User talk:Anythingyouwant

You've got mail

Hello, Anythingyouwant. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mr Ernie (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I replied, User:Mr Ernie. Que sera, sera. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Code

The code I posted is a proof of concept; ignore BHG's comments as she really doesn't know what she's talking about. Getting WMF to implement such a tool would be extremely difficult. If you really want to see such a tool (specifically, one that creates a list of likely joke or irrelevancy categories), I'd be happy to code it, but I'm not willing to register a domain and rent web space on which to host it. If you are willing to do those things, I'll happily start writing such a tool. But BHG has to stay out of such an endeavor: I'm not willing to work with a person who insists upon creating such a toxic environment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:MjolnirPants. Let's see if anyone cooperates with me at VP/T. You and BHG sure do have quite a feud going. We need a WP:List of feuds! 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, BHG has a huge problem with everyone who's disagreed with her. Suffice it to say that she's wrong about the code (and about me and everyone else she thinks is a "selfish extremist troll" but whatever). If you can't get any help from WMF, and you're willing to lease some web space, I'll be happy to help you out by making this. I've watchlisted your page for now, so feel free to continue here without notifying me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit

[1] misrepresented sources and introduced POV into the article rather than removing it, as your edit summary claimed. Please see my comment here. Please self-revert your edit as it violates Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I misrepresented a source because I paraphrased instead of quoted it? I don't think so. Please discuss matters like this at the article talk page, not here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Volunteer Marek: IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that edit. It's not POV at all. Now, the word "negative" in that sentence looks pretty POV, but that was there already. In fact, I wholeheartedly approve of the inclusion of "breaking" because it highlights the impact of the story mentioned by the article. If I were you, I'd self-revert while removing the word "negative". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

VM and I had a subsequent long discussion at the article talk page, replete with more incorrect accusations of "misrepresentation" by me, but the thing finally settled down, permanently I hope. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I respect VM and think them to be a good editor. I just don't agree with them on everything (this being one of those things). But then, that's true of pretty much everyone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Human–animal linguistic communication has been nominated for discussion

Category:Human–animal linguistic communication, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fixuture (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Abbé Martin

Hi, I changed the phrasing for the first two Martins on the Abbé Martin disambiguation page ([2]). However, are you sure Abbé Raynal was ever called Abbé Martin? And also, do you think the Abbé Martin from Béziers deserves a mention there (not to mention on the Seafield Convent page)? I would be tempted to say he does not. Greetings. darthbunk pakt dunft 20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft, according to the article Guillaume Thomas François Raynal (emphasis added), "He had the assistance of various members of the philosophe côteries in his most important work, L'Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes (Philosophical and Political History of the Two Indies[3] Amsterdam, 4 vols., 1770[1]). Diderot is credited with a third of this work, which was characterized by Voltaire as 'du réchauffé avec de la declamation.' The other chief collaborators were Pechméja, Baron d'Holbach, Paulze, the farmer-general of taxes, the Abbé Martin, and Alexandre Deleyre." I have no opinon about whether Martin should be mentioned at Seafield Convent Grammar School, but if he's mentioned there then I favor mentioning him at the dab page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, this does not state that Raynal himself was that Abbé Martin but that Raynal's book was co-written by another Abbot, namely that Martin. 'the other collaborators', states the page. Other than Diderot and Abbé Raynal; see Histoire des deux Indes#Authors. They are two different persons. As for the Béziers Martin, I'll leave it up to you. darthbunk pakt dunft 21:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft, I never said they were the same person. I merely pipe-linked to a Wikipediea article where they're both mentioned. Why do you think I said they were the same person? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

