, but that does not condone a "double jeopardy" to block an editor for past actions already cleared. Hence, there was no action, on the part of this editor, to justify this block. However, I realize when other editors start making hostile comments against another editor at ANI, it gives the illusion of wrong-doing, but WP does not block an editor merely because several people were upset with prior actions and wanted more severe punishment than the prior admin had decided. I was a formal debate judge, for years, so I am always watching to see if there is an improper non sequitor unjustified conclusion, as there was in this case, of an unjustified block. This block should be unblocked immediately. Plus, an apology should be given to this editor. Then, we need an essay that warns admins to beware hate-mongering about imposing punishment for past actions, already sanctioned, with no evidence supporting a new block. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Youreallycan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Queer - is not a personal attack - here in this post the complainant users the descriptor himself five times diff - I also point out that I had retracted the comment immediately when requested. diff - I got to the end of my tether with the user and I shouldn't have said it, and I apologize to him for losing my temper and for the comment. - Youreallycan 07:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Striking an insult out doesn't magically undo its harm. This isn't your first block for personal attacks, you should know better. Max Semenik (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Personally, I wouldn't have blocked you since you'd already stricken through the remark. But I suspect you'll have better luck with an unblock request along the lines of "I won't do that anymore" rather than "it's OK to do that." Because I think you'll find that the consensus is that it's not OK to do that, regardless of how other users choose to describe themselves. 28bytes (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for saying that 28bytes - I got to the end of my tether with the user, donkeys ass and the Putin insult on his userpage etc. A week block seems quite severe to me, anyway, I am off out into the wonderful sunshine in the real world - have a nice day. Youreallycan 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, "queer" is not a personal attack, especially when the user in question uses that term to describe themself. However "can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" is most definitely a personal attack and we need some assurance that that isn't going to happen again in order to proceed with the unblock. waggers (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a personal attack and I apologize to the user. I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level? - Youreallycan 08:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, and in light or Russavia just having proudly mentioned his encyclopedic contributions to Fucking, Austria, I would have said much the same as Youreallycan. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Given that Russavia is looking at the distinct possibility of a 6-month ban at WP:AE, it seems some of us are asking themselves the same question. Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. Please unblock post haste. JN466 10:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Youreallycan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've apologized and I immediately retracted my comment, I have offered a def con one level of civility, there is nothing more I can offer. I lost my temper for a split second and retracted on request, if there is no imminent danger to the project I can be unblocked. - Youreallycan 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't buy for a second that those messages contain homophobic attacks; what they contain is general incivility and personal attacks, however. Considering you redacted them after being asked and before the ANI thread I'm willing to unblock you, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but, seriously, you must promise that next time you feel you are growing frustrated and upset, you'll just walk away and will not edit until you've cooled down. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will in future walk awy - and avoid expressing my anger at on wiki situations, Youreallycan 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvio, I fundamentally disagree with your view on what constitutes homophobic abuse on Wikipedia or the credibility of promises from Youreallycan based on their past history in dealing with disputes and causing disruption. Before taking action, I firmly recommend you gain a proper consensus on ANI for whether dismissing the opinions of other editors by telling them to fuck off because they have a queer agenda, during a consensus process, is disruptive and homophobic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained my reasons on ANI. I don't consider this block preventative, at this point, and, so, I feel Youreallycan should be unblocked. And that's what I have just done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much nb--- I won.t let you down - Youreallycan 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold you to that, Rob. I'm taking a risk here, I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the bum. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, I assume that you are fully aware of how a cosy wink in your above statement, and arbitrarily referencing bum, will appear to all onlookers in this background of homophobic allegations. Exactly what message are you giving out here by making such a joke? --Fæ (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]