Open main menu

User talk:Objective3000


If you came here to post a DS alert template, be my guest. Considering the minefields present in controversial articles, I think the reminders are useful.



Trump, Žižek and Myron EbellEdit

Hi there. At Trump, I try to involve an Slovenian leftist contrarian turbo prof. At Myron Ebell several authors, including me, have been accused of being a paid shill of Heartland, Exxon and the Wallstreet. You find the suspects on User_talk:SW3_5DL#Myron_Ebell as well. Have fun! Polentarion Talk 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the Ebell controversy, and seem to remember admins are dealing with it. But, I don't understand why you want to include Žižek on the Trump page. You have several times used the term "press clippings" in what sounds like a derogatory manner. Articles in the respected press are used in WP articles about recent events for a good reason. They are highly reliable. Pardon me, but your emphasis on books and "scholarly studies" sounds to me more like academia elitism. Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thnx for the feedback. My point is
a) Trump's election is a recent event, but Trumps raise and career has been scrutinized in various studies and of cause books.
b) I have a problem with the current fashion to discuss just the details of articles bottom up so to say. I prefer a top down approach, discussing as well the basic narrative and the overall structure. The trump talk page was focusing into detail.
d) we should not spend half of the talk page about the hair comb meme in the yellow press and ignore the serious studies covering that internet meme in academia.
e) sorta German - the deWP has an explicit preference with regard to scholarly sources, historical studies on the top hierarchy level. It is not as strict here, but no one would cover a normal topic in e.g. ape species by newsletter clippings if you got suitable academic studies.
Conclusio: I believe that a good article on a global celebrity may and should consist of a mixture of serious press, academic papers and non fiction and even fiction books and media. I might sound elitist, but to have not any book nor "scholarly study" involved, is the opposite of it, populism. And it ignores sound knowledge. This project is about collecting and summarizing knowledge. Polentarion Talk 15:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think populism is the opposite of scholarly study. Indeed, appeals to populism are more critical of press than academe, particularly in recent history. (Albeit followers of populist messages are likely unaware of academic studies.) The problem I have is that this is a BLP. WP is extremely careful with such. It’s very interesting to look into the mind of John Adams or Hamilton, after time has provided us with a more mature examination. I just don’t see a psychoanalyst or philosopher, who hasn’t interviewed Trump, having a place in a BLP. If we look at the article on Nixon, a huge number of books are listed. But, if Wikipedia had been writing an article at the time, WaPo would have been the major source. What really goes on in the mind of a Trump will be important to document – when we have enough information from enough study. When he is no longer a living person. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You surely need a personal contact for a psycholanalysis. But Zizek is no shrink but an influential cultural critic, listed e..g. by Foreign Policy list of top Global Thinkers. Would you disallow a psychoanalyst or philosopher to edit Trumps article? I doubt that. And with regard to Nixon, Wapo was just about Watergate. If Nixon would be now in the last months of his presidency, we would probably have an opinion piece from Zizek praising The Dick for his skills as a peace maker, his China policy and environmental pioneering - Nixon brought acid rain and greenhouse effect on the international agenda and founded EPA. ;) Polentarion Talk 18:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Nixon was both an impressive president, and a paranoid crook. Writing an encyclopedia article about such a person while he is still alive is very difficult. I think you need to stick to the facts and leave the mind reading to when he is no longer living. I would not stop a psychoanalyst or philosopher from editing a WP:BLP, so long as they stuck to facts. Objective3000 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
With regard to Trump, we got a lot of body-reading, especially about the hair. Its the most discussed thing on the talk page and the one where the classical Wikipedian expects no scientific study at all. But they exist and are being ignored. The most interesting facts are the ones constructed in our minds. That said, have a great week! Polentarion Talk 18:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia as political lobbyist?Edit

Hi Objective3000, would you mind explaining further what you mean by saying, "Wikipedia abandoned its mission of creating an objective encyclopedia and initiated its new life as a political lobbyist"? I'm not as active as you are (were), so what am I missing? Can you point me to references/articles explaining further? - Paul2520 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia completely shut down for a day, screwing who knows how many students, to protest a particular bill before Congress that they didn't like. An encyclopedia informs. It does not agitate. Objective3000 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Screwing them out of what, exactly? PS If you wish to testify in the first trial of User:Hidden Tempo, it seems to me it needs to be in the involved editor section. SashiRolls (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Screwing students who had papers due the next day by surprisingly making their encyclopedia disappear. I have made no statement in the Hidden Tempo appeal. I merely responded to a comment. If I "testified," it would contain the limit of diffs displaying his abusive editing. He's one of the least civil editors I've run into in years. Objective3000 (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
SashiRolls blocked for six months. No complaint by me. I'm wondering if posting on this page is dangerous.:) Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal with the Hillary Clinton special issue thing....Edit

Why do you say it wasn't real? Topix inc. Sent out the magazines, hundreds were sold. the 17 number was completely debunked, and the article you linked to was published the day after the election, when Topix was doing heavy duty coverup in order to stop what was a huuuuuuuuuggggge embarrassment. You can go to and look it up. As Chico Marx once said: "who should I believe, you or my own eyes?" Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the conspiracy theory that is being pushed that Newsweek was biased was debunked. There is no evidence that more than 17 copies were sold. Wikipedia depends on WP:RS. Looking at eBay or Amazon is not WP:RS. It is WP:OR, which is not allowed. If more were sold, it still is WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE. This is common practice in the souvenir business. Your opinion that this was a "huuuuuuuuuggggge embarrassment" is WP:POV and not allowed. The only difference is that a nutcase conspiracy theory was made of it. That theory never took off in the major news sources. There is no there there. Your behavior here is now become disruptive. You must gain consensus before adding material to articles that is controversial or makes accusations. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Advantage gambling: Revision historyEdit

You removed a citation link for a statement which had no citation and you cited spam. The citation linked to an authoritative matched betting glossary which provided the definition for the article statement which was missing the citation. I do not believe this is spam and if you think it is then provide a citation from the industry which provides weight to the statement, please do not simply remove without verifying or providing authority alternatives.