All right, I see now! I had misinterpreted the link leading from the Abbé Martin's name, directly to Raynal. Apologies. As I think that was confusing, I'll change the phrasing. Feel free to amend it if it's awkward. As a result of your explanation, I am now not sure any of those two Abbé Martin deserves an entry on the disambiguation page, but, like I said, I'll leave it up to you. Greetings,darthbunk pakt dunft 21:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess if we want to do this exactly right, we should follow WP:DABRELATED, User:Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Are the Abbé Martin "actually described" on the target pages? I would say no. Also I realized why I had assumed you had identified Raynal with Martin. You hadn't, in truth, but another user had indeed and they had added Raynal's death-birth years to Martin ([3]). The current version does make it clear they cannot be the same person. The only (smaller) issue that remains now is wether the 2 first AM's deserve any mention at all. darthbunk pakt dunft 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that they are discussed and described to some extent, so there's no harm listing them in the dab page. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's ongoing discussion of the lede wording in a lengthy talkpage thread. Please undo your POV rewrite and let the talk consensus be implemented. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly undo it if I thought it was "POV". Instead, I have started a talk page subsection explaining why it's not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took a look at that re-write, and while "...that were widely interpreted by news analysts..." positively drips POV-pushiness, the rest of it actually looks pretty good (anything which is "widely interpreted by news analysts" is something we should state as a fact, in wikivoice). If anyone is interested in my opinion, I would remove that phrase, and instead state in wikivoice that they were contradictory, because such a statement is well-sourced, easily verifiable, non-POV and completely true. Whatever the reason Trump actually thought as he decided to fire Comey, Trump did contradict himself, first claiming it was the result of the memo, then later admitting to requesting the memo be written after deciding to fire Comey. Note how this doesn't make the firing a mistake, or implicate Trump in the Russia affair any further; it just makes it clear that Trump's public statements were not cohesive.

(pinging @SPECIFICO: because this is not her TP). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

MP, the lead of that article now says: "He then gave contradictory explanations for the dismissal. Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (May 12, 2017). "All of the White House's conflicting explanations for Comey's firing: A timeline". The Washington Post. The president then contradicted his staff's earlier comments. In a preview video clip of his interview with NBC News, Trump said he planned to fire Comey all along, regardless of Department of Justice recommendations. Contradicting what some staff member said is far different from Trump contradicting himself, it seems to me. If the lead were to say Trump contradicted a staff member, then I would have no objection to dropping the qualifier ("that were widely interpreted by news analysts"). A WaPo report is more reliable than some miscellaneous news analysis from Think Progress. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the problem you're referring to there, but that does not justify the wording I mentioned above. You can read the dismissal letter, signed by Trump and right there in the infobox. Those are Trump's words, either by composition, or by endorsement, words which he later contradicted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The WaPo quote says he contradicted a staff member: "The president then contradicted his staff’s earlier comments". If he contradicted himself too, I'd like the see a reliable source that says how he did so, rather than a bare accusation from an unreliable source. Anyway, this discussion probably belongs at the article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about what the WaPo source says, it doesn't support that wording. But this source, which was the first google search result for Trump contradicted himself Comey supports it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

MP, regarding that source you cite, I think it's best for us to not extrapolate or rely entirely upon an article headline, which may have been written by someone other than the article author and not be as accurate as the article body. In that source, the article body says: "The White House said this week that Comey had lost the confidence of the bureau, a claim McCabe contradicted on Thursday when speaking to a Senate committee." Again, that's a contradiction among (or with) staff, not an instance of Trump being contradicted by himself. That source also captions a Newsy video by mentioning a contradiction, but the video itself only mentions the contradiction with McCabe (it also discusses a "shift" from the justification regarding investigation of Clinton's emails, but that shift to another argument did not evidently or purportedly imply any repudiation of the first argument). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't rely on the headline.

In a letter Trump sent to Comey on Tuesday, the president wrote that he fired the director based on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But in an interview Thursday with NBC's Lester Holt, Trump claimed that Sessions and Rosenstein didn't influence his decision at all. Trump had already made up his mind.

