Note to self: Don't trust Notepad++'s spellchecker. You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:MjolnirPants/Archives/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

If you want to rub my ego instead, feel free.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may now safely ignore this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, I was having fun! (I'm half-serious; this was one of those rare disagreements about a fringe topic where the other side's arguments were well-considered, well-put together and well worth considering, and it remained civil throughout.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to complain, since I think many uninvolved users would have closed the same way if they even bothered, but I think it was technically out of line for you to close in line with your own previously expressed opinion. The TBAN was still on the table, and if one discounts the trolling/hounding and canvassed !votes, the ban had significantly more supports than opposes. An uninvolved admin might have chosen to do so or not, but given that you had already said Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them. We'll see if the IDHT continues or gets worse now (I honestly think it got worse again once it looked like the TBAN was off the table). I hope I don't have to be the one to open the next ANI discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I didn't see it going anywhere (the TBAN was on the table, yeah, but it wasn't getting much support, and with the disruption ended, the admins were unlikely to implement it anyways). Also, I think everyone is just way too uptight about involved closes. WP:CLOSE is neither guideline nor policy, and is focused on AfD discussions, which are inherently binary and more susceptible to bias than non-binary discussions. Also, ANI is drama central and I view unnecessary drama in the same light as I view roaches and silverfish crawling out from under my fridge: it's time to either kill it or get the hell out. The more and faster the closes at ANI come, the better I say! ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with the disruption ended As I think I stated on ANI, the disruption appeared to have largely subsided while the TBAN was on the table, then returned in a minor but visible way when it looked like "consensus" was gathering against it, then dissipated again once "this user was canvassed" tags were placed below several of the oppose !votes and the trolling IP comments were collapsed. But look at his latest response to me on his talk page, now that you've formally closed the discussion. IDHT, IDHT, IDHT. I explained to him the difference between a user essay and a Wikipedia essay that most users take as normative (with one of three or four reasons being the tiny number of pages where users have cited the former), and his response was "It's not about the number of links". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I'm not arguing that they don't have a ways to go... I've seen them getting involved in large unblock discussion, in minor edit wars (that involve a lot of frustration for at least one party, though Endercase had no realistic way of knowing that) and other such dramatic interactions, all seemingly led their by following another editor around. Which are all fine, in and of themselves. But they add up to an editor who's not just jumping in with both feet, but swan diving in from the roof. But as I said in ANI; if there's another problem we can deal with that then, using the previous ANI thread you started as a precedent. I don't foresee a future such discussion getting very involved, especially since the concerns about David's mentorship are pretty well alleviated by yours and my participation in it, and by the actual content of said mentoring, which has been pretty good so far, AFAIK.

Also, quick question: Were you born in '88? (You can email me the answer if you don't want to post it). I'm just curious, because I happen to know a large number of patched MC members, and "88" has a very specific meaning to them. If you know what I'm talking about, then know I don't think it applies to you, it's just something that jumps out at me every time I see your username. I may have asked you this before, I don't remember. I have kids: expecting me to remember things I've said or questions I've asked is a recipe for disappointment. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained on my user page, so of course I don't mind answering on-wiki. The answer is yes. I don't know what "MC" means, but I have been accused of Nazi sympathies based on my username. The user who did so was site-banned about a year and a half later. (I've been accused of Nazi sympathies by other users for other reasons, mind you. I think it was a mutual friend of ours, actually; the one I recently mentioned on Bishonen's talk page whom I suspected of being the IP that was trolling ANI, who ironically is also the subject of the recent problem on Endercase's talk page. Small world.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An MC is a Motorcycle club, or more specifically, an Outlaw motorcycle club. I'm not surprised by the accusations (who hasn't been accused of being a Nazi, amiright?), though I think the numbers in your username are a pretty damn slim excuse for it, lol. I was just curious because, as I said, I know folks who associate with people who have "88" tattoos, patches, stickers, etc, etc... It's one of those things that just stands out for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to put this on you, but ... well, you probably haven't noticed, but I haven't contributed much article content in the last two weeks. Part of if is that I've been busy IRL (some of my students graduated, I then left the school and had to say goodbye to the rest of them, I visited Tokyo for the Saint Patrick's Day weekend, post-finishing at school I had to attend to a bunch of office work, including designing a sample lesson, translating it into Japanese, and then translating all my colleagues' sample lessons, binge-watching the latest Marvel Netflix show, which sucked and made me depressed), but I still find myself having to constantly react to being pinged/mentioned on various noticeboards and user talk pages, which I really wish wasn't happening.

