User talk:Mandruss

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

There is one place at Wikipedia where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults.

Your AIV report

41.137.59.0/25 blocked three days. If they're edit warring on any articles, put a note in your edit summary pointing to a talk page where you've mentioned WP:JR and tell them to respond there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: - Block expired, behavior resumed, as expected, e.g. [1][2]. Between those two examples, they IP-hopped within less than 3 hours, and their frequent hopping makes it quite difficult to find all of the edits. Your suggestion as to editsums is not particularly useful, as they are unlikely to look at page histories if they even know how to do so. Note that they don't even use correct syntax, consistently placing the comma in the wrong place, as Joseph P. Kennedy ,Sr. I honestly lack the time to chase this person all over Wikipedia, for who knows how long. They are a clear net negative, all but vandalism-only, and I'm requesting a much longer rangeblock.
One of the many serious problems caused by unregistered editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Now a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Access dates

Hello, while I agree that access dates should be there, I assumed that because the Hillary Clinton article was an FA there must have been a decision taken by the nominator (and one in-line with the guidelines) to not include them. If it is the case, I believe we're bound to follow that style? Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 21:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The FA nom made that decision here. —JennKR | ☎ 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

One editor, no response. Consensus by default? FA nom has no more weight than anyone else. As I said, no benefit to consistent badness. But I won't make an issue of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mdriscoll03. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mdriscoll03: Far from being gratuitous, my language (which I would never use in other contexts) was to the point and had a purpose. Please let more experienced editors make that call. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)