User talk:Ad Orientem

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome! Please read this before posting here.

If you have a problem or need help with something please leave a message. However if your issue does not involve me personally or is time sensitive/urgent you may wish to request help on one of our noticeboards.
If you are here because you think I made a mistake somewhere, YOU COULD BE RIGHT! I am neither omniscient nor infallible. Let's talk about it.
Special note to admins: If you think I muffed something feel free to revert or otherwise fix it. Just leave a note.
Please be polite and remember to assume good faith. Also check the potty language at the door. I don't talk to other people that way and I expect the same courtesy in return.
While minor editing is fine, for the sake of continuity of records please don't delete comments on my talk page even if you later conclude you were wrong. If you want to retract a comment, just add a note or you can ~~strike out the text~~.
Lastly, I'm a part-timer, so bear with me if I don't get back to you instantly.

If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your topic with ~~~~.Click here to start a new topic.

Legitimists Page

We have an issue on the Legitimists page. Arbitration requested. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the past few hours refining my response. Here, for your convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legitimists#Split_in_Legitimist_Branches
- Conservatrix (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has stalled to word vs. word. Would you care to contribute? - Conservatrix (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:174.45.96.67

This account that you recently blocked is back making vandal-only edits. Shouldn't it be blocked indefinitely? I'll leave it to you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, we do not indefinitely block IP addresses (though I have seen some fairly lengthy ones). Primefac (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Ssilvers it looks like Primefac blocked them for a month. If they return to this behavior after coming off block let me know and I will impose a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they returned from the block and began vandalizing pages again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers They were blocked earlier today by Primefac for a month. So if they come back and start being disruptive again after their current block expires then you should let me know and I will drop the long term hammer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Their Talk page does not show the block. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac didn't bother posting the block notice but if you click on their user page you will see it there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your input in a discussion

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 76.204.116.168

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that this is the latest IP of a block-evading hopper from Southern/Southeastern Michigan who has been propagating hoaxes since at least March. You should take a look at [1] and [2]. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI. I bumped the block to 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab still socking on old IP address

Hi AO. Coffee, the blocking admin of BlaccCrab, is currently on vacation. However, the IP he blocked that BlaccCrab was using to evade his block, is back in use: 173.69.144.245. The edit summaries and topics are all BlaccCrab's usual tone and haunts. Can you please block this again and maybe up BlaccCrab's block for continued evasion (as it was already blocked once)? Unless this is out of your jurisdiction and it would be more appropriate for Coffee to do so when they get back. Thanks. Ss112 08:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user Gaknowitall who I've warned you about before has continued about making disruptive edits on Beyoncé discography even after being reverted. I don't even know what they're trying to accomplish on that page at this point. I really think their behaviour goes beyond a mere content dispute. They will not discuss and keep reverting. Ss112 10:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112. Blocked and final warning issued respectively. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blood curse

Hello! I first want to thank you for blocking that previous IP, however, another IP with similar digits is back. Is there a way to get temporary protection on this page? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked 182.182.111.197/32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's above and beyond! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sebastian James

Hi AO. Looks like a user got irate at what I wrote on their talk page about some old edits of theirs yesterday, and decided to delete it there and reply on my talk page today for some reason. They asked me "not to reply" in general, but upon their reply being reverted (it's still beyond me as to why users decide to blank their entire talk page and then start a discussion they didn't want on their talk page elsewhere), decided to edit another user's earlier talk page comment in order to write a potshot edit summary at me, telling me "Behave your manners!" and linking said phrase to Internet troll. (Ironically, they had just told me my talk page message was "badly written" and then wrote a phrase that doesn't make much sense.) I sent them a warning about refactoring others' talk page comments, but perhaps it might hold more weight if you do so because apparently I'm just out to "troll"... Ss112 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note dropped. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant about not refactoring others' talk page comments. Their edit summaries are getting ridiculous and unnecessary, even after you just said to drop the stick: [3]. I asked them not to personally attack in me a summary, they reverted that. I then sent a warning about no personal attacks, which was also reverted. I'm done with the talk page messages to them, but it appears they think they're allowed to be as uncivil as they like. Ss112 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have another editor, Wikisian, who keeps being uncivil on their talk page. My replies probably aren't helping, but with each message they levelling silly accusations—first I rack up my edit count by editing talk page messages, and now I'm "projecting" onto them because I apparently said "it wouldn't be your first time" after saying they would be reported if they continued (which I believe was said after I had a glance at their talk page). I just think this is another editor (editing since 2011) who doesn't have that much experience and doesn't know how to compromise or when to stop with the messages. I think the best approach from here on for me is to just try not to bother replying after the initial warning. This bickering with editors is annoying and tiring. Ss112 22:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a very good idea. This looks like a run of the mill content dispute to me. I'm not seeing anything that requires my intervention. I will however gently suggest that you should try to be a little less dogmatic in some of your comments. Sometimes you sound like you are looking down your nose at people you are having a disagreement with and that is rarely conducive to a collegial and friendly discussion. Also try to remember that we are a community of near 30 million users. Even conceding that most don't edit frequently, many not at all, if we throw in the IPs we still probably get around a half million who contribute at least monthly to the project. Some of them are going to be people with short fuses. Some will be people who have had a bad day. To work here with regularity I think requires an ability to grasp what is important and what is just background noise. Sometimes people are going to be snarky and rude. That's just life. And we need to know when to call someone out for being out of line and when to just let things go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. The "no, you're wrong!", "no, you are!" back-and-forth is so tiring, it's like "how did I get into this?" after a while. Countless times I've been replying on someone's talk page and then they try to go all Psychology 101 and pull out the "projecting" card on me. Wikipedia is definitely too serious for some sometimes. WP:CALM... Ss112 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Royal Young IP

see this. 203.87.156.0/24 and 121.54.54.11 can be blocked + tpa-revoked. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding those three Dragon Quest Heroes vandals here: [4]. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

closing RfA

Hi.
Are you still online? I recently closed an RfA, I saw your comment on the candidate's talkpage. I am not sure if I closed it properly though. Would you take a look at it please? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never closed an RfA. That said, I'm not seeing anything that looks obviously wrong... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Xaosflux or Ritchie333 would know. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: you should also update: Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/U. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@xaosflux: The chronological list was automatically updated I think. And the alphabetical list was already updated. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

The user Smithjulian982 has damaged the Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou and Louis Philippe I pages with ideological edits. I only recently acquired pending reviewership and have not the rollback powers necessary to counter clustered disruptive editing. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted and user cautioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The French Throne

What do you know about the French throne and laws of the house of Capet(Smithjulian982 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question, is what do you know about our guidelines for editing here? Right now I have serious doubts about your generally competency in that regard. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:AGENDA, WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:RS as a starting point. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know neutral point of view but this is my second day of my wikipedia account in learn every second . I follow that rule now but why do we to do that (Smithjulian982 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Nor are we an organization dedicated to promoting points of view. In order for the encyclopedia to be taken seriously we must avoid taking sides in controversial issues and repeat only what is reported in reliable independent secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So only information , nothing else (Smithjulian982 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only information that has been stated in reliable independent secondary sources. Also please remember to sign your posts using four ~~~~. And you can indent your comments by using a colon. Each (:) will indent your comment by one degree. This helps to maintain the flow of a discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know so much (24.27.184.119 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)) - 09:44 PM 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]