|
User talk:Andiar.rohndsYour recent edits
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Andiar.rohnds, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Talk pageYou have repeatedly reverted me without discussing on the talk page, even though I've been posting messages there. Please join the discussion: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Condemnation_higher_than_support.VR talk 02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC) WP:3RRYou have just violated the WP:3RR (three revert rule). You have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. In each of the reverts you move the "support" over the "condemnation". Here are your reverts: Please undo your latest revert. Otherwise, I will report you.VR talk 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Hi, I've responded to your inquiry at Charlie Hebdo. My apologies, as you are not the only editor who has been undoing my edits. You should also know that the entire "reactions" topic seems redundant... this is among many other issues undergoing this article. Best of wishes, Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC) You also seem to be confused on a few subjects. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mainly the part regarding: "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Also see Wikipedia:Policy shopping, thanks! --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Edit War Your recent editing history at Charlie Hebdo shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) January 2015 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. You'll be reported on your next revert, and your aggressive edit comments will only make things worse. You're editing in bad faith, as more than one has already pointed out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Edit warring at Charlie Hebdo shooting{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Per WP:AN3#User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Both blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Mr. EdJohnston, Rather than worrying of the petty affairs of certain users, please correct the manual of style/dating format which is expected to be used globally. I honestly cannot take your words seriously while being time-stamped with "21 February". Please understand how ridiculous this looks, even when formally interpreted. Thank you. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your future at WikipediaAside from whether or not you are a sock: Your talk page edits are clearly snarky, rude, cryptic, loaded, non-collegial, evasive, disruptive, obfuscating, hostile, antagonistic, ll-natured, ill-tempered, irritable, ornery, petulant, prickly, querulous, battling, fighting, and warring. I had to use a thesaurus to capture the whole spectrum. Wikipedia has a laundry list of block reasons like WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTHERE, etc. Three possible futures:
You can choose. This is a place where we try to be polite and work together to get things sorted out. We are volunteers and do not need to tolerate being treated this way. It also wastes community resources (You made Ed and Bjelleklang waste their time asking again and again and others' time reading all of this.) which would be better spend building this encyclopedia that you use and love. When your block expires, please, please, please, try to make a complete turn-around and be nice and constructive and collegial, okay? The reason is that you will last in this the community only a short time if you continue this way. Think about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
gah!
my lovely Anna, if only rational were the norm here... come sail with me Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject MusiciansHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital lettersHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for commentThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/TablesThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ChemistryThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) BlockedAs per your recent vandalism/offensive comments at Min-maxing and Talk:Twinking, you have been blocked for a month. --PresN 19:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC) BlockedOver the course of 2015, you were given many blocks and warnings about constantly being difficult when interacting with others. Sadly, you've turned right back to those activities. Virtually every comment of yours has had some sort of insult or bad-faith criticism towards editors, or inappropriate discussion going on. You've time and time again been requested to make an actionable request on talk pages, but instead it's just lots of long-winded complaining about things outside of the scope of writing that particular article. You've even been given other venues for some of your complaints that were misplaced (like going to WP:TFA to discuss your issues with review and selection process) and yet you still continued to complain at the wrong venues. All you seem to want to do is vaguely complain, you dont seem to be here to actually build an encyclopedia. Your response to my first warning to stop all this was this, and your response to your second and last warning was this and this, so it doesn't seem you intend to stop your disruptive editing of your own accord. Between all of your disruptive editing and past warnings and blocks for similar things, you are blocked for 1 month. I hope that when you return, you can make short, constructive comments about the subject that doesn't attack the participants involved. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC) OK Andiar.rohnds (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I will definitely admit some of my actions are not friendly or perhaps tolerable on Wikipedia, but there is a real genuine case here of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interests. This matter truly needs to be looked into, I don't know where else to mention something like this, but there is surely a biased admin who is abusing his powers. Once again, perhaps my ban is appropriate, I tend to get a little emotional in my edits, I actually have a valid disability which excuses this, but that is another subject up for debate. Lets not ignore the deeper issue here, of a genuine account of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interests. Please also view comments left on Sergecross73 page. He is conveniently ignoring many established, well known and verifiable facts among the video game world (which he is supposedly knowledgeable in), and was generally making the conversation difficult for no appernt reason. Definitely ignoring logic, and common sense. I know this issue may seem trival as it's related to video games, but please, I assure you, a real and devious account of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial interest is taking place. Is there a place i can go to report something like this? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: WP:NOTTHEM. Wikipedia doesn't need soapboxing drama about a video game. OhNoitsJamie 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.
|