That's the second paragraph of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

MP, if the source didn't characterize that as a "contradiction" then I wouldn't necessarily characterize that way either. Just because someone recommends an action to me, and I accept the recommendation, doesn't mean that I wouldn't have taken the action anyway for additional reasons, or for the same exact reasons, or for entirely different reasons. If I did characterize that position of Trump as a contradiction, I would certainly indicate whether he was repudiating what Rosenstein and Sessions wrote, but I do not see any source that says Trump disagreed with one word of what Sessions and Rosenstein wrote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not two statements as clear as these contradict is not an opinion. It's not subjective. Come on now. Don't be ridiculous. I think you should take a look at WP:SYNTHNOT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So you think Trump contradicted what Rosenstein wrote? I think that's just political spin, and completely unsupported by any reliable source, yet it is what the lead of that Wikipedia article very strongly implies. Just because someone recommends an action to you, and you accept the recommendation, doesn't mean that you wouldn't have taken the action anyway for additional reasons, or for the same exact reasons, or for entirely different reasons. This should be fairly obvious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So you think Trump contradicted what Rosenstein wrote? No. I know (not think, and I understand that knowing is not the same thing as really really believing) that "I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. I have accepted their recommendation..." and "I was going to fire regardless of (their) recommendation." are contradictory. The first USA Today source I linked to (the one I added to the article lead) makes the statement I quoted above, which can be succinctly summarized as "Trump contradicted himself." The suggestion that the source I provide is factually wrong is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and rather ridiculous to boot. The suggestion that the source doesn't support the claim about Trump contradicting himself is, itself contradicted by various facts, including the definition and common usage of "contradiction" and the guideline to summation in articles.

P.S. Trump didn't 'accept their recommendation' -regardless of what Trump said in the letter firing him- he told the AG and DAG to recommend that he fire Comey. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the source is wrong, I said you're distorting it. I can accept a recommendation to do something that I would have done anyway. Prior to 2017, anyone with an elementary education would have understood the same thing.🙂 Even more absurd is the notion that Trump has ever disagreed with Rosenstein's argument. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you've descending into Poe's law territory, so I think we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The smiley face I used above was not to indicate sarcasm or parody. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a bit strange

Why exactly did you make these edits? Not saying they're wrong, but AFAICT you've never edited that article before, nor showed any interest in the topic, but all of sudden you pop up on this completely-out-of-your-interests article shortly after I make a couple edits. You stalking me or something?  Volunteer Marek  02:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am very interested in Kovin and have been for about 35 years. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, me too. Volunteer Marek  03:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. But, anyone who studies warfare should learn about Kovin. False news of a skirmish there brought on a world war, or two world wars given that WWII was substantially caused by the flawed settlement of WWI. The false news from Kovin profoundly shapes the world we live in today. Had the reports from Kovin adhered to NPOV, much bloodshed would have been prevented. Eerily similar to reports about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to politely suggest you strike this, though see my comment in response. You appear to be claiming that I made ANOTHER revert, by restoring the NPOV tag. This is about as bad faithed of a complaint as you can make, seeing as how I'm partially self reverting to please you. What's next, I revert myself everywhere on Wikipedia and you go running to admins to complain that Volunteer Marek is edit warring against himself?

Ok, maybe that wasn't as polite as it should be, but the hypocrisy on display is a bit too much. I don't know, maybe you didn't closely look at the edit and it was an honest mistake. Or something. Volunteer Marek  03:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag-warring is covered just as much by 1RR as any other article edits. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You're gonna stick with this? Really? Oookay. Please please please report me for restoring that tag. I beg you. Volunteer Marek  04:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Already did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? Where?  Volunteer Marek  04:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Look up above at this page to where you wrote "Ok, I am going to politely suggest you strike this...." and click on the link you gave. Also, please stop talking to me at two different talk pages; pick this one or Samsara's. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not "reporting", that's just bugging-admins-for-a-block-because-you-hope-they're-biased or because-they're-too-lazy-too-actually-read-the-diffs. I mean, please report me for restoring that tag to 3RR noticeboard or WP:AE. Please. Volunteer Marek  04:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If Samsara doesn't resolve the matter. Good night. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah didn't thinks so. You are "brave" enough to go agitating with someone who you think is a favorably disposed admin (behind my back too, without notifying me) but you are not brave enough to file a legitimate report at 3RR or AE. I understand, those curved Australian weapons are pretty intimidating, especially after you've been smacked by one a couple times prior. Safer to do it under the radar through back channels, eh?