Anyway, this comment was unnerving. I already asked him to retract it, but I'd really rather not have to go into detail about why it's inappropriate to speak that way to someone who's going out of their way to help you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to ping you on Endercase's talk page a little while ago, but Endercase appears to think the mentoring is now somehow "finished" and has "archived" the "mentoring section" on his talk page. Also ... well, I asked DT's assistance in telling Endercase not to make comments like the above and he apparently doesn't want to. So now we've got one mentor (me) whom Endercase has apparently said he won't listen to, and one mentor (David) who is apparently refusing to do the mentoring, as well as the mentee (apparently -- I might be misreading things) saying that he doesn't think he needs a mentor anymore. What do you think should be done? I definitely don't want to open another ANI discussion already, but...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^@Hijiri88: Please do not talk about me behind my back like this. Why am I not pinged here? I only found this discussion because I read this that suggested something was happening here regarding Endercase. When did you ask me to tell Endercase not to do that? Please provide a diff. You told me to tell some other editor to "knock it off" instead [1]. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: If you refuse to fulfill your responsibilities as Ender's mentor, you can expect me to explain that fact to other users I am forced to talk to instead. If Endercase attacked you, and you requested me as your co-mentor to talk to him, I would readily do so. I would not say "Why should I? I'm not an admin." as you did. It's completely natural for Endercase to assume that I am "biased" when I request that he stop attacking me personally (because I am), so I went to you as my co-mentor. You said, essentially, "fuck off", so I went to MP instead, and explained why I couldn't go to you. If I was somehow misinterpreting your comments, I apologize, but I don't see how Why should I? I'm not an admin. could be interpreted differently, and the fact you still haven't done what I requested despite repeated requests supports my initial interpretation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:You have not apologized for not pinging me and for talking behind my back. Second, you keep saying now that you *repeatedly* told me to admonish Endercase over the above diff. That is not true. If it were true you would provide a diff. Instead you told me to admonish a different editor as I said above [2] and that is why I said no. Stop. Also, this is a real disservice to Mjpants. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I popped in there and left them a note. As I said at ANI: If this continues, the next discussion will be much shorter (and with much fewer options being discussed). I don't know if you're up to speed on the argument from authority thing, but read my summary at Ender's talk, which I posted in the first section they made about it. That pretty much sums it up, and if you privately think that ole MPanties might be getting a bit hyperbolic about some parts of it, let me know what parts those are so I can show you diffs, because I shit you not: I'm describing it as objectively as I can. Hyperbole in that case would require extensive consultation of Carlin's list and several days of coming up with imaginative euphemisms for mental conditions I don't dare describe here in preparation.

For Ender to jump into that mess (with both feet no less) is a rather disheartening sign. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're up to speed on the argument from authority thing I'm not; I checked his contribs and saw him editing an article thay didn't appear to be related to right-wing news media and online social media, and took it as a good sign, but I didn't look into the discussion beyond that. I actually didn't even know Ender had a history with Ponyo (?). Anyway, now that someone other than me has told him that he's still being mentored, maybe he'll return to where he was in the last few days of the ANI thread. We might be creating a civil POV-pusher, but that's at least better than an uncivil POV-pusher.

Actually Nishidani and Curly Turkey can tell you why it isn't much better, and can actually be much harder to deal with in the long term, but that's an issue for another day. If what Ender turns into is a civil POV-pusher, that won't even be an issue for me to deal with, as whatever area of knowledge he actually is interested in it probably has next to nothing to do with Chinese poetry, and -- despite what a growing number of clearly good-faith editors not behaving in a remotely tendentious or battleground-like manner seem to think -- I actually have very little interest in those areas he has apparently shown an interest in, except in the general sense that I care about the Encyclopedia as a whole.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, civil POV pushers are worse for the project than any other type of disruptive editor. You'll find no disagreement here. The only thing is, how does one actually mentor an editor who needs it without potentially cultivating a civil POV pusher? The 'skills' and knowledge necessary to be a long-term civil POV pusher are the exact same 'skills' and knowledge that it takes to be a productive editor. It's just a matter of priorities. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly I'm increasingly of the opinion that WP:WER is a detriment to the project. Having an on-wiki venue where anyone can feel free to complain that about how a banned user was "driven off the project", and where there is a weekly award given out to some randomly selected user (who was unilaterally nominated by an editor who themselves was not vetted in any way), and where expressing the opinion that some users are just disruptive and a detriment to the project automatically makes one the bad guy. Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the "Editor of the Week" recipients over the last four years, and how many of them wound up getting indefinitely banned/blocked for the same behaviour that got them the award.

