User talk:Ranze/2016

Talkback

Hello, Ranze. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

North America1000 00:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Afterlife Empire concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Afterlife Empire, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Kong

I removed a statement you added. The statement "This falsehood was maintained in January's Rumble." was unnecessary and honestly, insulting and NPOV. CrashUnderride 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 January

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oku sama kitsune no go konrei listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oku sama kitsune no go konrei. Since you had some involvement with the Oku sama kitsune no go konrei redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man of the WWE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iron Man of the WWE. Since you had some involvement with the Iron Man of the WWE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Mongoose listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radical Mongoose. Since you had some involvement with the Radical Mongoose redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would

Just saw your edit on Wrestlemania 32, changing "would go onto win" to "won" and "would name" to "named". THANK YOU. That is a major pet peeve of mine. Now if only we could take it out from the other 10,000,000 articles on Wikipedia where people have written in this convoluted form of English. Then we'd be in good shape. Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Road Integrated Media

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Open Road Integrated Media requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anime series based on novels has been nominated for discussion

Category:Anime series based on novels, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shabani (gorilla) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabani (gorilla) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabani (gorilla) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and checked online. I voted Keep because it meets WP:GNG and the sources are adequate. Interesting article. Well done you. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo P. Curiel

I will be posting on the article talk page shortly. Please join the discussion there in a few moments. Neutralitytalk 05:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eulia Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eulia Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eulia Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Stanford swimmer listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stanford swimmer. Since you had some involvement with the Stanford swimmer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedashing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wavedashing. Since you had some involvement with the Wavedashing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leijiverse listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leijiverse. Since you had some involvement with the Leijiverse redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High standards for BLP content on People v. Turner

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:BLP carefully, including the following:

  • "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
  • "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
    1. it is not unduly self-serving;
    2. it does not involve claims about third parties;"
  • "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request on my talk page for diffs of concern:
  • [1] [2] — Debate over an unverified sexual detail not referenced in secondary sources and explicitly denied by a BLP-protected crime victim (Emily Doe).
  • [3] [4] Proposed OR/BLPPRIMARY violation regarding blood alcohol content.
I have separate concerns about your repeated speculation about the victim's consciousness in the absence of any RS making that claim, although I wouldn't claim this a BLP violation.
While Wikipedia policy is important, what is of greater concern to me is the process of re-investigating a rape case that has now been settled, seemingly with no external impetus (i.e., no RS are impelling you to do this). I would encourage you to reflect on these comments from Emily Doe's victim impact statement:
I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.
I was not only told that I was assaulted, I was told that because I couldn’t remember, I technically could not prove it was unwanted. And that distorted me, damaged me, almost broke me. It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet. I had to fight for an entire year to make it clear that there was something wrong with this situation.
I hope this brief text clarifies the part of WP:BLP subtitled "Avoid victimization," which I quoted to you above. It is not Wikipedia editors' role to mount a second defense, to re-inquire into the victim's personal life, to seek out loopholes in her story, to demonstrate to the world that this assault was a misunderstanding. The trial is over. We report on it, and other things found relevant by reliable sources. And then we move on.
Finally, I didn't post the warning because I'm ready to report a BLP violation, but to make sure that you had been duly warned should your investigatory impulse lead to further violations of policy.--Carwil (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly reminder to keep BLP policies in mind should you return to editing People v. Turner.--Carwil (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jonathunder (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per this edit, you were topic banned from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" which was to be "broadly construed." This was for "an indefinite period" and I do not see where this was lifted. Unless it was, it would be best if you consider People v. Turner and its talk page as off limits. Jonathunder (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a gender-related dispute, it's a dispute about sexual assault. Am I only allowed to edit criminal cases where both the plaintiff and alleged victim are of the same sex or something? I do not see how this is in any way related to Gamergate.
@Gamaliel: since you instated this would it be possible for you to offer some input here? Just how broad is this? The controversy surrounding this case seems class-based (people thinking wealthy jocks get light sentences) rather than gender. Ranze (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Request

I've submitted a request for enforcement related to you here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

