User talk:Aprock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Aprock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

New Page Patrolling[edit]

Hi. Re Thomas Mayer. It was a mistake anyone could make, but it does demonstrate that the list of patrolling tasks at WP:NPP is important ;)

What is a government?[edit]

If a government is more of a system then an organization, how can a government default? Only natural and legal persons can do that; “systems” cannot. EIN (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm fairly certain it belongs on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You'd rather do it there? I wouldn't mind, but it's preferable to have this discussion here if we are to comply to WP:NOTAFORUM.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.

A government is an organization exerting centralized control over a community (i.e., over a state).

Article development aside, the former definition is too ambiguous, and it's even cyclic (government→govern). The main merit of the latter definition—well yes, my definition—is that among the many definitions of government it makes the rare accomplishment of identifying the essence of the subject's definition: that the control exerted by the government is, indeed, centralized. Do you agree? EIN (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Find a source. aprock (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC POV tainting[edit]

Please do not try to taint RfC with POV wording. I don't know how you could think writing "clearly agrees with Lewontin" and cherry picking a line could possibly be considered neutral wording. What if I put into the RfC:

Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins

Would you actually consider this neutral wording? Your efforts didn't seem to change anything either as everyone still supported B even after your edit. BlackHades (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackHades (talkcontribs)

From this 3RR complaint it looks like you are trying to repeatedly change the text of the RfC. It is expected that the wording of any RfC will have consensus. In extreme cases there has even been an RfC to agree on how to word the RfC. If you disagree with how the person who opened the RfC chose to word it, you should try to gain consensus on the article talk page to get it changed. There is a risk that an admin will choose to block you for edit warring if you don't respond in the AN3 report and agree to accept consensus. I see you've continued to revert to a wording that only you prefer on 24 June. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Moving my comments from one location not in the RfC, to another location not in the RfC is not a revert. Your comments about consensus are curious since the RfC was unilaterally written by a single editor, and he has made no changes related to the concerns voiced on the talk page. aprock (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Your comment was sitting in the Discussion section as a user comment. Then you moved it up above as though it was a refinement of the RfC question. That doesn't seem proper, unless others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're splitting hairs here. If moving things around requires others to agree, then there are a lot more edits that you should consider reviewing: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Most of these involve editing other people's comments. aprock (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi, Aprock. Your name has come up in a discussion with Pluvia on my page, which I hardly suppose you watch. I'm sorry to see you haven't garnered any comments on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard so far; I've pointed Pluvia to it now. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Notification of arbitration enforcement concerning you. BlackHades (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Race and genetics[edit]

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that I closed the report on the 3RR noticeboard with no action taken. I did this because the edit warring seems to have stopped and you both seem to have made some effort to discuss. I hope you can reach agreement on consensus. But please don't start edit warring again, as it may result in a block (regardless of how few reverts actually take place). Thanks TigerShark (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Holdek-5. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at List of most-listened-to radio programs. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aprock (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The blocking admin's reason for blocking is as follows: "continued addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material on List of most-listened-to radio programs". This was never done. The content restored is sourced in the section. The content was restore after bringing the issue to the talk page, where the blocking admin participated. aprock (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was strongly suggested that you use <ref> tags for your sources; I did not see any here. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I did not use <ref> tags, because they are already in the article. I can't add sources which are already there. aprock (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aprock (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Identical to the previous reason. The content added was already sourced in the article, contrary to the blocking admin. From the comment the reviewing admin, it appears that the section content and the relevant source were not examined. aprock (talk) 2:48 am, Today (UTC+0)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Below, the blocking editor acknowledges that the content is supported by sources in the section. So this amounts to handing out a block because non-controversial content in a table didn't have a <ref> tag attached to it. This problem seems like a fairly trivial issue to resolve on the talk page. I'll note that I opened discussion regarding the content on the talk page, and this issue was never raised. I would be more than happy to work with any concerned editor to resolve this (or any other issue) on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As far as I can see; you've shown where the material is sourced from, and although it could be better referenced, restoring it in this case is not a blockable offence. Toddst1 should have worked to show you what he might consider better ways of referencing the list (although, to be honest, the current way is just as valid) rather than blocking you. Errant (chat!) 10:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about sourcing content. Just because a source is used to support a fact in one part of an article, doesn't mean it supports other facts in other parts of the article without additional notations. That's why you use <ref name=thisone> and <ref name=thisone/> tags. Additional facts need additional support. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "other parts of the article" here. The source is in the main sentence of the section. Other supporting sentences are in the second sentence. The ref tags are all there. aprock (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Perhaps, but an admin is still not an authority who must be obeyed, and a reason from the WP:Blocking policy is needed to block anyone, and particularly when blocking a productive editor in good standing. The ANI discussion about the editor who was removing material from List of most-listened-to radio programs resulted in that editor being indeffed. The issue is of minuscule importance and concerns a handful of reverts (example). Aprock restored the removed material a total of three times (on Jan 9, Jan 10, and Feb 1). Toddst1 made a single comment on the article talk page (diff) saying "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags. I suspect that's why this whole edit war got started and I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here." It is not acceptable for such a comment to be regarded as "obey or I will block you"—that is not how Wikipedia operates. There is no emergency that requires Aprock to follow an instruction from Toddst1, and it is entirely unclear how the article could reasonably comply with Toddst1's instruction—the article talk page should be used to discuss that point, but a quick look suggests that all the refs are in the paragraph immediately before the table where most of the material was removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

adendum: [5], [6] epliogue: [7], [8]

ANI[edit]

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordFixit (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux categories[edit]

The subject of the RfC was about the lead, not the categories. Please revert, as even though it was not deemed correct for the lede, it is still a correct to say that his writing, speeches, and show are about philosophy. --Netoholic @ 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI you may be interested in[edit]

I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Treats![edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Treats!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitnami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris. 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) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Misogyny Speech. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange[edit]

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco[edit]

You are invited!Litquake Edit-a-thonSee you there!
Amy Tan.jpg
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 22
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: October 11, 2014
  Time: 1-5 pm
  Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KJ Discuss? 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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 WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Michelle Rhee shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)