I'm not saying it has anything to do with anyone involved in the current incident but ... yeah, hanging around that forum for a while makes one feel extremely uncomfortable even talking about WP:NOTHERE. It is just not a very pleasant environment. Civil POV-pushers can be dealt with, in the long run, but them having a forum they can run to where simply talking about "dealing with them" is enough to get one in trouble is extremely frustrating.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of a prediction market? I'm rather fascinated by their accuracy, and I see WP in a similar light: The more editors we get, the more accurate we can be. There are a number of logical reasons for this that I don't want to go into now. So I don't really agree that WER is a bad thing, but I do agree with your complaints. I think WER is going about retaining editors in the wrong way. IMHO, editor retention should take the form of an outreach and educational activity which takes the form of teaching people (not just Wikipedians, but explicitly including them) how to evaluate sources and sift through rhetoric to find facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's actually pretty surprising how often the users who seem completely unable to read sources claim on their user pages that they have bachelor and even graduate degrees. I've always taken AGF to mean we can't accuse them of lying on their user page, and ... well, going to college where I did and studying the course I did (in Ireland university is, or at least was, essentially free as long as one didn't fail any classes, and I got the distinct feeling in my course that doing the minimum amount of study could allow one to pass; after four years of spending more time studying Japanese than everything else combined, it was possible to get a second-class honours degree and still just barely be able to pass N2 on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test) makes me skeptical of whether even college graduates can be assumed to be able to read sources.

Some users, though, just won't learn, regardless of what their education level in the real world might be. The real problem is that as long as they never say "fuck" or "shit", the only way to deal with them is to get editors who knowledgeable of the topic area (not always easy) to somehow explain to either the community or the Arbitration Committee what the problem is (and the latter will, most of the time, just say "but they never said fuck or shit, so they must be in the right; ArbCom doesn't weigh in on content disputes, even when it does"). Wikipedia:Civility is great -- I think if everyone worked within it, the project would be better than it is -- but having it as essentially the most important policy, outweighing all others combined in its power, is terrible.

You and I both know how much of a powder keg anything to do with the bible is -- remember that Bart Ehrman article? The problem on Wikipedia is that 90% of people who care to edit Wikipedia articles on those topics are conservative evangelical Christians (who have an admitted theological bias) and of the other 10%, a significant portion are just anti-Christian POV-pushers who don't care about scholarship if it doesn't line up with their views (why a bunch of "former fans" started attacking Ehrman after he wrote Did Jesus Exist?). I wouldn't go as far as Martin in saying (at least on Wikipedia) that we have just as many people who are anti-Christian and they want to grab onto this (his emphasis) but both groups are significant.

By the way, did you see that the Ehrman-Price debate was on YouTube?[3] I didn't want to pay for it when it came out (work visa in Japan, don't have a credit card, don't want to Skype my father asking if I can borrow $4 to pay for an online video, don't want to bother figuring out any alternative payment method), so I was worried I'd never get to see it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not read all of this. Some points:

This is mostly to @Hijiri88:: (1) I agree that the diff you provided at top is inappropriate behavior by Endercase. I just notified him in his mentor section here. However, I have no recollection of ever being told about this diff. If you insist you told me, show me where. (2) Also, I never said I would stop mentoring Endercase. Please do not make things up like that. I continue to talk to him. I am not as quick to scold him so frequently. I am trying to encourage good editing and discussion as is going on at Appeal to authority. (3) He did not say he was going to stop receiving advice. He said that mentoring was "optional". I think he is technically correct. That does not mean he won't listen. But I do think there is too much stick and not enough carrot. (4) He did not close the mentoring section as you allege. It is still there [4]. He just added archiving on his talk page [5] (see edit note) that he thought was stale, which I *told* him he could do, when he asked here. It looks like he may have done it wrong. If he did it wrong, help him. Geez. Please assume good faith. All these false bad faith allegations are just making things worse. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I'm pretty sure Hijiri was referring to himself when he referenced a mentor giving up in disgust.