And seriously, if you want me to "self revert" myself and remove that NPOV tag I would be more than happy to do so. I'm just concerned that were I do so you would start pretending that that was another revert too. I mean, can't exactly trust your track record here when it comes to good faith. Or... you could remove the NPOV tag yourself, I won't complain. So if my removal of the tag bugs you so much that you want to call it edit warring, why not do it yourself? Rigggghhhhttttt... because it's not actually about the removal of the tag (which you like), it's about trying to manufacture a bullshit excuse to bother an admin for a sanction. Volunteer Marek  15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Atsme already notified you, and so you responded within four minutes at Samsara's page.[4] Please go away, you're not welcome here until November. I already asked you to choose a user talk page, and now I'm choosing it for you. Persuading you to self-revert is the whole reason why I went to your user talk yesterday. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the NPOV tag yourself. I mean, you're complaining about me restoring it, so yeah, do it. Show you're serious. Volunteer Marek  15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Go away from this talk page, as instructed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war at CBS

Your edits at this article indicate you are involved in an edit war. Continuing to reinstate contents that multiple editors have reverted is the essence of edit warring. Please self-revert and use the article talk page to reach consensus. Failure to go the route of discussion will result in a temporary loss of editing privileges. Because of length of time you've been contributing to Wikipedia, and the 75,000 edits you made indicate you already know this. — Neonorange (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you possibly leave a message for me in greater bad faith? You yourself reverted and then came here complaining that I should self-revert. How could I possibly self-revert what you have already reverted? Give me a frigging break. I reverted once and only once at that article, and my revert was completely proper. What gall you have, User:Neonorange. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologize—somehow I got the impression you had reverted my reversion of your reinsertion. My note here on your talk page was a result of my misapprehension. I am not sure how I made that mistake. I will try to be more careful in the future. Please accept that my note here was not made in bad faith. Thank you for not continuing to insert the material. — Neonorange (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willi Ankermüller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hofheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop messing with my talk page post

You keep changing the header on my talkpage section to make it appear I'm referring to your 10 month old RfC that you apparently feel is justification for your current edit-war. Well you know you should not be changing my talk page header to change its meaning. I started a fresh section and it's not about "Jane Doe RfC" or whatever you would like. Please undo that. I presume you know that talk pages, like article pages, are subject to 1RR restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I had zero involvement with that RFC. You really want me to go through all my comments today, and change “top of this talk page section” to “the previous talk page section”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. The problem is entirely something you created by violating WP:TALKO. Nobody else is going to fix your mess. Remember what Colin Powell said about the Pottery Barn rule. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Colin Powell going to attack me for this too? Or maybe this? I’d like to know just how much you want me to change. Also, where is it decided that talk pages are automatically subject to 1RR restrictions if the corresponding article is? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You removed Sudan!

I figured you must have had a good reason, so I didn't put it back. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. See your edit here in which Sudan was removed. Anyway, it belongs in there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then it's a good thing you are on the ball! Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Tmesisternus ludificator. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think that infobox has a caption parameter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Unmasking by intelligence agencies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unmasking by intelligence agencies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmasking by intelligence agencies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - MrX 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore

Hi, I read through all that discussion and I had hard time identifying what specific content was UNDUE. It's pretty clear that the sexual assault allegations have some folks riled up. BTW, I love your tag on the user page that says TIRED. :-) I have edited that article for over a year and Moore makes his own controversies. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to my humble Wikipedia abode. In response to your comment above, I have commented at the article talk page. Moore is certainly an interesting character, and I hope we do him justice. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Re