You're supposed to keep your comments at WP:AE in your own section (not reply in other people's sections) and limit your total comments to 500 words. Please go in and fix what you did. --Laser brain (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: than you for informing me of this, I have here consolidated my comments to one section and I think ~239 words. I don't have a lot of experience with this and didn't notice the warning, I hope to remember it if I want to comment thoroughly on any others in the future. Ranze (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lower limb muscles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lower limb muscles. Since you had some involvement with the Lower limb muscles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you have continued to edit People v. Turner in violation of your topic ban, you are blocked indefinitely. This is not necessarily a permanent block, but before being unblocked, you need to realize that the topic ban cannot be ignored. Jonathunder (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: regarding your comment at special:diff/729244804 I think it would be appropriate for you to move it out of the 'result concerning section' and into a 'statement by (username)' one above, as you are an involved administrator, not an uninvolved one. You've been involved in this page since June 14th.
Yes, I do not realize my editing of this article to be a problem, and I don't think it's right for you to decide that is the case and prematurely block me indefinitely before the request for arbitration finished. Aren't those generally closed and enforced by uninvolved admins anyway?
This simply is not a gender-related dispute. The case is not about either Brock or Emily's gender, it is about assault, the same as it would be if male had put his finger inside a male, or if a woman had put her finger inside a female.
A gender-related dispute is something like bathroom bill which is focused on gender. A person in the case having a gender isn't enough to make it a gender-related dispute. Hulk Hogan has a male gender but Bollea v. Gawker is not a gender-related dispute. Nor does the involvement of sexuality. The aforementioned case is a lawsuit about a sex tape depicting a male and a female, but that still doesn't make it a gender-related dispute.
Basically you're synthesizing the characterization of PvT as gender-related when it being a gender dispute isn't even mentioned in the article.
I think for me to be punished for editing an article about a gender dispute the article should actually specify that. In fact, just to be utterly clear and reach a consensus (instead of your private judgement) about what is and is not a gender-related dispute, you should create Category:Gender-related disputes under Category:Gender and Category:Conflicts by type.
If you can actually defend the characterization of this or other articles as being GRDs you would reliably source that characterization and add this category to it. This would serve as a clear warning sign to anyone afflicted with this vague terminology as to what is meant by it.
It is one thing for you to have the power to enforce sanctions, but you should not get the ability to interpret whatever article you like as fulfilling the criteria, that should be a community decision. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

The above admin JonaThunder claims I violated a restriction against editing gender-related disputes by editing People v. Turner. I contend that this is not a gender-related dispute because the dispute was not about anyone's gender, the case about whether or not assault occurred. Since the justification for blocking me is a mischaracterization of my behavior I believe it should be lifted and would like input from uninvolved admins about whether JT's interpretation of this article is supported by reliable sources. Presently the PvT article makes no mention of it being a gender-related dispute so I think JT is engaging in synthesis rather than on anything supported by reliable scholarly works. Ranze (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Quoting your original topic ban wording: any gender-related dispute or controversy, [...] broadly construed. "Broadly construed" covers the article in question perfectly, and you've been warned that it does - why did you continue editing it? In any case, your request is now being discussed at WP:AE which, unlike freeform talk page requests, is the proper venue to appeal your block due to its arbitration enforcement origin. Max Semenik (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2016 (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.

@MaxSem: I continued editing it because I felt the warning was abusive bullying by an administrator already involved in the page trying to game the system to prevent my involvement, misinterpreting the words of the sanction to make it seem like I didn't belong there. As an administrator involved in the article in question I did not think JT was in a position of neutrality needed to interpret or enforce a sanction.

How am I supposed to discuss things at WP:AE when I am unable to edit outside my talk page? Is it possible yet on Wikipedia to simply generate a list which creates edit inability for them and doesn't interfere with editing elsewhere?

I think you are wrong that the sanction "covers the article in question perfectly". This is WP:SYNTHESIS by you guys. The article is not classified as a gender-related dispute. Where's the category? Where's any mention of gender? A dispute about sexual assault is not a dispute about gender.

If you think you are right about this, you should introduce a category Category:gender-related disputes or category:gender-related controversies and put it on the page.

I think the reason you won't do that is because you know it won't stand up to the requirement of reliable sourcing. Instead you want to reserve the privilege of making private calls, classifying articles however you wish.

You guys should be making calls like "A is banned and this article says it is A" not "A is banned and this article is secretly A even though it doesn't say it and I'm not going to bother opening up its possibility of being A to discussion by the community".

The warning of keeping away from gender-related disputes/controversies should only have teeth if it is 100% clear to EVERYONE (not just private admin opinions not open to challenging) what GRDs/GRCs are. If what you guys are doing is on the level there should be absolutely no problem at all with introducing this category as a clear warning system to anyone with such sanctions. Until you do, you're going to look like bullies using this as a broad brush to paint a 'no entry' sign on any article of your choosing.

In terms of "gender-related" dispute, editing something like Zoicite would conform to the restrictions because there is a gender dispute about the character, who is presented as male in the original Japanese-language anime and changed to female pronouns in the English-dubbed version.

Even in that case though: it's completely unrelated to Gamergate and exactly why the sanctions should be narrowed only to Zoe Quinn and the Gamergate article. Regarding guys like Milo I should only be restricted from editing what he says about Gamergate, NOT what he says about any topic under the sun. What if I wanted to discuss the notability of this article in Islam in the United Kingdom for example? Or what if I wanted to edit the many aspect of Chris Kluwe's life which are utterly unrelated to GG ?