@Hijiri88: I agree about education not necessarily educating a person, but that word "necessarily" can be a real doozy. Generally speaking, more people will do better with more education, and the ones who don't weren't going to be helped by damn near anything. I have no doubts those people exist and edit WP (I mentioned two of them in a discussion related to this one already), but I was, for the most part, agreeing with your complaints above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving me right. I will not retract any more of my statements. They are true. All the evidence that is needed is right here. If I am punished for speaking cit-able truth so be it. Next time tag an editor when you talk about them, else you talk about them behind their backs. Endercase (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, we have all seen plenty of evidence to suggest you have been following the edits (which would include edits to my talk page) of a number of users, including myself. If we had wished to talk behind your back, we all have email enabled and could quite easily have done so in a manner which you would never know about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just frustrated. I don't follow y'all's edits, not sure how reliable your evidence is. I do follow bomberswarm2's edits sometimes though. Endercase (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just coincidence that you've shown up on obscure pages that users who have recently interacted with you edit? I find that difficult to believe. There's nothing wrong with following another user's edits, no reason not to admit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:I just noticed your link to the Ehrman/Price debate (moderated by Matt Dillahunty, no less!) and I'm listening to it now. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to repost on my page with the jpg from Big Trout, before realising it was really really big. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OiD, please don't trout yourself with that! Don't do it! You have too much to live for! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its fibreglass and weighs 2.5 tonne. I could only trout myself with that by taking a run-up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I now have every intention of filming myself doing exactly that should I ever visit NSW for the explicit purpose of uploading it to WP as a gif for use in templates. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is so effin pointless. I love it. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a subtle reference, I don't get it. Wrong thread? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:Not a reference to anything specific (well, it was made several times on Stargate SG-1, but it existed long before that), just repeating the hoary old joke that the answer to any difficult-to-answer question about technology is "magnets". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Read my edit summary: the cited text is well supported by the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary confirmed it is partially original research. QuackGuru (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEASEL: "Words to watch: ... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said ..." The weasel word "some" is original research. Your edit went against the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru:Are you fucking kidding me? The source says:

There is a scientific case for the Paleolithic diet, based in part on anthropological considerations. Intervention studies lend support as well, suggesting benefits over the prevailing Western diet in measures of both body composition and metabolic health.

and the cited text says:

There is some evidence that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects as compared to the typical Western diet.