To this. If you read my response, I recommended wait a couple of days and see what happens. But of course nothing precludes you from commenting anywhere if you feel strongly about something. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m not going to comment until I know where to comment, and probably other uninvolved editors feel the same way. Hopefully I will know where to comment before the whole substantive matter is decided one way or the other. But it may well be decided without my input if I merely wait a couple days to see what happens. And that would suck. User:My very best wishes, have you ever seen a closed complaint at ANI reopened against the wishes of the OP? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not mind at all to closing this ANI thread as "no consensus" or whatever and switching to WP:AE (right now or later). I simply think this should be done by an uninvolved administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gloucester Valley Battle Monument

Hi there. Nice work on Gloucester Valley Battle Monument. Just a couple of observations; make of them what you will. 1) You've split up sentences that were sourced to Daniell, leaving a couple of statements that are now not sourced, specifically who built it and when it was unveiled, and 2) I'm not sure it's correct to split up the two regimental badges. As I read it, one plaque has the UN crest, one has both regimental badges, one has the English inscription, and the 4th has the Korean inscription. The way you've amended it, the article says (or so I read it) that there are 4 plaques, then lists 5 things that are on them. Have to confess though that I've not been there, so that's all just an assumption on my part. FactotEm (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I'll try to fix. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Looks good. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE

[5]Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant. I do not know if you noticed, but in this edit [6] you also reinserted yet another content challenged through reversion here [7]... My very best wishes (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, are you sure that the same sanctions apply there? I don't see the warning at the article's talk page that I see at Talk:Roy Moore. I have self-reverted in case you're correct, but I don't think you are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked more carefully. You seem to be correct, although I have no idea why the template is so huge at Talk:Roy Moore compared to the template at Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think Moore or his supporters are losing sleep over this trainwreck of an article; nor should you! --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the double posting, the system log doesn't seem to be working for some reason. Anyway, you can see my note in your edit history: nothing implying wrong doing here, just making sure you are aware of BLP level sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I have left a message at your user talk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE lately because it appears to me that you challenged a BLP vio and your edit was reverted twice by two different editors; yes or no? To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So in your case, you added material to make the statement compliant with NPOV/BLP and it was reverted to the noncompliant material. There is nothing representative of a "high standard" in that article that I can see. It is clearly an attack page and a trial by public opinion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The admins at that AE proceeding can rely upon WP:BLP if they want to, but I specifically said that I am not doing so. This is in many ways a game, and one of the ploys in this current game is the idea that Anythingyouwant always hides behind WP:BLP AND THAT MUST BE STOPPED. My edits seem okay to me even without relying upon WP:BLP, but you’re correct that a dispassionate consideration of that BLP policy would also cause my case to be dismissed (and some of the other participants there strictly sanctioned). To me, “reinstating” an edit means repeating it, and that’s not what I did at all; my opponents at this case are behaving kind of like 0RR applies at this article. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement result

Per this Arbitration Enforcement request, you are placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore and any topic related to the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017, broadly construed. This has been logged at the Arbitration Enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anythingyouwant. 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)