Thanks Graeme

Graeme Trueman (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon WP:RS. The site for which you have added links on three articles has not been recognized as a reliable source. It's an online gambling portal. It appears that you have been here for one day, have added several links, and had them reverted by two editors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


I was thinking we could have taken it to ANI and got a block on the IP for disruption, especially with all those BLP violations. I think he's a sock. Should I email a checkuser? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI is generally slower to react than an available sysop. I'm not sure how useful a checkuser is on an IPV6. Objective3000 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What's an IPV6? Is that service that reroutes you to another IP, like TunnelBear? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The newer six section IPs, unlike the older four section IPs. A checkuser is not likely to use his tools based on a hunch. And, there are only around three dozen checkusers. Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to see who would turn up on the discussion. Sock masters seem to turn up eventually. I think one may have done. That's why I kept responding. It's really a closed topic except for the sock master. Don't know if the checkuser will catch him as I did not ask about all who commented vigorously there. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I gathered that you were prodding a violation. I understand why you might do that and apologize if that wasn't your intent. But, just let the thread die a natural death. Objective3000 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Oh yes, in fact, we should probably collapse it. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Self R/VEdit

WP:WINING TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny that that essay can be reached via that spelling. Objective3000 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...there was some RfD drama over it recently. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
So, someone was whining about the whining essay. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Possibly wining while whining about WP:WINING not redirecting to WP:WINNING. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
I wanted you to know how much I appreciated your comment on the ANI. You were the first reasonable voice to post there and it meant a great deal to me. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you happened to see my last comment there, but I inadvertently left off your name. I realized my mistake when I looked over my list of editors to thank and saw you right there at the top. I have since gone back and added it. It meant a lot to me. Thank you. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The political articles are tough. High editor attrition rate. I'm surprised we haven't all been blocked.:) Objective3000 (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rudy GiulianiEdit

Hey Objective. I decided to leave you this message for several reasons. Your name- objective, your user page stating your commitment to the encyclopedia mission and npov, your gaming edits are very good, I have been playing cards for a living for many years and many gaming pages where I expected to find incorrect fallacies are well edited and not wanting for much thanks in part to your collaborations. Also since you have been around a while and reverted one of my attempts at editing Rudy Giuliani I thought I might ask for your guidance. On every other page I've worked on there is always give and take, back and forth with other editors acting in good faith to try and improve the encyclopedia for the good of all. If I make a factual edit with RS, it is sometimes left, sometimes edited a bit, etc, you know the deal but we always end up with a better entry, more accurate, complete, and better sourced (even some Trump and Clinton pages). However, at Rudy Giuliani, I seem to have run into a few users who only revert the whole thing. I have tried editing the whole section or part of the section in question. I have tried adding a sentence or deleting a sentence. Same thing revert by 2 or 3 users that seem to think they own the page. One of them says use the talk page, well I did months ago with only positive response, they still revert. I'm sure you are aware of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. These users NEVER argue the central points or facts or back it up. However they are in the bottom 3 rungs with name calling, ad hominems, threats and ridicule. There are many examples, but one is a non-existent link that a paragraph is based on. I delete the paragraph and non-existent link and they just revert it- non-existent link and all. Hope to hear from you. THANKS. Aceruss (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The rules are much stiffer on biographies of living people. And stiffer yet on articles on post-1930 politics. A quick look indicates a few problems. First, you have been edit warring. You can't repeatedly make the same edit without discussion. After a while, people will just revert you without even looking at your edit. Secondly, when you make major changes to long-standing text, you need to gain consensus. That is particularly true on recent political BLPs. That may take some time on this article as it doesn't appear to get much editor traffic. Next, the only time I can see that you went to Talk, you essentially attacked another editor instead of politely making a case. (Incidentally, the editor you hit is not only an admin, but a checkuser, about the highest trusted level here. He likely ignored it.) Finally, and more to the point, the text you are adding looks like Original Research, and Synthesis. You can't tie together multiple sources to come to a conclusion. That has to be done by a source. You'll find that polite discourse on the Talk Pages is very valuable and you are far more likely to receive a detailed explanation of the relevant guidelines.
I'll add an aside. As a long time resident of Manhattan, I believe most of us would not agree with your change. Of course this is not relevant as it's my own personal opinion and therefore doesn't count. Objective3000 (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I too have NYC ties I was born there and a resident for over 20 years. I look forward to some collaboration with you and others on gambling related pages. About the Giuliani page, let me make 2 points. I didn't really attack the editor I responded in kind. I was an editing newcomer on Wikipedia in late NOV being bold and editing in good faith when I got this message from that editor (name omitted)You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rudy Giuliani. xxxxx (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I was not vandalizing or introducing incorrect info it was well sourced, he was biting the newcomer and not assuming good faith. Second point- Giuliani is widely credited with turning NYC around especially crime wise. He stepped on some toes to get the job done no doubt and thus has detractors. Bottom line majority and significant minority viewpoints are supposed to be represented in an article. The whole article especially the section I was editing is extremely one sided against Giuliani. I am merely trying to add balance with RS. Your feedback is appreciated.Aceruss (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tor .onion urlsEdit