That's not a weasel word, that's just good paraphrasing. Going further by calling it OR is so fare beyond ridiculous that I'm wondering if your account got hacked by a troll. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WEASEL it is a weasel word. See WP:WEASEL: "Words to watch: ... some people say, many scholars state,.." One of the words to watch is "some". QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru:You really need to actually read WP:WEASEL, because it's not a blanket list of banned words. The problem with weasel words is that they make a vague claim sound more authoritative. In this example, an authoritative claim was made more vague by the use of the word "some" which you might notice is the exact opposite effect. "Fixing" the use of the word "some" would make the statement more authoritative, and suggest that all intervention studies show the same effect, which is (as far as I know) simply not true. Furthermore, {{fv}} is not a tag to mark weasel words, {{weasel-inline}} is. the FV tag indicates that the cited source does not support the claim in the article, a claim which would have been proven false had you actually bothered to read the source before inserting it. The fact that you feel the need to come here and wikilawyer your patently false claim into something that might have some merit (if we completely ignore what WP:WEASEL actually says) is really undercutting your credibility with me. You were wrong to add that tag, which is no big deal. We all make mistakes. But to sit here and accuse me of violating policy because I did the work you refused to do and found out you were wrong is really immature. It's time to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not make the claim it was "some" evidence. I already read the source. The entire sentence is not supported by the source. You supported the sentence that is not supported by the source and you continue to support it after I explained "some" is one of the words to watch. You were unable provide verification for the weasel word "some". Therefore, the sentence failed verification. It is not wikilawyering to spot an unsupported claim. The text can use weasel words as long as they are supported by the source. In this case the specific weasel word is not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop. Posting. On. My. Talk. Page. You are wrong. Get over it. Start an RfC if you think anyone else would agree that the text isn't supported by the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for fighting for reationality MjolnirPants! Vi ses i Valhalla en dag! --Luka1184 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too sexy for Valhalla; I'd make the rest of the Einherjaren jealous. Sexy enough that Freya already said that if I keel over from a heart attack while arguing on WP, that's good enough to get me into Folkvangr. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in talking to people who are lying about my motivations, so I'll reply to you here, rather than on that page, to keep the kibitzers out. The crux of the matter is: finally being able to use the list of redlinked categories is apparently so useless that the person I was talking to may actually have to go back to writing articles. The conflict was presented as "selfish goof-offs allowing damage to the encyclopedia" vs. "selfless encyclopedia maintainers", but the person I was talking to is admitting that, once you remove all the user page stuff, there are hardly any other problems to "maintain". Ultimately, my point is, I shouldn't have to convince anyone that other redlinked categories are funny; I don't even have to think they're really funny myself; I simply liked having them, and it turns out that once you get rid of them, no significant benefit is actually achieved. If there were a significant benefit, I wouldn't have said anything; but there apparently isn't. I don't know why the third person in that thread is upset that I'm not happy about it, to the point where they need set up ridiculous strawman motivations on my part; I'd have thought winning would be enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I appreciate the response, but as it turns out, your answer was completely unnecessary. BHG's response to my reminder to be civil has granted me a brand new appreciation for anything that gets under her skin. There's no such thing as a red-linked category that's not amusing in some way now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo bloody ray. Roxy the dog. bark 22:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The most important question on this issue: does this mean I can/cannot have a 'Wikipedian's of Prussian descent' category on my user/talkpage now? ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, disagreeing with BHG (nevermind that the majority of the site disagrees with her on this) is clear evidence that you're not editing in good faith, and of course, that gives her permission to personally attack you. So the answer is that you can have it, but you're going to be called names over it. Ya big poopiehead. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think tbh, anyone who has conversed with me for five minutes generally knows I dont care what anyone else thinks... TO THE CATEGORY MOBILE! Nanananananana.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Holy redlink, Batman! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that is fairly early in West's career? As he has pretty good legs on him at that point... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is dated to 1965, so it looks like it might have been taken during the production of the first season. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*snicker* Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny how a very small handful of editors who happen to watch an obscure page can, seven years ago, create a consensus that is binding on the rest of Wikipedia and which can't be debated? I think it's funny. Funny like a three dollar bill. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was more amused that my Prussian ancestry merits a redirect, but your unreasoning hatred of garage bands doesnt... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it is a bit random, isn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait! Since we have 'American Wikipedians', 'British Wikipedians' and 'Australian Wikipedian' categories, surely 'Prussian Wikipedians' should be valid? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<thick German accent>No! Zat would be fun. Vee cannot be having ze fun on ze Vikipedia! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look over the article, especially the last subsection of the "Research" section? jps (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: I'll take a look at it on Monday. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to resolve the dispute over the E&E, but it seems you do not wish to answer any more good faith questions. What do you expect me to do? I can wait and eventually if nothing else happens consider consensus has been established and starting editing on that understanding. I don’t know what you would do at that point, are you going to start reverting my changes and still not answer my good faith questions? That’s rather WP:Tendentious editing. Would you rather try mediation or something else to try to resolve the content dispute? -Obsidi (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has already been resolved. Your refusal to accept that decision does not change anything. Unless and until you can address the specific concerns expressed by the majority of participants in that thread, there is nothing more to discuss. Your continued attempts to sidestep normal discussion has not gone unnoticed, either. I strongly suggest you work to familiarize yourself with the the behavior outlined in WP:CRUSH and work hard to ensure that you (no longer) continue to pursue such tactics in the future. Topic bans are a form of sanction specifically implemented to deal with problems like these, which are considered to be just as disruptive as incivility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see you have declined formal mediation. If you disagreed with the issues I presented for mediation, you are free to propose any other issues you think should be discussed (in whatever form you wish to phrase it). I want you to know that I really do wish to resolve this disagreement. If formal mediation fails we will have to try some other dispute resolution. -Obsidi (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you I was done with this. I'm not going to discuss anything with the sort of editor who runs to ANI at the drop of a hat, edits other's comments to cast aspersions on them, lies about something so simple as checking a link (and then doubles down on it rather than taking the five seconds it would take to check the link), can't address the actual arguments presented to them, files deceptive mediation requests and generally just makes themselves into more of a disruption than a benefit to the article. So stay off my talk page, and find someone else to explain to you for the nth time that a crap journal with crap standards is worth exactly crap when it comes to content for WP. You're angling for a topic ban and believe it or not, I'm not going to try to help you get there any faster. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.