Trump

You restored the version I challenged, violating DS. No policy says we should copy the exact words of a source sentence. See the full cited text. My version is better than what you reinserted. SPECIFICO talk 05:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As it was explained by an admin, “If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the irrelevant magret de canard. The point is I improved the awkward and (part) direct-quoted lingo and added a key point, which as the cited book says (and widespread, contemporaneous newspaper coverage confirms) Trump and Sister Roy were constant companions on the NYC scene in those days and for many years. They were often sighted making the rounds to business meetings, courthouse photo-ops, and Reagan-era watering holes like the 21 Club and Four Seasons, where Trump would always order a grapefruit juice or other non-alcoholic bev and Roy would do his macho-macho imitation.[8] The cited source is a book, not a sentence, and in fact the reason why your POV version is so awkward and needed to be replaced is because it disregarded all the source material on the cited pages. Please check footsienote. Why don't you try reinstating my improved version and see whether you can make it even better rather than bombing it back to the stone age with the other cro-magnon garbled English that obscures rather than elucidates the life and times of BLP subject DT on so many articles? That text is toxic. 😷 SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s already implied that they hung out a lot and that some of Cohn’s attitude rubbed off on Trump. No need to let Cohn take over this BLP. Anyway, if you disagree, why not discuss at the article’s talk page? After all, we’ve apparently disposed of your DS canard, oui? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you call your deflection and obfuscation "disposal" -- treating article content as garbage, then congratulations on your success. Canard, fyi, is what you Americans call "nothingburger". Meanwhile, it is not WP practice to "imply" (code for omit?) sourced article content? SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s right, your intitial complaint above about DS was a nothingburger, a dud, etc. I don’t speak in code, and so “imply” means the info is included, not excluded. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot I was chatting with a 2017 American. Strike the code. I meant speaking "in tongues". SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Army captain

He made it up to the rank of captain before he joined the bureau. However, there are no open source accessible online resources for that right now. Accordingly, feel free to remove that and change the text back to say he was an Army officer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:AzureCitizen, thanks for the info, it ought to be removed then. Also, in case it might be pertinent to you, please be aware of WP:COI. Thanks again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Euphorbia arbuscula has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Anythingyouwant. Euphorbia arbuscula, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Peter Strzok 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.

I believe that's AT LEAST three reverts there. Didn't you have a 0RR restriction or something? Volunteer Marek 03:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"My last revert today" is still a FOURTH revert. That's not going to work at AN/3RR. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek 03:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So... that's a "no, I won't self revert my fourth revert"? Volunteer Marek 04:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. But can you refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries? Volunteer Marek 04:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

...a personal attack in an edit summary? Volunteer Marek 04:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the song...

...Let It Go? Friendly words of advice - NPOV will prevail - the FBI agents involved will soon be giving testimony before the relevant congressional committees. In the interim, step back, take a deep breath, and give the facts a chance to surface in an orderly fashion. Give the OIG some time to submit more evidence like what they did with the text messages. Things are about to get really interesting, and there will be more than enough work to do correcting all the articles that are already filled with allegations without adding more. Facts are always better for an encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in process of letting it go, thanks. I just now kicked back in my recliner to focus on a very difficult matter having nothing to do with Wikipedia. 🙂 I notice that you’ve been in need of similar advice (about letting it go) lately. I think Wikipedia would be better off if the post-1932 American politics sanctions were amended to ban all editors from ever editing on that subject, and deleting all of those articles. They are too enticing for propagandists, IMHO. I got the Strzok article through AfD so felt some responsibility to keep it decent, but there’s no point attempting the impossible. Wikipedia needs better checks and balances. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have been under fire and I keep reminding myself that, right or wrong, it's a numbers game. I was fortunate to have other editors on the outside looking in to remind me. I paid it forward by reminding you. I never said letting go was easy, especially in light of the double standards. Ha! It's kinda like what was happening with the FBI's top level agents. I'll end on that note. 🙂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Anythingyouwant!!


Hi Anythingyouwant, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Davey2010, and Happy Holidays to you too! Best, Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

New section

Merry Holidays to talk page stalkers!!!! Seriously. 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ping test

This is a test, it is only a test. Hello User:Mandruss. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Bzuk, and the exact same thing to you, except for the "Great White North" part. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

‘Tis the season...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 06:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a joyous season, and a safe New Year celebration!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Thank you User:Atsme and same to you! Spirobranchus giganteus is very interesting. Be careful with the scuba and horses. BTW, I think User:RexxS is into scuba too, or so he alleged, so he is the go-to guy if you want to learn how to Wikipedia from underwater. He knows nothing about horses AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been scuba diving for around 40 years now, so you're right about that part. However I learned to ride at Harhill's Penwood Stables in the mid 1960s - Penwood Forge Mill had just arrived there.