Hi, You reverted my edit to The Pirate Bay, stating "Onion urls are blacklisted by Wikipedia". The first five articles I recognised and clicked on in the List of Tor hidden services - AlphaBay, TheRealDeal, WikiLeaks, DuckDuckGo, and Facebookcorewwwi.onion - all had .onion links, and one is even in the article title. Admittedly, the WikiLeaks one is down in the references, but it's still there. Talk:List of Tor hidden services has two mentions about urls: "Many TOR URLs have been removed, ostensibly for "lacking citation""; and "URLs could be cited from an index like but the url is blacklisted" (which I read as being just something about that index). I seem to remember reading a comment elsewhere about .onion urls being blacklisted because of links to child porn, but I did search and couldn't find any official reference. Additionally, there was no mention of the .onion url in Talk:The_Pirate_Bay. My point is that I did consider things before I made my edit, and it seemed to me that even if .onion urls were blacklisted, then it would only apply if they were hyperlinked. Anyway, please direct me to more info. Dave Laned130 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO paragraph 7. You will see it is also on the WP blacklist[1]. Also, consensus on the TPB article, after enormous discussion, is to only include the official TPB link. BTW, if you attempt to include an actual TOR hyperlink, the Save changes button will present an error message. Objective3000 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I can't say I agree with the policy, but I'll refrain from adding TOR links in the future. I agree that TOR hyperlinks would be confusing to users, although in my opinion a better solution would be to just redirect them to a Wikipedia page that explains that they are only viewable with the correct software. It seems to me that extra, relevant, info is always worth including in an article it. It doesn't have to be formatted as a link that doesn't work, it's just information that is relevant to the subject, especially in this case where it has a reference that is viewable on the clearnet. I don't see "uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk" in the blacklist, and searching for "onion" only shows the line "\b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.onion\b # was \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b". Was the discussion about including the TOR link on the Talk page? I don't see it there. I would be interested to read the arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laned130 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
"\b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.onion\b" is REGEX code for all .onion urls. It's also against the definition of the url field in the website infobox. Only official urls are allowed, and very rarely more than one. Basically, this is to keep infoboxes brief summaries, and noncontroversial. Exceptions are normally large corporations which may have different sites for consumer sales and corporate business. Objective3000 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


I think it's already implied that the media coverage was free, but whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Truish", but it's only five characters and was an important part of the (perhaps all too) clever media strategy. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Adlerschloß (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You were lucky this didn't WP:boomerang. I suggest in future you avoid escalation without discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll second that. I've been debating for probably entirely too long now whether to revert the close for exactly that reason. Softlavender did you a favor on this one. I wouldn't take that for granted. TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Adlerschloß may not be watching this page. Objective3000 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe not, but there are plenty of folks watching them. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute resolution. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document".The discussion is about the topic Pizzagate. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Terrorist96 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteerEdit

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted onEdit

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions for responsibly citing my original work?Edit

I believe the research I did into simulating the Labouchere system is relevant to the Wikipedia article. I also believe my citation was relevant because my contributions to the article are derived directly from the work I completed in the paper. Do you have any thoughts on how I might responsibly acknowledge the original source of this work if I "shouldn't be putting my own work on wikipedia?" The paper goes very in depth into simulating the system and analyzing its statistical outcomes.

Possibly an additional reading section? Maybe just leave the citation?

I'm also considering adding a section acknowledging the use of the system for betting in cryptocurrencies.


Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebillings (talkcontribs) 21:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed. See: WP:OR. You also should read: WP:NOTPROMOTION. Also, you cannot win even with an infinite bankroll. One must be careful with the word infinite. All possible outcomes will exist with an infinite number of trials. That includes the outcome where you lose every hand. Also, you cannot effectively increase an infinite bankroll. Objective3000 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My last editEdit

Where would I put my last edit on which page? James O'Keefe you say? I edited the CNN controversy page just to refresh your memory

ThePlane11 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's already in the Project Veritas article, and probably the James O'Keefe article. Objective3000 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Talk:James ComeyEdit

  Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

The purpose of a talk page is to engage in discussion about improving the article, not to spit random one-liners about "Sounds like OR" without any thought behind them. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. You are refusing to allow discussion by edit-warring and deleting talk page edits you don't like. Frankly, I don't even understand why you don't like them. I suggest you think about this, stop your disruptive behavior, and remove your odd comments. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have discussion regarding the article, or regarding my top-level comment, please make it in a new top-level reply. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I made comments that were absolutely honest and relative. You keep removing them in violation of WP:AGF and other guidelines. Reread my comments. They are absolutely on-point, and designed to be productive. I suggest that you consider that you are taking offensive for some reason that is not valid and reverse your actions as hardly anyone else will consider them reasonable. Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If you don't stop trolling immediately, I intend to start a case at ANI about your behavior make a long statement at DRN about your behavior. This is your last warning. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Get some sleep. And then, read WP:BOOMERANG. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I note [2] specifically as an edit so counter-productive that I assume it was in bad faith. You said "Sounds like OR.", then say you haven't accused me of OR, then take offense when I refer to original research as a "blind accusation". All the while, I am unsure as to what statement of mine you are referring to, as I do not believe I made any statement at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you get some sleep and reread this. There is nothing the tiniest bit untoward in that statement. And the threats you have made are so far out of bounds as to question your current state. Meanwhile, stay off my talk page. You are not welcome here with your current attitude. Objective3000 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop these suggestions that I am over-tired. And please provide diffs for "threats". Power~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Stop posting to my talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
ANI notice as required; I don't plan any further comments here. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


But then it looks like I'm replying to you, shouldn't I put my reply directly below the edit to which I am replying? Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You put your edit in the middle of my edit. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, indeed I did lol. Sorry about that, thanks for the fix. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian InterferenceEdit

What do you mean by a TBan violation? And how is it a violation since it is non inflammatory, sourced, and factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfoster99 (talkcontribs) 14:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A Tban is a total ban from editing the subject article(s). See WP:TBAN. Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Black 9 SystemEdit

Hi Objective3000, I am aware of the COI policy, and wouldn't have posted the reference if I had a connection to the author. I understand that a new, self-published book is not particularly significant. The reason I added it was because I wished to add the system to the list of systems in the article. The system itself wasn't from the book - I heard about it on a forum about a year ago. Because I follow card counting in some ebook stores, and read new material on it, I read the book. Seeing that the system it set out was the same as one I had seen before, I posted the system. I did not post it before because I thought that a reference was required. The book is irrelevant to the system, and I don't mind if it was removed. However, I feel that the system may be useful to people who are coming to card counting. If you feel that it would not be correct to add it, then I will defer to your judgement, however I would appreciate it if you could see your way to replacing the system in the table. Thanks, Awesomeworld18 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll ignore the fact that you added the link to the book the day after the book was published. There exist numerous counts. The ones that are in the table have been used for decades by large numbers of people and are well known. No one in the field has heard of this system, which is why you won't find WP:reliable sources for it. But worse, it's a bad system. It has worse betting correlation, playing efficiency and insurance correlation than KO, and has the same difficulty. That is, it pretty much fails on all aspects. Sorry, there is a long list of strategies that are not only better, but have large numbers of users and reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Objective3000,