The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

[6] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: You might want to double check, it's not showing up on my end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I got a notification, but the email never came through. I really like your way of letting me know, though. Much better than the template. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Google decided to randomly start "sorting" my email, so I found your emails (and another wiki email) in a brand new folder. I'm off to change all my passwords now, JIT. I'll respond via email. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just now read your comment, and while I agree with most of it, you mentioned YouTube comments, and I last week encountered one of those that essentially amounted to "Kill the [name of religio-ethnic group]". (You can guess what the word I cut out was, as it's pretty obvious. I just didn't want to repeat the exact phrase on Wikipedia.) I would honestly have no qualms calling direct incitements to violence themselves "violent". This has nothing whatsoever to do with blocking on Wikipedia. Just that you mentioned YouTube comments as something that are inherently non-violent. I'm sure if some more of Martin and Ehrman's videos had comments enabled they'd be a magnet for comments like the one I saw last week... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because there's still a person who has to make a choice to actually use violence standing in between the victim and the person saying "kill them". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on rewriting my assholish response. So I'll just post it here;

It's a sound refutation... ish. When somebody calls you a Nazi, you don't respond with no, let's have a rationale discussion. That's pointless because the person calling you a Nazi (assuming its for no reason or for holding an opinion they don't like) is not being rational. The problem with the rational left is that they respond to the irrational left with rationality. Why do you think Trump won? cause he's rational? no, course not. You respond with either; No I'm not, and you're an asshole for calling me that or alternatively; Sieg Heil and then call them an asshole. I think it was Sam Harris who said something like the first one. Preferably, your response will be the first one. That doesn't mean actually become a Nazi, start reading and believing Nazi propaganda as you suggest above (on the other page). Yes, duckfooting, sieg heiling and all the rest of it is a legitimate response, it's just not a productive one. That's where I agree with you. However, what you're not seeing is that I'm not trying to be productive with that response. I have no intent of having a rational discussion with say an Antifa supporter. Anymore than they would be interested in doing the same with me. It's pointless. Kekistan is doing a sufficient job I think of spitting in their face. You might be right about the alt-right cutting it's nose off too spite it's face. Antifa (for example) is doing something quite a bit dumber though. They call themselves anti-fascists, but, they behave exactly like I would expact a fascist to behave. Refer the Berkeley riots for evidence and how about that school teacher Yvette Felarca. When you call everybody a Nazi, you give them a common cause against you. The reason you find the alt-right getting involved in shitposting and hijacking all the memes, is because they have common cause with moderate people as well. Milk is a great example here; that meme was started by articles calling white people racist because lactose intolerance is higher in non-white communities. The only danger here is that you could accidentally make a bedfellow out of the movement. All of that said, I don't actually know anything about the alt-right movement as a whole. I don't really care too. I find ethnonationalists and religious nuts amusing, not intriguing. Also I'm left leaning. Also it's 2:55 am. This is about as rational as I'm going to get. Maybe I'll wake up and strike this too. Who knows. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points:

That's pointless because the person calling you a Nazi (assuming its for no reason or for holding an opinion they don't like) is not being rational. As you pointed out, this is only true if the person calling Bob a Nazi is doing so for an irrational reason. When Alice calls Bob a Nazi because Bob follows Richard B. Spencer on twitter, has stormfront.org on his bookmark toolbar, and collects Nazi memorabilia, calling him a Nazi is a perfectly rational things.

You respond with either; No I'm not, and you're an asshole for calling me that or alternatively; Sieg Heil and then call them an asshole. Personally (and to be clear: I loves me some schadenfreude and trolling), I prefer to pull apart something they said to interpret it as racism, then ask them innocent-sounding questions about how they developed their odd views of race that actually trick them into saying things that sound even more racist until they rage quit the conversation. But then, I truly don't care what such people think, I enjoy tormenting them and I see no point to a rational response as it's not going to accomplish anything but wasting my time making it. Or else I'll simply agree with them, tell them to go fuck themselves and go away because I don't feel like torturing someone at the time. I'm sure as hell not going to adopt a racist persona in the misguided presumption that proving them right will somehow get under their skin. Because I know from experience that it won't.