Have a Great Christmas, Anythingyouwant, and a prosperous New Year! --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS, same to you. I am the only living human who lost gobs of money this year on the stock market, so a prosperous 2018 will help me break even. 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew McCabe

I thought that collapsing your attempt to politicize a content dispute would be preferable to raising the issue at WP:AE. Perhaps you would prefer the latter?- MrX 19:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to cite some policy or guideline? I want User:Jimbo Wales to look at the talk page section in question. Is that verboten? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Striking per coffman’s request.19:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Unstriking per Coffman.20:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the latest comment at Andrew McCabe crossed the line. I urge you to remove it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant at the McCabe article, about the "poo throwing"; thank you for striking it. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, okay then I’ll unstrike above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything, your amiable POV-pushin' rootin'-tootin' All-Amurc'n style has turned to the dark side with a nasty personal edge recently. Anyway, in case you didn't get the memo, Mitch McConnell was on the telly last week saying that after Alabama, President Trump is a liability for the Republican "agenda" (Hint:Courts), and he gave the cameras a wrinkly wink that the POV tilt is now to jump ship before the red ones lose control of the US Senate. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Like Texas weather...wait a day and the Repugs will change... ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas!
	Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Zigzig20s, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you too! Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gary Oldman

Thanks for tidying the lead of this article. I ask if you would please change "roles from Count Dracula to Winston Churchill" to "roles from Sid Vicious to Winston Churchill", as this would cover his entire mainstream film career from 1986 to date, and I believe speaks equally to his diversity. All the best - Merry Christmas. 107.181.79.24 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point, will do. In future, please post content suggestions at article talk instead of user talk. Cheers, and merry happiness. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump article DS

Anything, my friend. Merry Christmas!

This [9] appears to be a violation of the DS "consensus required" provision for this article. @Anthony22: had just made the edit to improve this language here. Please undo your reinstatement of the challenged text. @Coffee:. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, removal of the longstanding language was a 1RR violation. Second, the language had been in the BLP for many months.[10] Third, this was my only edit in the past 24 hours. Fourth, longstanding content is treated differently under discretionary sanctions than new content; the sanctions are meant to favor the status quo and stabilize the article, not to let anyone delete whatever longstanding info they want to delete even if there is no consensus to delete it. I'd be glad to discuss the actual content at the article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is gibberish, but it's not up to me what happens. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am simply following advice from an admin, that I already quoted to you above: “If you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore's Tax Issues

Hello, I saw you post in the tread Roy Moore thread on the POV noticeboard that makes me think you're a little confused about the exact issue with Roy Moore's income. Here you said, "The finances thing does not belong in the lead because non-profit organizations don’t pay taxes and thus could not be paying insufficient taxes." I didn't want to post anything there, because it seems a bit off-topic, but what you described isn't really the issue.

The complaint is that the charity he ran paid him a very large salary and did not report all of it in its regulatory filings. Non-profits still have to file statements with the IRS even though they don't owe taxes - this is to prove that they meet the requirements for tax-exempt status. He took a large salary from a non-profit organization he ran, but most years the organization did not report paying him nearly as much as he actually was paid. When the IRS audited the organization, they revealed that it had sent them false documents. This source breaks down the income he received based on publicly available documents from the corrected tax filings, and the Washingon Post article used as a source for that claim explains it in more detail. They also quote a number of non-profit tax experts who argue that by paying himself so much from a charity he ran, and hiding the payments from the IRS, he might be using the non-profit organization to privately enrich himself, not as an actual charity.

