Andering J. REDDSON

I only signed up so I could add the Female Combination Cover pics (see nurses uniform article).

¿Got A Problem With Me? Tough

More than one person has stopped my here to comment on my attitude. Go away you little troll. That was you final warning. All future such activity will be REPORTED.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And eventually you were banned. Suck it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.5.65 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Blow it out your ass.

ON SECOND THOUGHT, ¡I’d be happy to sign my future posts! (since my sig now is a way to tell Wikpedia to go fuck itself). You’re welcome.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Andering J REDDSON

৳₰៛₨₪₮₩ℳ₯₠₴₢₡฿₳₥₦ ⅛⅜⅝⅞

August 2011

Ѡ↑↓→↔↕↨←

Request for mediation

I have removed your request for mediation as it was not a request for clarification of an existing case, nor was it ripe for arbitration. You should explore other routes of dispute resolution before bringing a case to arbitration. The option open include informal mediation, Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For any user conduct disputes, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, a Request for Comment on user conduct". If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Arbitration Committee clerk Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Username and signature

Hi. If you really want to obscure your username, please consider changing it. Whatever username you do use, should be reflected and linked in your signature, along with a date/time stamp (all accomplished with "~~~~" (without quotes and nowiki tags)).   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

¿How Much Does She Say Herself?

Because this is a living person who is considered by some an expert on certain matters of dispute, I wonder how much of this page is based on her own words, how much is based on public records, and how much is based on those who do not like what she has done. I would trust her to write her own page as much as I would trust her opponents to write it for her, and for much the same reasons, but I do believe they should be included in consideration.

[[1]]

Non-Controntational Signature

A. J. REDDSON

I took a look at one of your references, “Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century Warfare” (John B. ALEXANDER), and nearly sh** myself: “If a mere temporary flat tire is the objective, a simple caltrop of hollow tubes that let the air escape, even from self-sealing tires, is sufficient. However, if permanent damage is necessary, then improved caltrops are required.” Let’s start with the first line: ¿Does it occur to you what will happen if you impale THAT on your foot? Here’s a hint: ¿What do you thing will happen if you sharpen a metal pipe and impale it in yourself? Let’s address the second sentence: “Permanent damage” to a human being is within the definition of “serious injury” (indeed, is specifically in the definition in most jurisdictions). A. J. REDDSON

signing

Hi A Reddson, I was wondering if you could sign using four tildes (~~~~). This attaches the datestamp which does two things to help. It lets others know when you posted so they can keep the flow of the threads straight and the datestamp is also used by the archiving bots so they can archive correctly; not posting the datestamp can thwart the bots. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "Go away you little troll." I meant it.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Misuse Potential and Allegations of Torture

Non-Lethal weapons have been misused, with pepper spray and electroshock weapons frequently being mentioned technologies. Some misuse instances have been newsworthy, as well as in the employment of so-called “pain compliance” techniques against people attempting to practice non-violent civil disobedience. (we will insert here the reference to eye-swabbing) In 1997, Amnesty International released a report titled USA: Police use of pepper spray is tantamount to torture, which considered the repetitive use of pain-inducing non-lethal weapons on humans to be cruel, if not torture, questioning if such use could be considered abusive or in violation of the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruelties.
However, these criticism statements have themselves been subject to sharp criticism, with multiple studies repudiating such claims. The National Institute of Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police provided strong evidence that the claims were greatly exaggerated, if true at all (need source here). Follow-up studies further supported the use of pepper spray as an effective and relatively safe method of controlling violent people, especially when other alternatives were inappropriate or unavailable, (Source here.) and studies have found that properly employed NL weapons statistically reduce injury rates on Law Enforcement Personnel (another source here). While there are certainly concerns for overuse there does not appear to be any clear evidence that any particular NL techology should be considered noteworthily more susceptible to potential misuse.