As I said before, the book appeared in a suggested list - I have no affiliation to it. I understand where you are coming from with the count, but I am curious: what numbers did you have for betting correlation, playing efficiency and insurance correlation? I don't doubt your results, I just want to know. When I ran the numbers to check if it was useful, I had a result that the BC was equal to KO, PE was slightly better, and Ic was slightly worse - with a result that KO had a 2% advantage. In any case, I added the sysytem as I thought it might be interesting to new players, not necessarily to be used by players. I'm obviously not very experienced with Wikipedia editing, so I didn't know that it was incorrect. I won't post it next time. Anyway, if you could post the numbers, that would be great. If not, or if its too much hassle, never mind. Thanks Awesomeworld18 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the minus sign on the 9. PE:.5579, BC:.9792, IC:.7448. (With the proviso that PE isn't really accurate in unbalanced counts.) Should be almost as good as KO in today's games. Objective3000 (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump nicknames and Humpty DumptyEdit

Hi, please see my comment on the Talk page of Humpty Dumpty. Also how do you suggest I go about creating an article containing relevant information the nicknames. This would all be from reliable, secondary sources talking about the impact of and use of the nickames. Here was my second attempt which was simply deleted despite it making a genuine effort to be encyclopedic. 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Your article was deleted per WP:G4. It really makes no sense to have an article like this as there should be only a coupla nicknames. Nicknames for Trump should fit the same criteria as the nicknames for past presidents. That is, they are heavily used, over time, by a preponderance of reliable sources. That is, millions of people are likely to use the name and the name will end up in respected books. “Fuckface Von Clownstick” is not used by the NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The BBC, CNN, etc. It’s not acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I still find it hard to believe that there can't be any documentation on Wikipedia of the effect of, and the use of, these nicknames. Insulting nicknames, if you will, but they are still important events/trends that happened in history. I think people want them eliminated simply because they are insults. Which to me is not legitimate when you are talking about documenting history. Keizers (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If tens of millions of people start referring to him as fuckface, then it can be added. But, the fact that a comic used the term means nothing in the context of history. I assure you that George Washington was called many such pejorative names in his time. But, they did not stand the test of time. Objective3000 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The difference is, today we can see tens or hundreds of thousands of people publishing that name, I would argue that that's worth documenting. Anyway. Keizers (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Google searches are useless for such a determination. You would need a preponderance of respected sources. The rules for living persons are far more strict. Objective3000 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are using that word during any one period of time being newsworthy in itself. Anyway. Keizers (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It may be newsworthy. But, WP:NOTNEWS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Really? It's not permissible to even MENTION this nickname (secondary source, reliable) in a section called "Cheetos in popular culture"? But all the other things there like Cheetos being shaped like Jesus are "notable"? I think part of the problem here is people are not saying the real reason why this is unacceptable. It is not a consistent application of the theory of noteworthiness. The only reason (besides something more like censorship) is because such nicknames are "not allowed to be mentioned" for "living persons". That's fine with me but just tell me the REAL REASON... Keizers (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The real reasons are what several editors have told you: WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:RECENTISM add WP:UNDUE. Look, you have three times as many edits as I. You have contributed. But, you appear to have strayed into a more delicate area. If you persist, someone is going to ask for sanctions. That's not a threat. It's friendly advice. No one looking up Cheetos or a nursery rhyme wants to hear political stuff. People get enough of that elsewhere. Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV with regards to Dan Huberty PageEdit

Your recent editing history at Dan Huberty 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeroth92 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Azeroth92: Good lord. YOU are the one that has been reverted by many editors, (including an admin) in an attempt to add NPOV material to a BLP. You have been warned repeatedly that you do not have consensus to add this material. You have made zero effort to gain consensus. I strongly suggest you self-revert as this is a post-1932 American politics article. See [3]
Incidentally, you have also cast aspersions against two editors without a wit of evidence. And your accusation that I am removing material that doesn't favor Huberty is absurd on its face as just a few hours ago I removed material that was heavily critical of him. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Editor blocked. Objective3000 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian trollsEdit

Since the recent news about Russia's online influence operations, I've been seriously wondering how many of our fellow contributors are Russian trolls, and what if anything might be done about it. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've had the same feelings; but haven't the slightest idea what to do about it other than look for evidence of socks. Using socks would seem an obvious tool. And, when a sock farm is so large you need to create a page like [4], I suspect many, many more. Objective3000 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass shootingsEdit

For your information, we're talking about civilian shootings that occurred during a fit of rage. Things that happened during the Civil War and Indian Wars do not apply to the article on Stephen Paddock.--Anthony22 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For your information, the statement "the massacre is the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history" does not make the distinction you are trying to make. A mass shooting is the shooting of large numbers of people (civilians), arguably not in the midst of a war. Other than the last distinction, there is nothing about the term that limits it to "civilian shootings that occurred during a fit of rage". Hence the Wounded Knee massacre and many other events in US history qualify as mass shootings, and were far deadlier. The phrase "by a lone gunman" makes a distinction between those events and this. General Ization Talk 00:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's not what the sentence says. And, where did you get the "fit of rage" from? I haven't seen that in any RS. You are editing too much without consensus in a high-view article. That's why so many people are reverting your edits and you are being asked to go to Talk. Seriously, when making changes to the lede in such an article, you really need to discuss first. We still have NO idea of the motive. We must proceed carefully. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Adelson and the Review-JournalEdit