MS did you even check the edit which spawned these sanctions? I only linked a tweet form the BLP's verified Twitter about a past career which she still blogs about and which reliable secondary sources have reported on. I didn't violate BLP at all. The sanctions were never justified to begin and they were put in place in violation of Wikipedia policy because GamerGate sanctions were retired the year prior to my edit. Ranze (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Laser brain

@Laser brain: need to reply here due to the block. special:diff/729244804 seems wrong, when sanctions are so vague they can theoretically cover any edit (ie LB has a gender therefore I must be involved in a gender-related dispute talking to you about math) they should be reviewed regardless or whether admins exercise their privilege of pigeon-holing the vaguest matter into a block.

special:diff/729320696 rape can be done by either gender and done to either gender, it is not a gendered issue. Rape culture is not established fact, it is feminist theory. Just because feminists say a case is about rape culture doesn't actually make the case a gender-related dispute. Reporters can certainly mention this reaction to criminal cases but that doesn't mean the reaction is justified.

You asked why I didn't ask for clarification. I did ask for clarification on July 6: special:diff/728652037.

As I received no reply on my talk page I assumed I was being ignored. I can see now that JT replied 6 minutes after on his own page... without pinging me, leaving me no way of knowing I had been replied to. All he did was tell me to read up on OR, he was being vague and unhelpful.

Additionally: I don't think any of my edits on the PvT article even touched the claims about rape culture, so if the 'gender-related dispute' portion of the article is the rape culture claims as you suggest, I did not get involved in that dispute at all. As @Kyohyi: point out at special:diff/729321982 I didn't touch the parts of the article which you allege are gender disputes. Ranze (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sfarney

@Sfarney: I apologize if my focus on detail was wearisome, I can't fault the feeling you express at special:diff/729357674 as going over the details of the case was wearisome for me too. I guess I just figured where we could add detail it is a good thing. Once the fact of the case being hand penetration is established, which hand/fingers seems like a minor detail that would not inconvenience either party.

Now I'm trying to remember if I edited David Bowie... and David Bowie provided voice acting for a video game... and Gamergate is slightly related to video gaming!

Verb-based noun I would go with is 'assaulter', and yeah since we've had so-called 'murderers' exonerated I think in terms of BLP concern it would be good to wait until the person dies before calling them a murderer since at that point they could not be exonerated.

Regarding unconsciousness, yes we should remain neutral about that because we have stuff like this March 17 article saying "She remained unresponsive the entire time, save some snoring sounds"

I would have absolutely no objection to 'unresponsive' since that is actually what sources agree on. Snoring could happen from sleep though, which is distinctly different from unconsciousness.

I find it plausible that she did at least sleep at some point, the issue is whether sleep happened at specific points in time. Neutrality demands we only present statements in their original contexts, not engage in WP:SYNTHESIS like "the cop said she was unconscious, the cyclist said she was unconscious, therefore she was" when neither were able to do any thorough testing to verify this. The impression is given that she was unconscious from 12:55 to responding at 4:30 which is obviously misleading since the report mentions her vomiting without assistance in the ambulance. You can't vomit without assistance if you are asleep or unconscious so there was clearly a break in the supposedly uninterrupted unconsciousness that everyone is painting.

Drinking is a major point of the case, since there 2 were 2 'intoxicated' charges and the alleged unconscious is implied to have happened because of alcohol. Not absorbing the objection to this.

The end product of the article would be great if rather than reverting, other editors co-operated and only changed the details they disagree with. I'm all for rephrasing, my initial instinct on how to present a source is not going to be perfect. The problem with the reverts is they didn't just change that part, they removed sources altogether (what harm were they doing?) rather than making an attempt to better interpret those sources. Ranze (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, alcoholic stupor is not sleep, though it resembles sleep in many respects. "Conscious" is determined by responsiveness to environmental stimulus. There is no other measure, and it is not restricted to medical diagnosis. The policeman's shout-and-shake test is designed to make the determination, and the evidence is fully admissible in court -- i.e., the result of the test is truth in the view of this society. My view of the case shifted considerably when I read Carwil's recent edit to include a nurse's testimony that the victim had suffered genital trauma, including "penetration trauma". This evidence does not embrace a consensual activity. Since the only disagreement between prosecution and defense is whether the woman was conscious and consented, these are critical details. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 20:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfarney: the nurse's exam is something I became aware of early in reading up on this case. Although anything that creates trauma wouldn't be something I'd interested in, I can't assume those preferences extend to all, and since consensual rough sex can also result in physical trauma that leads to reasonable doubts and continued neutrality on the matter, seeing either consented or non-consented as possible. Shout-and-shake may have been entered into gradually giving more preparation to avoid response if that is intended, the eyes opening to the paramedic's pinch test earlier in the night is more proximal to the actual encounter (and one assumes paramedic have slightly more medical knowledge than what police have) so I'm inclined to give it more weight too. Both the nurse and paramedic exams are critical details to retain though, agreed. Ranze (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although anything that creates trauma wouldn't be something I'd interested in, I can't assume those preferences extend to all, and since consensual rough sex can also result in physical trauma that leads to reasonable doubts and continued neutrality on the matter, ... "Rough sex" is an exceptional circumstance, and it does not comport with Turner's story of events. A contradiction between the physical evidence and the defense will (usually) go against the defendant. We needn't take it any further. Since you hold that NPOV requires "reasonable doubt" even after the jury has dismissed all reasonable doubt, why wouldn't this set of facts hold your "interest"? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfarney: there appears to be a miscommunication, I meant that I wouldn't personally be interested in doing rough sex, not that I am not interested in evidence related to it being introduced into a criminal case. From what I've read about Turner's testimony, his wording doesn't seem to specify what he did as particularly gentle or rough, so there isn't necessarily a conflict. It is possible that either or both parties might not have at the time been aware of any internal abrasions which were occurring. Juries do not necessarily dismiss reasonable doubts, they can't dismiss doubts which are not presented to them. Which ones were or were not presented is not entirely clear due to the sealed testimony, we've only had small views at the arguments Brock's lawyer gave. Even presented ones which they dismiss are still okay for everyone else to have. Anyway, much as I like casual discussion about our opinions on the case I don't want to give the impression that I consider our opinions of impact to what should be on the article, which should really just strive for neutrality. Ranze (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith seems involved

