User talk:....SandwitchHawk....

God...KING & Mr. JOHN ALEXANDER MATSUI, MATSUI-SAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.189 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bla bla bla goes here

below this line

yes, right here

(below this line)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Please do not undo the move a second time. It isn't productive or helpful for conversations to be started at both the top and the bottom of the page. I moved the discussion of ancestry to its proper location chronologically based on when it started. That is only an inconvenience for those who may have started the conversation and expected it to be at the top of the page, but that's the consequence of starting it in the wrong place, not a reason to keep it there. General Ization ^Talk 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being too strict with the rules. Not everything has to be strictly enforced. Please leave that discussion at the top where it belongs, it makes a very good point and really doesn't need to be edited or moved, it is not interfering with any other discussion. You do not need to meddle with it although you feel it is within your right, you are not actually contributing anything or being helpful This is a talk section, not the main article. You really don't need to make this correction. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question of rules ... it's a question of readability. Please leave the section in its appropriate place chronologically. General Ization ^Talk 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, whatever excuse you can come up with, I am simply asking you to just ignore it. You don't need to make this correction, once again just let it be. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization is correct. Newest posts go at the bottom of talk pages - you should be thanking Ization for making the posts more readable per Wikipedia practices rather than excoriating him. When you move the posts back to their old/errant location that location is against accepted community norms per Help:Using talk pages#Sections. Shearonink (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking him? But he isn't actually contributing anything ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to put the posts in the accepted/correct order. There are reasons for that, mostly that having some kind of order to the posts keeps talk pages from devolving into continuing messes with shifting timelines. Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right well, im having trouble finding any discussions within that page worth mentioning... ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Do you really believe that? I think you are purposely avoiding common sense just to be disruptive. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that comment as a response immediately following mine on the talk page. I didn't want to derail the conversation happening there since it had already progressed, but I was a bit confused when I read it. Was that directed at me? I'm just somewhat caught off guard and not sure how I'm being disruptive, when that was the first time I've voiced my thoughts in that discussion.--Slon02 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to go over everything once again, and its probably in archive already. It may or may not have been meant for you, as the discussion can be confusing when user names have to manually be referenced, and are often left-out when making a statement. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding recent behavior

You are being disruptive and tendentious on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I and other users have patiently explained Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the video. You, in turn, have made personal attacks and cast aspersions. You were invited to discuss policy changes and source reliability at appropriate venues but have instead continued using the article's talk page to try to push the video and make your point. Some other relevant essays are WP:TRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

You've made allusions to Gamergate and you are editing on an article that is under discretionary sanctions. Please review the Gamergate discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBGG and the Afghanistan-related discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBIPA.

Please stop your disruptive and inappropriate behaviors. If you continue being disruptive, insulting users, or casting aspersions, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note exactly where I am being disruptive, I believe you are making assumptions, which may or may not be from your own personal feelings. But please tell me exactly where you think I'm being disruptive and I will try and address these issues with you. No need to issue benign warnings, thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like "Of course you probably don't actually care about factual information", accusing others of pretending to be ignorant, and this whole comment: "Ok but why do you think I am personally attacking you? Do you feel attacked? Are you perhaps being overtly sensitive? Sorry, but this is how I speak with adults. Are you a child perhaps? I'm not really mature myself, but I'm just trying to find the reason why you feel attacked. Are you ok?". Also POV pushing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you for noting these

"Of course you probably don't actually care about factual information" This is a valid concern I have, I am wondering if you may or may not care about factual information. That's all. This is a reasonable concern, given the situation, and is not a personal attack against you.

And yes, please explain what is "POV pushing" how do you think I am doing this? How is this not an insult given the clear sources I have provided? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up about posting in closed discussions

Please be careful about that. In Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#New evidence, there is a clear warning at the top of the closed-discussion template that states: "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." I've moved your post out of the template and put it underneath said template where it should be. I don't know what happened, but your signature indicates that post was made two minutes after the discussion was closed.