Thanks for pointing out the shocking lack of any information about this at either article. I wondered if it had been censored or something, but no, it apparently just never got put in. I am working to remedy that but I won't be able to work steadily at it due to other commitments today. If you want to help, my draft is at User:MelanieN/practice. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Inserted a section into the Review-Journal article. Won't have time to work on the Adelson material for a while.--MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I fiddled with the LVRJ article a bit. Have to get to dinner. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I added material to Adelson also. Fiddle away. --MelanieN (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That article is in much better shape, save the Ideology section that looks like it was written by Reince Priebus. One problem -- I was about to remove a second external link (I believe Newsmeat is defunct), checked first and found the article was under 1RR. It wouldn't draw sanctions; but it's probably a technical violation. O3000 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not a violation unless there have been intervening edits by others. Consecutive reverts count as a single revert. BTW I already posted at the talk page my intention to greatly trim that section but I won't have time today so feel free. Way too much verbatim quoting, basically puffery. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed 3,700 bytes from Ideology keeping the refs. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN notice: JesusEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Card countingEdit

Hi - since you've now twice re-added content you accept is not adequately sourced, can I remind you of WP:BURDEN:

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Can I therefore ask that you self-revert your restoration, given the sentence I've put in italics above. Thanks in advanc. Amisom (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Welcome to my talk. But, I did not add it twice and am not slightly close to 3RR. I restored it once. Someone else restored it earlier, and I certainly wasn't the author.
  • Did you not see my multiple notes that I am working on it? The text has many problems in addition to the lack of refs. Your removal of the entire section resulted in an edit conflict while I was trying to improve it.
  • The entire article has a problem with refs, not just this section. There are innumerable sources. But, they don't meet IRS standards. My own books and sites contain such info. But, I don't ref my own work. Not sure how we go about fixing this. Suggestions are welcome. Meanwhile, I have tagged the section and will look for some refs.
    Pardon me, I miscounted (it was someone else who re-added it earlier). My mistake. Yes, I did see your notes that you are working on it; but that's not what WP:BURDEN (one of our policies) says. It says no to re-inserting unsourced material until it is sourced. It's not optional. Once again: are you going to remove it to comply with that policy? Amisom (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I just tagged it. You don't remove a section immediately after it's been tagged. This isn't a WP:BLP. Besides, you'd have to remove half of all the gaming related articles if you took that strong a stance. Also, most editors try to help before making wholesale removals. That's why we tag. You are welcome to take this to Talk. Nevermind, I will. O3000 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I know you tagged it. I know that for two reasons: (1) because you told me, and (b) because you tagged it and I have eyes.
If you want to change WP:BURDEN so that it reads, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed but can be restored at any time so long as it is tagged as unreferenced", go to WT:V and propose that. In the meantime, it says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" and you are expected to comply with that. Amisom (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pai gow poker (which transmogrified into BJ)Edit

Thanks for tidying up after me there. That article has its issues, & several times I've made an edit there that I felt was an improvement, yet far from ideal. You took the problem I wanted to fix, & made it more clear. While I'm here, I've seen you around from time to time, & I was wondering if you would mind if I asked you a couple of blackjack questions. I know the "appropriate" place to ask would be the ref desks, but gambling-related questions seem to generate responses that are either clueless or completely full of shit (or both). Joefromrandb (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on PGP. Sure, ask away. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Once I got to the point where I could play perfect BS by rote, I decided to try my hand at counting. I've never had the time (nor likely do I have the talent) to get good at it; while I still occasionally give it a try from time to time, I usually just stick to BS. My 1st question regards hitting hard 16: BS says to hit v 7–A. However, if the correct play is to hit hard 16 v 7–A with any running minus, why wouldn't BS call for the player who isn't counting to stand? As a parallel, hit 12 v 4 with any running minus, while BS says hit 12 v 2–3, stand v 4. Further confusing is the fact that I've seen the occasional BS table that says to hit hard 16 v 9 or 10, stand v 7, 8, or A. My second question concerns surrendering 8,8: BS says surrender hard 16 v 9, 10, or A, but if the 16 is 8–8, only surrender if double-after-split isn't available; with DAS, splitting the 8's offers a very small advantage. I understand this as far as v 9 or 10 are concerned. However, since any situation where doubling against an ace is indicated requires a positive true count, why wouldn't BS say to surrender 8,8 v 9 or 10, or A without DAS, & with DAS, split v 9 or 10, surrender v A? If I'm playing BS and I split 8's against an ace, even if I draw a 3 on each of them, I'm not doubling; would splitting still improve my overall percentages in such a scenario? Thanks for any insight you may be able to offer me. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
BS appears to contradict counting in some close plays. This is because BS takes into account the fact that the player and dealer cards have been removed for the remaining cards. Counting does not take this into account in the decision matrix as this is taken into account by the count itself.
With BS, you would never stand with 16 v 7, 8, 9, A.
You don't have the surrender stuff right. Look at Ken's tables at [5] and notice how the tables change with different rules. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I know BS varies, and I should have specified 8-deck, dealer stands S17, DAS. I refuse to play at a table where the dealer hits S17. A lifelong Philadelphian, I play the overwhelming majority of BJ in Atlantic City. Ballys generally has $25 tables where dealer stands S17 during the week, although weekends & holidays you almost always have to play at a $100-minimum table to get this. While I certainly don't consider myself a rich man, I can afford to play at a hundred-dollar table now & then. Nonetheless, it disgusts me to be required to bet a higher amount to play under standard conditions. 30 years ago DHS17 was something largely confined to nickel-and-dime joints in Old City, Las Vegas. Nowadays they're almost everywhere. Upon adjusting the conditions to 8-deck, DAS, dealer stands S17, the tables to which you linked yield the same surrender rules that I've always observed: hard 16 (excepting 8,8) v 9, 10, or A, & hard 15 v 10. Interestingly, however, those tables say to split 8,8 with or without DAS, so apparently I do have it wrong. I learned my original BS from Revere's book, & it was Revere who said to surrender the 8,8 without DAS, but with DAS it's advantageous, albeit infinitesimally so, to split them. Is this not in fact the case? Did I misunderstand Revere's tables? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I met Revere 40 years back. Interesting guy. He had a math degree, but got his numbers from others. Anywho, I checked with Cacarulo’s CA numbers and they indicate no surrender with or without DAS. I’m not absolutely convinced that this is true as I just ran a quick generation and it said surrender without DAS. But, the difference is so tiny it doesn’t matter. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Just chatted with Schlesinger. Neither of us can remember Revere having any 8 deck tables. But then, it was long ago. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You're correct about that. Upon digging out the book, they were, in fact, 6-deck tables. Assuming that surrender without DAS is the correct play, would you agree with me that with DAS there would be an advantage to splitting v 9 or 10, but surrendering v A? I realize that it would be egregiously infinitesimal; probably a matter of pennies over thousands of hours of play. I'm just trying to figure out if my line of thinking is correct, or if there's something I'm overlooking. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This isn't stressed enough in the literature. BS is defined as the best play off the top of the deck. That is, in the one hand after a shuffle -- not all hands. It's a ridiculous definition that dates back to when compute′rs were vastly less powerful. So, it isn't really "correct" for all hands. But, the difference is so slight as it doesn't really matter. IIRC Julian Braun ran the numbers for Revere, and he didn't use combinatorial analysis. He used simulation, which I believe is more accurate with today's computers. I get surrender using the same. Truthfully, all methods of strategy creation contain compromises. But, it's only of academic interest as the real world compromises make such nit-picking moot. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! It's been a long while since I've had a conversation about BJ in which I've come away having learned something. Of the dozens of people who have claimed to me that they were counters, only 1 of them actually knew anything about the subject. I knew I would come across a second eventually! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your edit on the Roy Moore article. I am much more comfortable with that language. Txantimedia (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