@The Wordsmith: in special:diff/729126726 on July 10 you posted in a section specifically described as "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators".

I notice in special:diff/728470691 on July 5 that @Discuss-Dubious: mentions this at Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Meta:

"Gamaliel and Wordsmith have attempted to interact with both WiA and Ghazi, for some reason, under accounts intended to be identified with their wiki accounts."

Are you indeed not only involved in prior conversation about Gamergate but also in teaming up with Gamaliel, the one who put these sanctions in place April 2015 even though the Gamergate sanctions were retired December 2014? Ranze (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. This was already discussed, please see the result. I'm not involved, and I certainly never teamed up with Gamaliel. Continuing to force this meme isn't going to make it any more true. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze: as one who supported your unblocking and watched the Gamergate space closely in recent months I have the utmost confidence in The Wordsmith's impartiality. His investigations and judgements have been thorough and reasonable. I understand your hesitancy to assume unbiased enforcement here but it's unwarranted in this instance. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: thank you for clarifying the matter and directing me to that review. I didn't mean to force a meme, I was just alarmed in reading that page to see what the nominator was up to and recognizing a name from my case coincidentally mentioned alongside G's like that. Particularly when it was a voice asking for closure (even if temporary) I've been avoiding following GG discussions (frustrating when you unjustly aren't allowed to participate in any capacity over false accusations of violating BLP protections) so my sense of how involved everyone is isn't as refined as those who follow discussions like the one you linked. @James J. Lambden: appreciate you lending a voice to calm me down a bit and look at this in a more balanced way. Ranze (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your alarm at reading some things on the periphery. The basic issue is that when my own administrative actions were called into question on Reddit, I was notified and came over to explain my actions there. Hopefully you can also understand my own aggressive rebuffing of your claim; several editors have been repeating the same declaration that I am involved, apparently hoping that if they repeat it enough times people (like you) will believe it. After reading your statement I recognize that you were unaware of all of this, so you have my apology on that. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ranze. I never actually believed the claim that the Wordsmith was genuinely involved; you seem to have misread my post. It was more or less inspired by the discussion he linked. I was alarmed at the idea of a thing where people just depose admins and have to wait for new ones, instead of creating a system that prevents admins from what he was accused of doing (supposedly protecting an editor from sanction, which he was not doing). Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context I intended it, the Reddit thing was not intended to imply he (@The Wordsmith:) and Gam worked together, or even in the same thread(s). I had planned to have a guide to explain what to do if one's actions came into question, but thought it would not work due to internal conflicts over how to describe how subs work (i.e. "some subs ban you for [description of something like "tone policing" or one of those things like that]" or "the mods will get upset if they think you are trying to [description]) and ideas or whatever. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

You are unblocked in order to be able to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Jonathunder (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ranze. This edit is a reminder that your unblocking was so you could edit the above page, not so you could continue editing as you were before. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: got your message, isn't 'as you were before' the PvT article? Didn't edit that just some disambig stuff for names. In special:diff/729386512 the admin @Laser brain: told me "If you are unblocked, I expect you to refrain from editing the article in question until this is settled." so I figured that was the current say. JT didn't say "in order to be able to edit only Enforcement" after all. What harm is there in these? Ranze (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already weren't supposed to be editing the PvT article, by the terms of your topic ban. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's still being debated, I still don't think the entire article falls under the topic ban. I am beginning to see some weight behind, since rape culture talks about gender, that I shouldn't edit any sentences which mention rape culture in People v. Turner, which I don't think I have. But that shouldn't restrict me from editing the other parts which don't mention it. To give an example, I don't think I would be banned from editing Template:Culture even though rape culture is linked from it, just so long as I didn't alter the rape culture part in any way. Ranze (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it really doesn't matter at this point. As you were. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hood

Hi Ranze,

I reverted your latest edit to Bondage hood. If you want to make this an article, I'd recommend looking at this revision and adding reliable sources to it so that it doesn't just get reverted to a redirect again because of original research issues. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE requests closed