Just a heads-up. Parsley Man (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got an edit-conflict when I posted that message. Look at the times I posted that. I have never seen the type of tag used to close a thread before and thought it was just irrelevant robotic junk. But lets not try and be too technical of the rules. That one message was literally posted no more than 30 seconds after the discussion was closed. Thanks ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your signature indicates two minutes, not 30 seconds. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't actually checked, I assumed 30seconds because thats what it seems like from my end. But thank you for taking the time and checking yourself I guess... Still not a big deal. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally 120 seconds ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morrowind native.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Morrowind native.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF

Before you make simplistic accusations of littering articles with {{cn}} tags perhaps you should look at my record and realise that I have cleared up more of those tags than I have issued. And they do not "litter" an article, they show where a claim is made that really needs some support. Any absolute word such as "only" or "unique" or even "never" must have some supporting documentation because just one contrary example renders the claim meaningless.Dabbler (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good friend! Yes yes yes, I understand the rule, but I am just one of those people who appreciate form and style over minor technicalities. I will not challenge any more of your edits, but I hope we can come to a mutual understanding as to keeping the article accurate, informative, and clean. Thanks! ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question

This edit was made because I was reverting an editor who was evading their block. If that's correct, I don't object you changing it, it was done more because that editor was making a lot of other bad edits, and was already blocked at the time of making that one. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more cautious when editing. I don't see "block evasion" as a valid excuse for removing a good edit. I also notice you specialize in video games, @Sergecross73: .......... ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you're not very familiar with our block evasion policy then. The link in my above comment clearly states that block evasion is an acceptable reason to revert edits. (It's at WP:BE, since you missed it the first time.) Im not sure you should be advising anyone on policy or cautiousness... Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this only deepens the mystery of your actions, @Sergecross73: As I suspected, it says you don't have to revert something just because the person was blocked or evading a block. I expected this to be the case because it seems logical. I don't wish to accuse you of being a liar, but perhaps you can give a better excuse for your actions? Or would it be right to just assume you had poor judgement? Please exercise better caution in the future. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're making this more difficult than it is. You asked why. I told you why. You attempted to lecture me, and I informed you of policy that said my edits completely aligned with Wikipedia policy. Nobody claimed they had to be done, just stated that they could be done. I told you I wasn't challenging you reinstating the edit, and I didn't ask for your advice or approval, so I have no idea why you keep forcing this argument along... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I would definitely deem your judgement to be poor in this matter, @Sergecross73: 02:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect you to understand. How could you? You don't even know the original block evader or anything about his actions. Every single edit the original account had made had been disruptive and unconstructive. After a while, all were just auto-reverted, which is again, allowed by policy. Good job on supposedly catching a rare outlier in his edits. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more mysteries. All I see is an IP address who made the original edit, and this IP address only has total of 3 contributions to his name, none of which are violating policy in any way. They all seem to be good. Is there something else I am missing, @Sergecross73:? This is a genuine mystery now. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, you are not only missing something, you're fundamentally not understanding the scenario at all. Are you really this unfamiliar with the concept of block evading? An editor with an account (not the IP) was blocked for disruptive editing. The problem was that the IP's edits blatantly showed that they were the same person who had just been blocked. That's block evasion and not allowed. They were blocked and edits undone because that editor was not allowed to make edits at the time. You're not allowed to sign out if your account and edit anonymously during a block. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I would assume this IP was the one suspected of "ban evading". But now I'm also curious as to how that conclusion was drawn, assuming that you are the one who made the decision to ban him. I'm wondering if any further uses of poor judgment were made. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sounds great. I'd love to be audited by the guy fumbling through the basics. What's in it for me? More belligerence? Unsolicited misguided opinions? Yeah, I'm done indulging you. Goodbye. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, dude. You started this conversation, @Sergecross73:. I wasn't expecting an answer to the question I made. It was more of a rhetorical editors note than an actual question inviting conversation. And it didn't need to go any further than my initial reply to the dialog which you have created here. You are very silly, are you really an administrator for Wikipedia? How did this come to be :^) ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. You are not allowed to edit under multiple accounts on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin: This editor expresses all the same traits as the main account. Andiar.rohnds (and his prior socks Crystal.seed and MollecularManipulator) If you compare their talk page, you'll see the similarities.

Andiar was blocked until May 23, 2016. This account's first edit was on May 21, 2016.
Both share the same approach to discussion, alternating between aggressive and dismissive while refusing to acknowledge policy, and often going off topic to attempt to taunt or insult. Goes to great lengths to keep arguing point without addressing how it directly flies against policy. Complains about Admin in the same manner too.
Both have issues with edit warring, especially at articles on high profile shootings. (Hebdo, Orlando, etc)
All have similar userpages consisting of a line of nonsense. Almost all have a username with awkward period placement.
I came across this editor because I caught them reverting an obscure edit made by an IP address that was confirmed to be Andiar block evading months back. Reinstating an edit made while block evading in the past is a sign that this was not an effort for a clean start.

Contact me if you have any questions. I can go into more detail if them an Admin looking into this actually has any doubts on this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hhahahah, you are far too predictable, friend. But your administrative actions definitely seem punitive, rather than beneficial to Wikipedia. You really should exercise better judgment, @Sergecross73: ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ....SandwitchHawk..... 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]