My edit was challenged as wrong venue, not that it was a violation of BLP. Furthermore, the paragraph speaks of the election so the widely published and RS material I added is highly relevant to that article as it challenges the allegations as false and demonstrates that the people of Alabama continue to support their candidate. Removing it made it UNDUE and POV and that is what was noncompliant with BLP policy which states that NPOV must be strictly adhered to (not to mention the editor who reverted it is under an AE TB involving Trump broadly construed). Atsme📞📧 20:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the text about a single poll should be included, it was a direct violation of DS. And, it is a far, far stretch to call its omission a BLP issue or a violation of a Trump TB. Why don't you take this to Talk instead of an admin's page or my page? O3000 (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Direct me to the notice, please, because it is not on the top of the page in edit view on that TP, and should be. Atsme📞📧 20:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
That's where I copied it from. Search for some of the text. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Crowds on Demand articleEdit

Please join me at Talk:Crowds on Demand for a discussion of your revert of my edit of the article. Thanks. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Origin of term PalestineEdit

If a quote by Gingrich refuting the legitimacy of the term "Palestinian" are acceptable, then my edit was a valid counterpoint and you should not have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMcK (talkcontribs) 10:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It states the claim from Gingrich is controversial. But you added a statement in Wikivoice claiming Gingrich was incorrect referencing Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and it is not up to us to correct misstatements by others. O3000 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


  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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You've been busy this morning.:) O3000 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

not a sockEdit

old account got banned for having the word "boobs" in it

Yes, I see that. However, you are edit-warring and have a conflict of interest as well as adding info without sources WP:IRS WP:OR O3000 (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Du erhältst einen Orden!Edit

  Der Diplomatenorden
I love your Opinion. Otherwise, it´s useless, and no one wins. Umweltheizung - Effizienzfetischist 01:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant it to be cooling, not heating. But, what do I know. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask, why do you keep removing my corrections to the wiki pages?Edit

Dear Co-Editor,

I admire your desire to edit the public encyclopedia of the internet about the same topics I'm also interested in.

In the recent times, Google findings for the work liberal-fascist and liberal fascism is often relating to the following two sites: and

As you may know the political term of liberal-fascism does not exist and it is very misleading for the average John Doe to recognise and understand and make a difference between left-winged political forces and the far-right ones (referred also as fascism). Can I ask on what study do you keep removing a correction to the pages that will make the average John Doe more informed about the politically correct study? Or your plan is to make the people uninformed on purpose?

B.R.: Imre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertalanimre (talkcontribs) 13:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. You are providing no sources for your edits. This is called original research and is against WP guidelines. An important guideline is verifiability . Verifiability is more important than "truth". We document. We don't declare truths. I realize our guidelines can seem arcane. But, they are necessary to present a neutral point of view. I posted a welcome on your talk page. I suggest you read through some of the links. O3000 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and guidance. I appreciate you explained the reason and therefore, providing me something I can relate to when I'll edit an article. I'll do search for a validated source for the principals I've tried to explain, but you'll have to understand that providing a source to a non-existing term is quite hard to do since it is, well... not existing. I'll still try my best to link and mark a good source for the term, but please keep in mind, that the thoughts written in the articles are coming from experts from the field but certainly they have not created any doctoral about the topic, it is just simply common sense. Tha main reason is why I've tried to edit the pages is the fact that many people uses them to prove their "truth" even tho the pages are not explaining them. Only because the names are misleading.

Thank you for your help again.

