User talk:MaxBrowne

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

The civility policy evidently applies only to the plebs, not to admins.

Turkeys getting you down

The ongoing WP cultural/org feature of abusive admins drunk with &/or corrupted by power will eventually be purged from the WP body, if WP wants a place in modern, intelligent & civilized society. (Per Simon & Garfunkel, "Patterns", 1965: "[...] the pattern never alters, until the rat dies.") Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thiel

I'm not going to insult you by whacking a great big "edit warring" template on your page (mainly because some of your edits are clearly positive), but you've reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours at this article now and if someone was to take you to WP:AN3 you would almost certainly be blocked again. Can I suggest you self-revert your last edit and start talking on the talkpage, which after all is what should be happening - with both of you - in the first place? Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't he been edit warring too, with his multiple reverts? over the last 24 hours? I don't see him doing anything on the talk page, only accusations of bad faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking sides, I'm merely talking about the technical points of 3RR. There's certainly a possibility (it's difficult without delving into a technicalities of the various edits) that he has broken 3RR as well. I'm just trying to avoid anyone being blocked here and instead having a conversation on the talkpage. I could achieve this by simply full-protecting the article, but I'd obviously prefer not to do that ... Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on your talk page is disturbing. He shows no willingness at all to engage on the talk page, and every willingness to go after me at ANI, even shopping for admins in the process. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I didn't do anything apart from remove the NPOV notice (which was correct because you hadn't explained it on the talk page). One thing I don't do as an admin is block people on demand, I'd far rather things were sorted out by discussion, which you'll see - hopefully - is what I'm trying to start here. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now he piles on the insults and assumptions of bad faith. I don't see how I can be expected to engage productively with such an editor. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I warned you about your conduct on the Peter Thiel article, and it appears that you are not heeding the warning, so I've blocked you. Collaboration is literally impossible when you won't stop calling people names. Swarm ♠ 12:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally so lenient. Swarm ♠ 15:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is it supposed to achieve apart from pissing me off? I haven't made any edits to that article, it's protected. And "harassment" is rich, the guy attacks me constantly any time I post on the talk page. You are full of shit. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your talkpage access before you talk yourself into a much longer block than 24 hours. When you return, I suggest you take Peter Thiel off your watchlist and concentrate on the chess and other articles that you're good at. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block was almost a full day after the action complained about and there was no disruption since then. The block was ridiculous and punitive, and took no account of the constant ad hominem attacks by the other party. Then an WP:INVOLVED admin who has previously acted in a very insulting manner towards me decides to step in as well.... fast approaching the "fuck this place" point again. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia is so much more than Peter bloody Thiel. It's not worth quitting because of that. I really appreciate your contributions to chess articles.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP laying blame on other people. You were reported to ANI for this exact behavior. I let you off with a specific warning that "any future personal attacks, BLP violations, or disruption of any kind on that article will lead to a block without further warning". You chose to willfully violate that warning by committing personal attacks. You knew what the consequences would be. And now you're making more personal attacks by accusing me of admin abuse, even though you know full well that I am not involved in that article and have never encountered you before. No one wants you to leave, but you need to get a grip on your emotions so you don't end up blocked again. Swarm ♠ 15:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the Involved admin I was referring to, that would be Black Kite. I am indeed disappointed that neither of you are recognizing Hrodvarsson's ad hominem attacks for what they are, and are effectively doing his bidding whenever he decides to snitch. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't block you. I did, however, turn off your talk page access, ironically because I didn't want you to get blocked for longer, which was definitely a possibility if you'd continued insulting people. Can't win sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emanuel Schiffers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess

The article Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Hi, there. Thanks for reverting yourself at George Pell. You mentioned in the edit summary that you weren't sure how the phrase "the church" was to be capitalised, so just for future reference, I figured I'd just let let you know that it's covered under MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which provides, "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals". Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, "the Church" is being used as a placeholder for "the Catholic Church" which *is* capitalized. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]