References

Impact

GHADDAFI’S removal from power…

Casualties and war crimes

No final tally of the casualties of the conflict could be confirmed…
Or
In the final tally, … In terms of war crimes, …

Home fronts and production

During the conflict, Lybian production was reduced, especially of their main export (oil)…

Advances in technology and warfare

Extensive use of technicals (civilian or military non-combat vehicle modified to provide an offensive capability), many with improvised armor (an attempt to improve survivability) by loyalist and anti-Gaddafi forces was seen to move to and fro on the desert terrain. They quickly become the vehicle of choice for both sides (despite the use of tanks and helicopters). Medium flatbed trucks carrying the Soviet-made towed quad barreled ZPU and twin barreled ZU-23-2 guns, recoilless rifles, and UB-32 helicopter rocket launcher pods were the most common seen; In the case of rocket launchers, low-tech devices were improvised to activate the weapons (such as the use of doorbells). Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Non-lethal weapon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your MedCab request

Andering, I've closed your MedCab request on the pit maneuver as premature because MedCab now requires some other form of dispute resolution to be tried first. If you want to take this further, then you can take it to Third Opinion (if there are only two editors involved), Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or to an RFC, but since you know me a bit, let me suggest to you that it is probably not worth your time to do so unless you can show where in Wikipedia policy it says that this material should not be included. The argument that Wikipedia can be held liable is not, by itself, going to be enough to keep the information out and is, indeed, probably not correct, for the reasons discussed at Bomb-making_instructions_on_the_internet#Moral_philosophy:

Most American websites offering bomb-making instructions would not face civil liability, since Hess v. Indiana and Waller v. Osbourne determined that free speech restrictions can only be applied if the goal was "producing imminent lawless conduct" among a single target group – which is not the case for a website available to a large swath of the population – making the situation comparable to music advocating violence or suicide in its lyrics.<ref>Weissblum, Lonn. Incitement to violence on the world wide web</ref>

The WP:NOTCENSORED policy stands against you and you've not responded to why it does not apply to this situation. If you think that it should not apply, then the proper approach is to either (a) try to change the policy, not to just edit in violation of it, or (b) to seek a local exception to the policy, but to get a local exception you have to obtain consensus for the exception to be made and as of this point in time, you don't have it. Frankly, my suggestion would be to Drop the stick, but if you want to take it further then use one of the DR forums which I've recommended, above. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I hate it but that matter is closed.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

about making wikipedia a better site

about making wikipedia a better site

I'm new to editing, I've only been a spectator for the past few years, so I'm learning how to make things work on here. I agree that there are a good number of things that could and should be changed on Wikipedia to make it a better site. I also read how you got an F on a paper for using Wikipedia as a source, but that's about as much as I know when it comes to the details of that. However, I have one question for you (at the moment anyway). A few weeks ago, I was helping a friend figure out why her SD card would not work in her computer's reader or in her camera, and yet it would work in her husband/fiancee/partner's camera. I saw that the three working cards she had were 2GB cards, while the nonworking card was a 4GB SDHC card, so the first place I thought to look was Wikipedia's article on SD cards and how they've been updated since they're introduction, and surely enough, SDHC cards are not backwards compatible with SD card-reading devices. Now in this situation, and other similar to it, would you trust Wikipedia to give you accurate information? I certainly would, because I feel that being a technology article (and I categorize some science and many math articles in the same boat), it has an easier time being factual, since it takes a little more effort to put up opinion as a fact. Anyhow thanks for your time, and I like how you make it quite clear that Wikipedia needs a lot of work to function more efficiently. By any chance are you an Aries or a Virgo? Oh, and I don't remember which side you were on on the discussion about the Mythbusters article needing a little (or big) note or section on how the mythbusting is sometimes (or often) disappointingly unscientific or unadhering to the original conditions, but I myself agree that Mythbusters could be a little more scienticific as I've seen a few experiments on there that I have come up with plausible solutions to they're busted decisions (and then stopped watching they're show for the most part). Once again thanks for your time! =) Freddo63 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

you can tell when someone's a noob by....

when he starts a new section, unsure of how to properly throw in an edit, afraid he might make the whole thing blow up... anyhow i didnt really read anything "sarcastic, snooty, rude, disrepectful or otherwise inaaprotiate tone" (and i like how you've showed me that I've always searched for that phrase, never thought of how to put it into words),but if you'd quote it for me, i'd be glad (or mad)to know what part of your message you thought of as such. and I'm also interested in knowing what parts of my message you didn't think were nice, as I didn't at all intend any part of my comments as not nice and would be glad to correct them.

however when it comes to bringing things to at least a high school standard, spelling would definitely be a plus! i was quite confused for a while when "...[I was] NOT rude to men..."

oh and dont abhor sarcasm, it can sometimes be used when you're feeling mean, for a fun time! =)