Bertalanimre (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be advised..Edit

...that your groundless accusations that I was casting aspersions at Trump-Russia dossier are not conducive to civil discourse or a collegial environment for that matter. I suggest you read the entire discussion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The material other editors have politely asked to be included is as worthy of inclusion as all the other material that was included in the article...most of which is noncompliant with NPOV. The latter is not an aspersion, it is a fact. Atsme📞📧 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

From your last two posts: AN/I, article "owners", aggressiveness shown in keeping well-sourced information out of this article is very disconcerting, double-standard (and noncompliance with NPOV) is quite disconcerting, DS, DIDNTHEARTHAT, IDONTLIKEIT, disruptive. This is casting aspersions and is not useful. And your opinions are not facts. Stay off of my talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I actually can come here to advise you of an issue. Stop casting aspersions against me when you know nothing about what you're saying. Your behavior actually proves my point. Good day. Atsme📞📧 22:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Stay off my talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Objective3000. Just a quick note to say I have closed a request for comment you initiated, at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_mention_of_Trump/Pence_signs?. Apologies for the delay in closing this discussion, there's a backlog of RFC closure requests which I'm tackling as best I can. Regards, Fish+Karate 14:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision 827543062 Gun Violence:Domestic ViolenceEdit


I cannot address everything I edited at the moment. However, here a few arguments:

First, Mother Jones not a reliable source. The article "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down" is an argument with a confirmation bias. The article is not a research study. If you wish to include the data sited in the article then you should review and then cite each credible source. "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down" presents 10 ideas and selects information to support it's conclusion omitting any evidence to the contrary. Also, the article cites itself to support some of it's claims, which is yet again confirmation bias.

Example of misrepresentation of a pro-gun arguement.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2013, more than 5 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. • A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun. • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

The pro-gun argument is not that simply the presence of guns makes women safe, but that women in possession whom are properly trained with guns may be safer. In none of these instances is it explicitly stated that women are in possession of guns. Only that women around guns are more likely to be shot, similar to stating that a person that is on a boat is more likely to drown.  

As for the other edits, We can address them as we go. At the moment this is all I can address. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImprudentDiscourse (talkcontribs) 21:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I realize you are a new editor. If you enter as a new editor and immediately make six deletions to an article, you're likely to have your changes reverted. Even if you are an established editor, this is likely to occur. Wikipedia is based on consensus. I suggest taking this to the article's talk page, where you can receive input from those that have spent time editing the article. I am not one of those editors. I would say that in the one case you mentioned here, the correct move would be to change the source to the underlying study. That is, correct the section instead of removing it. I have added a welcome message to your talk page which contains valuable links to Wikipedia's rather arcane policies and guidelines. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump:Edit

I am not a huge fan of it either, kind of a pretty weak argument on the conflicts of interest. Just trying to get different points of view on it, and that was an argument made by the supporters. Thanks for the linking though, didn't know they had an article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • That it is verified isn't a reason to keep it. There's also editorial judgment; not everything that is reported needs to be included. Nor do we always need "different points of view"--the argument was weak and smacked of racism, so why should an encyclopedia give it attention? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for stalking. I was about to rvt and take to talk. But, 1RR. O3000 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
O3000 I would be up for self-revert and going to talk if you would prefer. PackMecEng (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hoping you would say that.:} Cheers. O3000 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScratchMarshall promoting conspiracy theories. - MrX 🖋 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia game

Thank you for illustrating a strategy table, for helping to a neutral point of view, even for difficult topics such as Las Vegas shooting, for "WP must be honest in its presentation of any subject.", for retiring when that seems in danger, - "ancient mind", you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. On the whole, far more pleasant to wake up to than an ANI notice.:) O3000 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 1873 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Years pass by awfully quickly these days..:) O3000 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please revert your editionEdit

Please revert your edition, especially concerning the discription of Trump´s health by doctor Jackson. This wording now is slanderous. You should be aware of this. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to convince someone of anything, you are going about it the wrong way. You have violated the consensus required and WP:1RR restrictions at the top of the page several times and can be summarily blocked by any admin. That aside, edit-warring and threatening simply doesn’t work. If you wish to gain consensus for a change, then present your case. Explain why you think the rank belongs in the article and why you think "effusive" doesn’t. O3000 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI "practicing politics" is a line from Piano Man (song). --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep, probably should have included that. Of course, that makes his comment no less uncivil. Not that there is anything rare about incivility on DS TPs.:) And thanks for Zbrnajsem block. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone with a clueEdit

This is the smartest thing I have read in awhile. You may be interested in this page which keeps track of all on-going discussions on terrorism-related articles. Then again, you may also want to stay far away as possible given how toxic these discussions tend to be!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Although I thought you might be talking about that awful song.:) I’ll peek in on that page. I’m aware there has been a long-running discussion about NOTNEWS as it’s on my watch; but I’ve avoided reading it. Should probably look at that too. As for the article on a mentally challenged person running into a crowd in Münster, somehow that doesn’t seem to match the encyclopedic relevance of a city founded by Charlemagne.:) O3000 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dismissal of James ComeyEdit

Hello. Your edit to Dismissal of James Comey is in violation of 1RR.

  1. 12:20, 7 April 2018 – first revert of the material
  2. 00:50, 9 April 2018 – second revert
  3. 02:18, 9 April 2018 – third revert and the second one within a 24-hour period.

Please self-revert and start a discussion on the article talk page. Politrukki (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. But, my second revert was a reversion of a 1RR vio, and the editor was blocked and TBanned. O3000 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome. There's no exemption for reverting edits made in violation of 1RR. WP:BANREVERT or WP:3RRNO#EX3 only apply to edits made in violation of a ban, or to edits by socks of blocked/banned users. An edit made before the ban has been imposed obviously cannot violate that ban.
I fixed the content, BTW. You may want to review the edit if you have not already done so. Politrukki (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I was one of several editors cleaning up after the editor on multiple articles as they continued making violations even after being aware of the AE complaint. Which is why it was such a quick ban. It was my determination that it was in the best interests of the project to remove a 1RR vio which, in my mind, rose to the level of vandalism in the spirit of the rules. O3000 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In this specific instance you could have just made few modifications to the content instead of making a wholesale revert (as a side note, in articles with consensus provisions it's not an option if a third party has intervened). Even though you did not know it, you were actually doing a sock's bidding. I'm referring to this edit by an editor who was later blocked for socking. While you think you were reverting vandalism, 1RR violations are not vandalism per se. You need to understand this if you want to avoid sanctions. Bye. Politrukki (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Been here ten years and have yet to be sanctioned, despite heavy participation in DS articles. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