Example: Remember when Spencer got punched on TV and the alt-right tried to drum up some sympathy, only to be met with that whole "Is it ever okay to punch a Nazi?" meme? That's how you do it.

However, what you're not seeing is that I'm not trying to be productive with that response. No, I implicitly understood that from the get-go. The FSM is not productive, the "atheist just love babies with ketchup!!" thing is not productive. Nothing I said hinges upon the response needing to be productive in any way, just the response not being unintentionally ironic and actively counter-productive (even to the goal of pissing them off).

Kekistan is doing a sufficient job I think of spitting in their face. As a card carrying liberal, I was overjoyed to hear about Kekistan. The more racism my political opposites adopt, the more ethically right I become. And I am one of those who think that racism is inherent in the alt-right movement. It doesn't spit in my face at all. It proves me right. It's awesome! If the alt-right wanted to spit in my face, they'd do something to show how hypocritical I was, instead of calling me a hypocrite and putting triple parentheses around my name because it happens to end in -berg. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awake, just one question since you've now said it twice; I was overjoyed to hear about Kekistan. The more racism my political opposites adopt, the more ethically right I become. Exactly how is Kekistan racist? <- Ah, you're referring to the Nazi symbolism involved. I thought you meant that creating an ethnicity is inherently racist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of Kekistan isn't inherently racist (I'm aware that 'kek' is similar in meaning to 'lol' or more specifically, that 'kekekeke' is the Germanic-language equivalent of 'hehehehe'), it's just that it's something that has been adopted by so many racists that it's acquired the trait. I linked to an example of overt racism on the Kekistan wiki in my comment at the wikispace page. Also, the pseudo-political dimensions of it are both a magnet for and a red flag of the alt-right, who are inextricably associated with chan-culture/shitposters to the point of having ideological roots in it (along with ecomonic and social Libertarianism and far-right politics).

My family tends to be quite far down the right wing of the political spectrum, to the point of me having an uncle who is an active member of the KKK, well into his retirement. He was the first person I ever heard mention "kekistan", and he actively refers to himself as a "shitposter" a "/b/tard" and as a member of the alt-right. I also have friends who have numerous associations with neo-nazi groups (they themselves aren't members, though I often question their tolerance), and the chan-culture/shitposter culture is strong with them, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not a 4/8 channer or a /pol/er. I'm aware of both of these things but am not a member or even reader of any boards. Nah, I'm Kekistani in as far as I find it funny as hell. Beyond that, in terms a legitimate political movement, I couldn't care less. I'm interested in what's going on politically, but, I am far from being a competent pundit. Also, the Kek in Kekistan is referring to Kek (mythology). Kek being a frog and behaving similarly to Pepe the Frog. Hence; "Praise Kek". Anyway, night. It's now 4:39 AM and I am actually starting to feel drowsy... I think. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (vaguely) aware of the associations with Egyptian mythology, but I know "kek" was a term used in that subculture long before it adopted Pepe. I also don't doubt there are a lot of apolitical shitposters, it's just that it's a culture that gave birth to the alt-right, and has been more-or-less taken over, or at the least eclipsed by the alt-right. That's why I don't lay any claim to being a part of it (Well, that and the association with other reactionary movements like anti-feminism). Anyways, have a good night's/morning's sleep. If you do decide to strike anything here after you wake up, feel free to blank the whole section, I won't mind a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

....special. Thank you for such a kewl surprise. I sometimes feel I'm deserving of it when a trout just won't do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You done messed up this time, boy! Don't put easily pressed buttons on your Talk page. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for someone to trout me for the mistake of making it so easy to trout me! lol Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...you may find the following useful if you decide to keep that button:  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough - it's for when a trout just isn't enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That self-whale thing is awesome. I bet you it took a true genius to make that template... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion on the validity of the source I used to prove that Agent Orange is from Placentia on Oshwah's talk page. How about this? Is this a better source? I also noted that there was and is no source on the Agent Orange article even saying they're from Orange County.--DeathTrain (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DeathTrain: Yes, actually. That source looks perfectly acceptable. I'll format it correctly for you, just copy and paste the ref below to the end of the first sentence (after the period) when you make your edit.