Freddo63 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bocage etc

Hi. I notice you've reverted again on the Rhino tank article. I'd thought we'd settled this on the article talk page, but apparently not. However, I have no objection to explaining once more that "bocage" doesn't just refer (as you seem to believe) to the banked hedges, but to the entire "countryside or landscape (as of western France) marked by intermingling patches of woodland and heath, small fields, tall hedgerows, and orchard".[2] The tusks were designed to breach the hedgerow part of that landscape; why would they be needed to breach small fields, heath or orchards? I appreciate that you don't find the word "hedgerow" to be an accurate description of the Normandy hedgerows, but it's what the sources seem to use. I will again try to rewrite that section to make it clearer. Before edit warring, please take a second to consider whether your edits are beneficial or are introducing imprecision into the article. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If you feel this needs to go through WP:DR by all means do whatever you see fit. I'll cooperate with any procedures you initiate. However, I read the article talk page as you agreeing (or at least accepting) that the banked hedges are in fact referred to as "hedgerows" by the sources, and that "bocage" means to the entire landscape and not just the hedges. You'll notice that I've rewritten the lead to avoid use of the disputed term, and added additional explanation to the article body. I think this is as far as I'm prepared to go in the way of compromise though, because it's fairly clear to me that you seem to be basing your stance on your own understanding of the word "hedgerow" (for example, here you appear to think the word means "Overgrown Rosebushes"), and on a desire to recognise the sacrifice of those individuals who found themselves having to fight in the bocage in 1944. While understandable, unfortunately neither of those positions are sustainable under Wikipedia policy, which constrains us to follow what the sources say without interpretation or editorialising and to set aside personal feelings as far as possible. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Andering J. REDDSON. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

German tank engines

I came across your comment on the M4 Sherman talk page regarding German tank engines. Be notified that, to my knowledge, all German tanks ran on gasoline. Refer to e.g. Maybach HL230. That German tanks were not as prone to "brewing up" had different reasons than the choice of fuel. (And actually, one of the initial problems with the Pz V Panther were engine room fires due to fuel fumes igniting.) Hope you find this information useful. -- DevSolar (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You could have replied here, which would make the talk a bit less... confusing. I was not talking about "MaBach", but "Maybach", the manufacturer of most German tank engines - which were running on gasoline. This was in reply to your edit on the M4 Sherman talk page. The decision for gasoline tank engines was not stupidity on behalf of the Germans, but necessity. Germany has virtually no indigenous oil reserves, and had to rely on Coal liquefaction for most of its fuel production - which yielded gasoline, not diesel. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all this was in the talk page. Second of all it was a question. Third, ¿is it REALLY this important? Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"German tanks were powered by diesel" is not a question, it's a statement, it's false, and since this is an encyclopedia, it's about correct knowledge. If you don't like being corrected, you're in the wrong place, because here, it is important. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all this was in the talk page- That what the talk pages are for. Second of all it was a question. Third, this REALLY isn’t that important. And fourth, this is NOT an encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. Correct knowledge has NOTHING to do with this site. NONE. It’s the worst dis-information site ever. Propagandists are embarrassed of this site. Any further comments by you will be deleted unread.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Citizendium

Have you ever considered joining Citizendium? There, edits to completed articles need approval from subject-matter experts. – Ypnypn (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I will check it out after I finish this little thing. No promises to join or edit, but to check out. ;)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, kindly keep your conspiracist nonsense to yourself. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a perfectly legitiame statement, the section is BLATANT PROPAGANDA so screw yourself.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andering J. REDDSON (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That those who are so upset, are doing so for political, not technical reasons. Berean Hunter, he's committing a felony. He SHOULD BE in prison, not here. The UCC shooting? How DO you have a press release condemning the incident, BEFORE THE SHOOTING EVEN ENDS, and claim it wasn't planned? My ONLY agenda is FACTS. I know saying it was staged isn't "popular." Ok, fine- But remove the self-evidently fraudulent part (the reaction section). In the end, though, it doesn't matter- Wikipedia's policies ensure it will remain a propaganda site- NOT an encyclopedia, on par with große lüge.

Decline reason:

Oh come on. Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs, and I don't see you providing any. Also, who's committing felony? Max Semenik (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your refusal to read is NOT my problem. As I don't know who you are nor how you fit in this... I feel no further need to respond to a troll.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You requested an unblock and MaxSem (an admin) responded. That's how he fits in. clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• For more words on why you are blocked please see this conclusion to the ANI thread. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good riddance to a troll-bait that was only here to try and get a rise out of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.210 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)