I have closed two arbitration enforcement requests concerning you. The result is that during investigation of the requests, we found that the topic ban expired as of 4 April 2016. This also means that the enforcement request against you has been closed with no action as you were not topic banned at the time the edit in question was made. Please do keep in mind that it is still necessary to edit appropriately and carefully in sensitive areas. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of infobox parameters

Hi there, re: these edits, you really should familiarize yourself with the Template:Infobox television instructions so you don't incorrectly use parameters like you did. The 1950 Cinderella film and 1959's Sleeping Beauty would not be appropriate inclusions in the |preceded_by= parameter because they are not television series. You might have a valid argument for |followed_by=, but you should really run a query past WikiProject Television since the template instructions are ultimately unclear about what qualifies, and previous discussions have also been unclear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Passionate Eye, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Magic bullet and Black Hawk Down. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azam and Muazzam Khan

Please add your sources.
Please add biographies. The present content could be replaced by a redirect.Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Holocaust revising for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holocaust revising is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust revising until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Charlotte (wrestler) 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 are 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. LM2000 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)

I have mentioned you on Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism) -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFD

Raw Champ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Raw Champ. Since you had some involvement with the Raw Champ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madame McMahon listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Madame McMahon. Since you had some involvement with the Madame McMahon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Freaks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unicorn Freaks. Since you had some involvement with the Unicorn Freaks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rybotch listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rybotch. Since you had some involvement with the Rybotch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big E Jackson listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Big E Jackson. Since you had some involvement with the Big E Jackson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking. Since you had some involvement with the The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Altitude Era listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dawn of the Altitude Era. Since you had some involvement with the Dawn of the Altitude Era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Ranze, we have repeatedly had the same discussions revolving around similar topics to the point where I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. If you continue to edit war, create numerous bad redirects, refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK on the championship dispute despite overwhelming consensus against you, or add something you heard on commentary without a reliable source I will bring this to WP:ANI and seek a topic ban for professional wrestling articles. You've been warned again and again but that has had no effect.LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: wow, those are lot of crappy new re-directs. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 09:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: you are clearly stalking my edits looking back far for things to pick at, @Crash Underride: is posting an inaccuracy about me calling them "new" redirects, as I created:

  • Big E Jackson in January 2013
  • Rybotch in May 2013
  • Dawn of the Altitude Era in June 2015
  • The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking in December 2015

Crash I request you use more polite language when feeling the need to back up criticsm of me, 'crappy' is not constructive. Ranze (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not constructive? And also, they are new as far as I know. I've never seen them before. I'll be happy to be more "constructive" once you start creating re-directs and adding "nicknames" to articles that aren't actual nicknames but one-off comments, because those aren't constructive either. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: redirects are not solely for recurring nicknames, redirects are cheap so I don't see what is wrong for using them for things which we have verified refer to the wrestler but which we may not agree to put under a nicknames list. I think it is constructive to put names that refer to a wrestler, because the less well known a name is, the more likely people will need help knowing who to associate it with. Ranze (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that these redirects are not constructive. I again ask you to make sure that these are useful redirects before creating them. Something somebody said one time on TV has been deemed to not fit this criteria. Somebody has to type these things into the search bar in order for them to be useful.LM2000 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: you managing to get lucky with a bunch of deletionists convincing an admin to delete 3 nicknames doesn't mean you achieved some kind of new policy which gives you default consensus on the contructiveness of any new nickname redirect which you want to target for destruction. What A Rush this must be for you. These ARE mostly useful redirects. Deemed? You and a minority of people deeming a couple names doesn't give you cart blanche to decide all future names, and digging up 3-year-old creations as if my making them is going to make it seem like I'm actively disrupting now is pretty silly. Ranze (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred on Charlotte (wrestler) over a nickname two weeks ago. You created useless redirects to The New Day (wrestling) and Stephanie McMahon one week ago. This fits a pattern of behavior that goes back years.LM2000 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget the Iron Man of the WWE re-direct to Dean Ambrose or the Radical Mongoose re-direct to Adam Rose, something he referred to himself as once. These re-directs are not constructive. It's clear Ranze has no interest in being constructive here. All they want to do is include every, single, little piece of information they can. Basically have a play-by-play of wrestlers careers. Something that Wikipedia is not. I'm gonna be honest and say this right here where LM2000 and any other user can see it, I refuse to WP:AGF with Ranze any longer. They have lost that right with their clear pattern of behavior of the months with these re-directs and inclusion of one off jokes or references as nicknames. This needs to stop once and for all. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 03:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you bring that up Crash, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_5#Radical_Mongoose resulted in KEEP. Ranze (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I didn't even know the thing was ever closed. But tell me, how many times was he referred to that as? Really? Lemme guess, just the one random time. So, that's one that was voted to keep, out of how many you just up and created with out discussion? A dozen or more? How about you learn to discuss stuff like this before you just up and do it? That way we avoid b.s. like this. Because honestly, I'm sick and tired of dealing with you. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 03:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing 1 time (random?) would be wrong. Given your hostility I am going to assume you may target this next so I will beef up the sources to support it. Ranze (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Target" what? Radical Mongoose? Honestly, I couldn't give a crap. I mean, after one mention it was voted "keep", even though I was proven correct that it wouldn't last. Just because I was proven correct doesn't mean I'm gonna RfD it, again, even though it should be. I "target" non notable re-directs, stop creating them and I'll stop "targeting" them. Wow, doesn't sound too hard does it? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 04:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. LM2000 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: what page are you talking about? Ranze (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking.LM2000 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: you're really pulling out all the cards aren't you? In that case please show your true face and do the same for The Dirtiest Player in the Game, after all, that must be an "attack" on Ric Flair to you. Never mind that it's a reliably sourced nickname which he is perfectly fine with. Ranze (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Black Kite's comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7#The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking.LM2000 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN talk to me 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to make sure users edit cautiously in this area. For example, WP:1RR applies on Donald Trump and any kind of disruptive editing will probably have other editors asking that you be sanctioned. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: okay thanks for the clarification, 1RR is something good to keep in mind if I choose to edit the page at a later point. While it's limited to talk page proposals that probably won't be an issue. Ranze (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of topic ban