<ref name="AmerHardcore">{{cite book|last1=Blush|first1=Steven|last2=Petros|first2=George|title=American Hardcore (Second Edition): A Tribal History|date=October 19, 2010|publisher=[[Feral House]]|location=Port Townsend, Washington|isbn=1932595899|page=99|edition=2nd|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=PFJjCwAAQBAJ&dq=agent+orange+placentia&source=gbs_navlinks_s|accessdate=22 April 2017}}</ref>

Also, you'll need to listen to Black Flag while you make the edit. Sorry, it's a requirement. Singing along is encouraged. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit and added the source. I also did as you said by listening to Rise Above while I did it, even singing along for a bit. Thanks for formatting it correctly for me.DeathTrain (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... but I laughed my head off (figuratively) at the request form. Compliments. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{(talk page stalker) If anyone can (literally) figure out how to laugh one's ass off, please share. Diets don't work. Atsme📞📧 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

@Kleuske: I had to look it up; I knew there was a way to do it. It's actually just a method you call from index.php, and you provide it with a template page (in this case Wikipedia:Requests for Angry Mobs/new request). Just hover over the link to see the string. Then, some creative use of <nowiki> and <noinclude> tags to make sure it shows up right and voila!

@Atsme: According to a random google search result, you're wrong. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though. If you figure something out, let me know. I stopped lifting weights a decade ago, and my wife is starting to comment on the effects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...good'un...but in the future, please cite sources per WP:MEDRS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to agree with me, disagree with me, or call me horrible names and question my integrity/sanity/intelligence; feel free to do so at my talk page.

As much as I might enjoy calling you horrible names and question various aspects of your character/well-being/capability; unfortunately, I’m not educated in such, and, as it happens, I agree with you. Mayhap I’ll have better luck in your next entreaty. (This edit may self-destruct after a random period of time.) Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I do love a good self-destructing message. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the RDC discussion of font tags, I have boldly created Wikipedia:Signatures#Font tags. There was a shorter and stronger statement on that page at one point, but it was removed some time ago, possibly because it was too strong and/or possibly because it was within the "Appearance and color" section which has policy status (I don't recall). Any feedback welcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: That looks great to me! There is one question, though. Does the mediawiki software parse it on its own? I don't think it does, but if I'm wrong, then they'll continue to work long after browsers drop support. I know a way to check, though. I'll reply again (sans ping) with the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good news (for you, not for anyone using font tags), it's rendered by the browser. So your addition is spot-on accurate, and quite useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. We'll see if it flies. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I didn't receive the above ping, and I can't see anything wrong with it. That's a first for me. How about pinging me again as a test. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... I didn't do anything wrong that I'm aware of. @Mandruss:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got that one. The first one is not in my notification history, so I didn't just miss it somehow. Score one for the poltergeist. I recently saw a comment to the effect of "Maybe his pinger isn't working" (referring to the ping target), but I took it with a grain of salt since I had never seen that happen in 4 years. Shrug. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe his pinger isn't working" That's what she said.

It's happened to me before. I've gotten them late, and I've missed them entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she said. Hmmm, Urban Dictionary confirms (def 5). Learn something every day! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, the most versatile joke on earth. And it has some pretty good staying power, too.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute resolution. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document".The discussion is about the topic Pizzagate. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Terrorist96 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, I've only just worked out how to reply. There has been a problem with some of the Sceptic comments on the 'Jenny Cockell' page. BBC and other researchers confirmed by interviewing witnesses that Cockell spoke about her past lives and named and located the village of Malahide in childhood. It's possible that the sceptical replies claiming that the name and location of the village were 'a mystery' were taken via third party information. I tried to correct it because content that is potentially libellous is against Wikipedia policy. I have noted that the comments have now been removed so the issue may have been resolved. Jonparkyn (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JonParkyn: Okay, I'm going to tell you something right now and I need you to understand and either accept it, or make the effort to verify it because it's true: You don't know what libel is. Your accusations, however, are potentially libelous. It's not libel to debunk someone's extraordinary claims. It is libel, however, to accuse someone of slander without presenting any evidence. Right now, the best sources we have are from the skeptics, who (believe it or not) have a reputation for being honest almost to a fault when it comes to these sorts of things.

I strongly suggest you read WP:BLP, and WP:V and WP:IRS. Those will outline how we write about living people, and what is permissible to say about living people on WP (even in edit summaries). I also strongly suggest you start commenting at talk, and refrain from editing the article until you can show the rest of us that you understand our policies and guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Star Wars day MP! Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]