User talk:Fireice

Welcome!

Hello, Fireice, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange High School (Ohio)

Lol. Slow down... you, er, reverted back to the "vandal" edit though it's so harmless it hardly seems to justify the term. Tyrenius 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always gives me a chuckle when that happens.... Tyrenius 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

username usurpation

read this, it should help you with your request. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Fireice uk! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

self promotion

other than disney's own claims there is no evidence that churchill or FDR ever saw the film and the idea it convince them of air power, is absurd. so unless you can find another source i will continue to remove it.

Triggerhappy?

Try not to accuse people of vandalism the second they delete something from an article, especially if they are simply moving things from one paragraph to another. Thanks. La Bicyclette 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Harris (politician)

Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that.Fireice 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Thank you for your recent posting of an anonymous editor to Administrators intervention against vandalism. In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to WP:AIV, please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, spans of time between edits may indicate different users. Being it is possible that the currently vandalizing user did not get a true final warning they are often not be blocked. To remedy this, please make an effort to ensure that all vandals reported to WP:AIV have an appropriate, and recent, final warning. The most common final warnings ore {{test4}} or {{bv}}. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the thing with anon ip's. We have no idea if it is the same guy that edited 3 days ago. I cannot block somebody for 1 edit 3 days after another person vandalized. Ip address very often change so it is important that they have a current final warning. (in the past 12 hours at the least). Hope this has helped shed some light. If you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I assume I've put this in correctly (I've never had cause to before), but, back on the subject. Apparently:-

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Arithmetic mean page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Fireice 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet, personally i have never visited, let alone edited the Arithmetic Mean page. So, I was wondering exactly what happened to cause me to end up taking the blame for this. 86.29.92.230 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Constantinople

Dude, chill. Don't take it personal that I reverted your edit. Previously, there was a "Consequence" section and now its been merged with the siege, for some reason. I did not notice this so I did not realize that it was dead. It's as it was after you editted it now. Tourskin (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GIANTDICK

Please not the discussion on the talk page for WP:GIANTDICK. Richard Nixon is used deliberately so there are no BLP issues. Please engage on the talk page and make your case for why a humour page is worth edit warring over. WLU (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shadowrun (2007 video game)

I doubt a lot of people watch that page, so you might want to shake the trees over at WT:VG to get more eyes on this if you're really intent on including it. –xenocidic (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fireice. 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]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Fireice! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Muffin (proxy)

The article Muffin (proxy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No statement of notability. Sourcing not found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fireice. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special measures apply to blockchain or cryptocurrency related pages

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MER-C 20:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Monero (cryptocurrency) 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

You have a declared conflict of interest with respect to cryptocurrencies.

You have a direct financial interest in their valuations.

We manage conflict of interest in Wikipedia because:

as a knowledge publishing organization, we have a responsibility to do so
conflicted editors tend to be biased and motivated in ways that they often cannot see, which tends to lead to:
- bad edits
- bad behavior, like trying to force preferred changes into articles.

In Wikipedia that means you are strongly discouraged from editing content about cryptocurrencies.

This place thrives in the tension between its libertarian ethos, which unleashes creativity and content creation, and its communitarian ethos, which holds us accountable to one another.

When the community says strongly discouraged that is not something to be blown past, and the community takes action to remove or restrict editing privileges of people who do so.

Please let me know if there is anything above that is unclear to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, If your problem is with NPOV of my edits, I would like you to elaborate. So far the only issue that I'm aware of is that you are unhappy with the article stylistically. Please reply on the article's talk page Fireice (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with your ignoring the GS on cryptocurrencies and ignoring your conflict of interest. You are being overly aggressive and overly bold and you should slow down. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific with "GS on cryptocurrencies"? Again, if you have objections as to (N)POV of the edit, can you please spell them out? Fireice (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Fireice#Special_measures_apply_to_blockchain_or_cryptocurrency_related_pages. There is also a prominent notice in the box at the top of the Monero talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm asking about specifics that you object to not a link to guidelines that, hopefully, I have followed Fireice (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread, here on your talk page, is about your behavior. We can discuss content at the article talk page. In every single response you have made here, you have not responded with respect to your behavior. So there is no point to continuing this. You have notice of the GS. I have reminded you of that as well as reminding you about the COI guideline. You will change your behavior, or not. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain puzzled that someone who claims to be very experienced can somehow be unaware of a notice of general sanctions placed on their talk page by an administrator and its significance. Please RTFM. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to change, however you seem very elusive when I ask about specifics of the issues that you feel we have. Most seem to be due to miscommunication, just like above where you confused age with experience - I'm very much a weekend warrior compared to you. It is a shame that you feel "So there is no point to continuing this." Fireice (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to be very experienced was unambiguous. Now you back off from it. Whatever. Happy that you are willing to change your behavior. My goal in writing here was to try to help you take your conflict of interest seriously, as well taking the GS seriously. If you take those seriously as a starting point, the change in behavior will follow. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure which "GS on cryptocurrencies" you are referring to exactly. Can you quote (as opposed to link) any points where you see issues? Fireice (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GS = "general sanctions". I linked to section above. Again it is here: User_talk:Fireice#Special_measures_apply_to_blockchain_or_cryptocurrency_related_pages. Click every link in that notice and RTFM. Argh. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding "You have notice of the GS. I have reminded you of that as well as reminding you about the COI guideline. You will change your behavior, or not." while refusing to elaborate on what it is that you see wrong exactly is neither helpful nor reasonable IMO. I am concerned that you see a problem though so I asked for a 3O Fireice (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for you to a) acknowledge your financial conflict of interest and agree to follow the COI guideline and b) acknowledge that you are aware of the GS. That is the purpose of this thread. We are discussing content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) I already declared that on my user page a year ago or so. I try to keep NPOV, case in point, you yourself think that my edit was too negative about Monero, which I happen to hold and develop profit-bearing software for. b) I am aware of it and 1RR in particular, however I'm not a WP lawyer. You know then much better than I do, as I said before I'm a weekend warrior. I would appreciate if you inform me which GS on cryptocurrencies I'm ignoring according to your learned opinion Fireice (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your software does. For all I know it helps with the negatives you are emphasizing. What I do know is that you should not be editing the Monero page directly, yet you are, and even edit warring to retain your preferred edits. Not correct. Nothing you are doing is correct. Nor do I understand why this is so urgent. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a heated discussion on a talk page is urgent. Fireice (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]