Hello Ranze, I am here to inform you that there was clear consensus at ANI to place you under a community-imposed editing restriction. This restriction means that you are indefinitely topic banned from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects. As per the topic ban policy, "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". Adherence to this topic ban is mandatory, and transgressions will be met with blocks. Please let me know if you have any questions. Airplaneman ✈ 05:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranze, do not talk about wrestling or wrestlers at all, anywhere. --NeilN talk to me 03:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: topic bans do not apply to discussions with the reviewing admin so I think I am allowed to discuss the issues surrounding the block there per WP:BANEX. LM interjected into that convos and I only replied on their talk to not potentially derail the interaction between me and Airplaneman. Perhaps this would be simplified if we mutually agreed to a no-fault interaction ban? It seems even when I edit outside wrestling I get followed there and it is disrupting my attempts to communicate with other editors. Ranze (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this simply. I'm acting as an admin here and will block you if I see edits like this again. --NeilN talk to me 03:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze, you pinged me in your conversation with Airplaneman, I do not watch your edits like a hawk and I wish you no ill will. I would like to move on from previous discussions and I do not want to see you sanctioned further.LM2000 (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I will avoid the courtesy of personal communication toward non-admins about wrestling in the future. At the time I had thought it acceptable since it was an extension of a conversation protected by BANEX. I reserve the right to reply to them if they interject in an existing discussion with an admin but in the future will keep it on the originating admin contact page or appropriate noticeboard which BANEX specifies is acceptable.

If posting rebuttals to the person I am rebutting is not acceptable then I believe posting them in my own talk linking to the diff falls under BANEX. Countering claims about me is directly part of the appeals process.

Hm I forgot that linking a user pings, if I'd intended to king I would've used the template. Will avoid square brackets in the future if the notification compels interjection. Ranze (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranze, I've not talked to you in a while, but noticed the subject here. There are two methods of appeal to a community editing restriction. The first is to appeal to the administrators' noticeboard. I'd strongly recommend that you let a good period of time pass first, probably at least six months, while editing constructively and without problems in other areas, before trying this. The second is to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. In my experience, though, both having been on and dealt with ArbCom, they will not reverse a community sanction unless there was a serious problem in the process of how it was implemented. Appealing by either of these methods would be an exception to your topic ban as a good faith appeal in the proper location. Just arguing over it in general, in any other way and in any other place, is not an exception and can subject you to a block for a violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of topic ban

Ranze, I received a note on my talk page (Special:Permalink/743277167) asking for a clarification of your current topic ban. Please do not:

  1. Edit the talk pages of redirects
  2. Participate in the RfD process

These are gray areas in what constitutes the editing of a redirect and therefore make it more difficult to enforce your editing restriction. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification

I've responded to your proposal here.

  1. You may ask someone else add the RFD template on the talk page; you may also continue to make RFD nominations, participate in RFD and participate in talk pages on redirects, so long as these are non-wrestling.
  2. You may use Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect to propose redirects which would require other users' approval, iff you log such proposals in a user subpage (e.g. User:Ranze/Redirects). I would suggest logging not only your proposals, but also all redirect-related edits here (e.g. RFD contributions).

Please read my response in its entirety for further details. Airplaneman ✈ 23:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manga based on light novels has been nominated for discussion

Category:Manga based on light novels, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Giant listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Extreme Giant. Since you had some involvement with the Extreme Giant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 04:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Altitude Era listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leader of the Altitude Era. Since you had some involvement with the Leader of the Altitude Era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ClassicOnAStick: per special:diff/670290070 may be more appropriate to contact about this. Conspicuous how special:diff/739171452 was done first. Ranze (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mohawk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magic Mohawk. Since you had some involvement with the Magic Mohawk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LM2000 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: if you want to know why special:diff/693201821, as no consensus was reached on preventing me from reporting accurately on my past behaviours so that they are viewed in proper context. Ranze (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to FIM

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi so with special:diff/739992630 perhaps one good thing that may come of this is I could start using {{u}} to point to template:user link instead of {{ping}} to point to template:reply to as it seems that pinging is automated for any user links and so I may as well go with whatever uses the fewest characters.