I'm not making an argument about whether that information should be in the lead of the article, since that should be discussed on the talk page by people involved there. I just thought you might want to know what it's actually about. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Red Rock Canyon. Yes, I'm pretty much aware of that, thanks. The problem is that the lead suggests to a layman that someone avoided taxes, which was apparently not what happened. Someone else mentioned this stuff at the NPOV Noticeboard, and I was just giving a brief response. I have no interest in pursuing it further. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Sorry for lecturing you like that. Have a good one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

that DS provision

That "consensus required" DS provision - putting aside which end of the stick you happen to find yourself at at a given moment, you for it or against it? I vaguely recall you being critical of it but my memory is fuzzy.

(and happy new years) Volunteer Marek 06:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi VM, Happy 2018 to you too. Certainly the wording of that DS provision could be improved so it matches better with how the rule has been interpreted and applied.[11] As to whether the whole rule should be tossed, I’d be less inclined to toss it if it’s rephrased as just described (if you REMOVE longstanding content from that article, that removal is an ‘edit’ within the meaning of this rule, and if someone reinstates the longstanding wording, you must not revert (remove it again) without consensus). Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No more PA's please

And this was also a PA [[12]], which are against policy and can get you a block. PLease read WP:NPA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, User:Slatersteven, a personal attack is leaving a warning for an editor who merely said, “I seem to be the only one who follows the rules around here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

suggest you read out rules ON PA's, leaving a warning is not a PA, accusing other users in an edit summery of not obeying the rules is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of the relentless warnings, Slatersteven, why not try to defuse the situation by simply making a request? It's amazing how GF collaboration gets results, regardless of who is at fault. I invite you to at least try it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I did ask them and their response was to accuse "all other users" on that forum (in effect) of not following the rules. And see below Also what do you mean by "relentless warnings".Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, “Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked you not to do it, if you make any more PA's and I see them I will report them to ANI, and we can them see if my accusations are justified. This is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We can them see. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Whoah. Deja vu. Slater, you should know by now that the community does not hold to your definition of a personal attack as "anything that could conceivably be interpreted as reflecting badly upon someone." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier

Sorry if there was any confusion, I was agreeing with your edit. Not Specifico's version. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay, no problem, thanks. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Policy?

Under what policy does "Placement appears appropriate?" Asking for a friend.- MrX 20:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please tell your friend that maybe a guideline or custom or common sense (rather than a policy) would suffice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Common sense: Common to you and the Rambling man? Brilliant. Got it.- MrX 21:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I'm a very stable genius! Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

MrX, yeah, you got it! Looking forward to following up MONGO's serious concerns over your behaviour in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you might want to stop making threats. They're empty like a whiskey bottle on January 1st.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man. Where have you been all my life? You're fun! Ramble on.- MrX 21:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So you can write it down for future use? I need to start doing that too, to keep up with you guys. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Now, this, this right here. THAT is a "blatant 1RR violation". There's 9 minutes of time between that edit and your previous edit (also, that edit removes information straight from the source for no apparent good reason except WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). THAT should be self reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no edit-war about that material, it had been in the article a long time and I was not reverting anyone who has been around recently. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's two removals of article text separated by 9 minutes of time and 3 intervening edits. If you honestly believe that I violated 1RR by making edits less than a minute apart, a minute during which you managed to make an edit yourself (which I did not revert) then you clearly must believe that you violated 1RR here. Else, you're just making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You were editing stuff I just did. I was not editing stuff you just did. Big difference. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

A removal is not necessarily a revert. But if you review WP:CRP (and not just because I wrote it), you will see that if that removal of "longstanding text" is reverted back, consensus will have to be established for its re-removal. El_C 07:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A removal by one editor of material that another editor has just inserted surely is a revert., User:El_C. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it can also be a partial revert—part of a larger series of edits that, when combined, amount to one revert (i.e. could have been accomplished with a single edit). El_C 08:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean I had to wait until he reverted my intervening revert? I've never heard of such a thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't have to wait. But sticking an edit in the middle of his series does not magically turn his remaining series into an extra revert. If the changes could have been made in a single edit, they count as a single revert. El_C 08:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)