The best apology you could SHOW would be an EXTREME defense of the truth before yet another miscarriage of justice happens. Are you a bad enough dude to be a hound of justice? I believe in you, believe that. Ranze (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016 (2)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your topic ban here and continued wikilawyering. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 10:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

special:diff/739987415 was my contacting User:Airplaneman (the admin who decided on the topic block) for clarification about the scope of my topic ban and an appeal to review the perceived consensus in light of new observations. This is considered WP:BANEX since it is "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" being both "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and "appealing the ban". It explicitly says at the end of this policy section to "ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify" so I don't think it's right for Neil to be punishing me for that. Neil has had previous involvement with me as can be seen at User_talk:NeilN#Snow_caution and I would like this to be reviewed by an un-WP:INVOLVED administrator. Neil refers to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering which is an essay that is neither policy/guideline after criticism at special:diff/738813763 where I relied on official policy. Ranze (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Procedural acceptance only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for "clarification" was yet more wikilawyering (the reviewing admin should read all the past posts on Airplaneman's page and my previous involvement with you was as an admin, explaining my deletion of your redirect. --NeilN talk to me 11:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would love it for reviewing admins to read everything, the problems happening here are obviously because details keep getting overlooked, as you can see with the example I contacted APM about. I notice you're not stepping in to correct the falsehoods being told about Mr. Wight's article even though you are obviously now aware of them. Ranze (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no falsehoods. Google "Extreme Giant" and tell me what you find...oh yeah, PORN. He was called the "Extreme Giant" in one article because he was on the EXTREME Championship Wrestling (ECW) brand of WWE at the time the article was written nothing more. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google isn't always your friend, http://www.wwe.com/search/all/%22extreme%20giant%22 shows you're wrong: 45 results, not 1 result, this the kind of inaccurate claim you and others made plenty of during the ANI which should have been excluded. Consensus should be by neutral parties and yours is clearly biased to the point of making up fictions without researching them. Ranze (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do realize that a WP:RS should be a third party source, right. You can't rely on first part sources. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't blocked for the Airplaneman edit, there's this edit too. The don't talk about wrestlers or wrestling anywhere warnings NeilN gave you previously were unfortunately ignored. You seem to know not to edit redirects, but in that edit you encouraged someone else to edit the RfD in your place.LM2000 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil's instructions did not include BANEX. I only ignored the portion unsupported by policy on topic bans. Obviously being instrumental in rushing to close discussion prematurely on redirects he would rather I never appeal to regain the right to do so in the future. The person you refer to is, as you can see from the diff, an associate of Neil's who has gone from mocking me to well-wishing. My comment is simply communicating that I judge people by what they do and not pleasantries. LM now that you are here I know you too are aware of the 45>1 fiction you have supported. People will eventually catch on to this behavior. Crash is now shifting goalposts being caught 44 degrees from the truth. Ranze (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting in the mud with you Ranze. When the admin who reviews your block checks the thread on Airplaneman's talk page, they will find that I asked whether to post an RfD notice on your talk page given your topic ban. You asked me to as a courtesy, then immediately violated your topic ban with inquiries regarding wrestlers on my talk page.[5] NeilN advised you on the one applicable response you could have to these RfDs, which was simply to state that your topic ban prevented you from participating in them. Your ongoing commentary during your block on various RfDs and wrestling topics shouldn't be happening in the first place because of your topic bans but with you currently blocked this is abuse of your talk page privilege per WP:APPEAL.LM2000 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LM2000: the only reason I added the notice was to be courteous. I think it's only right that a creator knows it's been RfD'd, I did not add it to start a discussion. However, I'm not surprised that Ranze violated the topic ban. From their previous behavior, I just knew it was matter of time, I knew a topic ban wouldn't do diddly. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...being caught 44 degrees from the truth"??? What are you whining about now? The fact that WP:RS says you need third party sources? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that in your nomination to delete my edit and here you have twice repeated the clearly false claim that something was only mentioned in one article when it was mentioned in forty-five articles. You have yet to admit this red herring to those who have been deceived by assuming good faith in you. Third party sources are only required to interpret facts not to establish them, your attempt to shift goalposts and derail is obvious. Ranze (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it was mentioned in first party articles. You still need third party sources. What do you not get about third party sources do you not get?? Also, the weren't calling him the "Extreme Giant" as a nickname or new ring name, they were calling him that because he was the giant of the Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) brand. That's all. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the context and how it's not a current name since that brand closed years ago. No, you don't need third party sources for basic facts like this. Reliance on scholarly work is for interpreting advanced concepts. Ranze (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved your complete either disregard or lack of understanding of WP:RS or of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can you please stop enticing Ranze into violating his topic ban? --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enticing, he violated it and continues to say he's right, when he's clearly wrong. As noted by his saying: "No, you don't need third party sources for basic facts...". Once they admit they're wrong, I'll be more than happy to work with them on other subjects, politely. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About sources

I think it would be acceptable to broadly discuss policy here for those interested in doing so without needing to go into particulars.

WP:ALLPRIMARY shows context is important. Journalists not verified to be present during an event would also be secondary sources.

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is a counter to many universal objections I have seen towards that class.

The Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources essay this is from is not a guideline but holds value as an explanatory supplement when interpreting WP:PSTS content.

This however is policy:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I encourage people to keep this in mind prior to objecting to a source they call primary. Ranze (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of PGS Entertainment

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on PGS Entertainment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted to Nov 2015 version as suggested and removed speedy, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kirstin Cole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS 2. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 October

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guinness World Record setters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Guinness World Record setters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Prevan (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male Guinness World Record setters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Male Guinness World Record setters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Prevan (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female Guinness World Record setters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Female Guinness World Record setters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Prevan (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sofia the First episodes summary

Hi there, re: this, any way you could bring it down to 200 words, per WP:TVPLOT? Presently we're at 390, which is almost double the maximum length. And re: this edit summary where you note "this reference does not support the claim that Secret of Avalor is counted as an episode in season 3 of Sofia the First. It's a movie event. I'll give it its own article for now." A TV movie wouldn't necessarily warrant a unique article unless there was sufficient coverage from reliable published sources that spoke in detail about the movie. That's our general notability guideline. If there are only passing mentions it would be a waste of an article as it would likely wind up deleted or merged. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJTJ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DJTJ. Since you had some involvement with the DJTJ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ranze. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

On the disambiguation article Trump, with this edit you added to the section entitled "People" this edit: "Little Women character Professor Bhaer according to Laurie in chapter 44". Because of the number of warnings here on your talk page regarding disruptive editing, I would ask you to kindly explain this edit, as it appears to be vandalism. However, I don't want to jump to that conclusion without your input first. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barack Obama. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding nicknames

Please stop adding nicknames to the infoboxes of highly visible biographies. The fact that almost all of your edits have been reverted should tell you that you're on the wrong track. Some of these biographies are viewed by hundreds of thousands of readers each day. Please use the article talk pages and wait for consensus to form. Thank you.- MrX 17:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your redirect ban

I just noticed the event that happened at Talk:The Life & Adventures of Santa Claus (2000 film)#Requested move 8 December 2016. If I recall from your redirect-editing ban, you cannot edit or create redirects. I just reviewed the close of the discussion that lead to this, and from what I see, the ban doesn't restrict you from editing existing redirects' talk pages. You might be able to request edits there, but I cannot find any specific template to meet your situation. I may have to figure out the best way to request this. Until then, your best bet may be to request edits to redirects via WP:RFPP#Current requests for edits to a protected page. I think I now may have to look into this situation to see if there is an applicable template that exists or can be created for your situation to allow you to post edit requests that will get noticed on redirects' talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out part of my statement which may not be true since WP:TBANs may include talk pages by default. Either way, see this discussion. Hopefully, a way can be found to allow you to request edits to pages which you cannot edit, provided the edit is uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: on Oct 11 at special:diff/743903193 the overseeing admin said I could participate in non-wrestling redirect talk pages, but I share your desire for the existence of some kind of template that would draw more attention to them since I assume most people don't have that on Watch, and certainly wouldn't if I was the first to create it. That's largely why if I open an RFD I will also mention there (like I did at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_8#Marsai_Martin) that the template isn't in place since it's more likely to be seen there than in a talk page. Ranze (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Sensation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swiss Sensation. Since you had some involvement with the Swiss Sensation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZH8000 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Superman listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swiss Superman. Since you had some involvement with the Swiss Superman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZH8000 (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very European listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Very European. Since you had some involvement with the Very European redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZH8000 (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marsai Martin

I don't understand and don't want to know why you can't, or think you can't edit redirects, I'm WP:AGF that you want to edit the article so I added the Rfd tag as requested ("Stage 1") so I guess you can now edit Marsai Martin as you asked for at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_17#Marsai_Martin (relisted). I am not an admin, just doing what sould have been done before when a good faith editor asks, and adding "Phase 1" which you asked: an article trumps a redirect, anz day of the week. Sorry didn't do it before, I had assumed someone else had (and perhaps they also assumed someone else had...) "Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". I am not an admin (nor want to be). Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is some kind of topic ban. Weill I never heard of it until I added this until your talk page. So nobody can blame me for doing what should be done as any kind of gnomish action anyway: if a redirect is listed at RfD, it should be tagged as such, end of. If that means it's technically no longer a redirect, that's not my problem: I'm following the instructions. Si Trew (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]