How do you add the unsigned template? I frequently forget to add my signature, even thought most pages explicitly remind me to, and this shortcut would be good to know. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Common error. To add for yourself, just edit in ~~~~. For someone else: "{{subst:unsigned2|date|username or ip}}". You can leave out the date. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: There's also a very handy script you can import importScript('User:Anomie/unsignedhelper.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/unsignedhelper.js]] which adds an unsigned link button to the editing interface. When clicked, it will automatically add the template and fill in the editor name and time of the last edit on the page. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


You have banned me from your talk page, but I am still required to notify you that there is now a report concerning your BLP violation. Please find it here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You took me to ANI for identifying someone as an Islamaphobe who self-identifies as an Islamophobe (see his book, unsubtly titled Confessions of an Islamophobe, or his essay "The Case for Islamophobia", helpfully subtitled "I am an Islamophobe, and you should be one, too"). Please don't use noticeboards as a WP:BATTLEGROUND O3000 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you directly addressed me I will respond here. It would have been much easier if you had just provided the source for your edit and apologized for confusing Robert Spencer with a white supremacist, rather than simply attacking Fox News and ignoring my requests. I took you there because you don't seem to respond to polite requests for civility and abiding by policy, not to "battleground" you. AGF, please. Apologies to Cullen and Softlavender for the inconvenience. I will use the BLP noticeboard should this matter arise again, which I am hoping it does not. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Plainview, there's no purpose to be served by lecturing O3000 on his talk page. I suggest you disengage and state any relevant views at the ANI thread where they can be evaluated by the community. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Friendly piece of advice. Reread the the responses to your filing and take them to heart. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you even inserting yourself here, Specifico? Especially when you have your own problems to worry about? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Good lord. Stay off my talk page until you learn to take good advice. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview blocked as sock of Hidden Tempo. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ben Swann - "Spam Link"Edit

Regarding my reference you changed... Spam by definition is irrelevant. It's certainly not a spam link as it gives the most direct source for the claim in the article. The current source doesn't even support the actual claim in the article. And is hardly a credible and unbiased source since it calls Ben a "Pizzagate Truther" and pictures him with a tin foil hat. It's basically a hit piece and in all likelyhood violates WP:BLP. The reference in question is consistent with WP:SOURCE which states "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article". the current reference is not consistent with that as it does not directly support the material presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever possible, Wikipedia uses secondary sources, not primary sources. WP:IRS The link you provided was a primary source and also a promotional, which we don't allow. WP:SPAMLINK. You can try to argue about the current link on the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit to DRM page which was undoneEdit

Please can you explain why you undid my edit on DRM?

I added a section on a major shortcoming in DRM which is currently not mentioned on the Wiki page, which is the Content Sharing problem, i.e. users legally buy digital content but then are restricted in how they share the digital content, and can't share it in the same way that they share physical content such as newspapers, books, CDs etc.

This is a shortcoming which currently does not appear on the wiki page, but does appear in academic papers and in industry discussion.

This is my first contribution to a Wiki page, and it could be that other contributors may want to edit my contribution, but I humbly suggest that you do not delete the section on Content Sharing that I added, rather leave it open to future editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msd1986 (talkcontribs) 05:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The article already includes numerous references to Defective by Design, and EFF which created it. Indeed, the article is already failing WP:NPOV as it is heavily biased against DRM. The article is about DRM, not Defective by Design and EFF both of which have their own articles. Also, EFF is an advocacy group and a primary source. This isn’t a good source accept for their own opinions, which are stated in their own articles. On top of this, there are exaggerations in their claims. No one likes DRM; but let’s present the subject neutrally, as per WP:NPOV. O3000 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you perhaps remove the reference to defective by design, but not remove the entire Content Sharing section? Content Sharing is a limitation in DRM which is discussed in the academia and the industry, and there are a number of solutions such as the Authorized Domain, with various pros and cons which I discuss Msd1986
Content sharing is included in the article. Also, the degree to which content "sharing" is restricted is up to the choices a company makes. The criticism is about how the company wishes to restrict "sharing" of their product, not about the mechanism used. Why do "solutions" that don't do what the company wants belong in the article? It's like saying in an article about beef that a "solution" to the downsides of eating beef is to eat fish. O3000 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I feel there is a misunderstanding here of what content sharing is. The company wishes to prevent piracy do not necessarily prevent legitimate sharing of content that does not impact the company revenues. The solutions discussed, such as the authorized domain, are technical solutions for how to prevent full blown piracy, while allowing a minimal amount of controlled sharing in order to enhance usability. The authorized domain in particular was already adapted in some DRM systems. Articles on the Authorized domain date to as far back as 2004. Msd1986 —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
You added four paragraphs. The first paragraph repeats a theme of Defective Design, an initiative of FSF. Defective Design, FSF and EFF (all of which are anti-DRM if not anti-copyright in general) are heavily covered in the article including numerous external and internal links. Frankly, the article already contains so much anti-DRM material it is not presenting a neutral point of view. In your second paragraph, you state that there is a classic DRM solution linking to a paper written by proponents. But, I see no evidence that this is “the” classic solution. There are innumerable solutions. The last two paragraphs detail the Authorized Domain Model. We have an article named Authorized Domain which is actually shorter than your explanation. Perhaps it would make sense to turn that article into something more than a stub instead of adding all this to the DRM article as it really isn’t DRM. O3000 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia editor,

I was following closely the discussion between you and Msd1986 that began after you had removed her addition to the DRM page. Just for the background, Msd1986 was my master student at the university where I teach. She did an excellent thesis on content sharing in DRM systems and proved to be a leading expert on the topic. I encouraged her to share her knowledge with the public, as I am an ardent user, contributor and donator of Wikipedia. It was most disturbing and disappointing to see how her contribution was removed so fast and based on completely irrelevant arguments such as being “heavily biased against DRM”, being “inconsistent with WP:NPOV”, or that “The article already includes numerous references to Defective by Design”. Is there a quota on how many references a Wikipedia article can have? My former student invested her time to contribute from her knowledge and experience with DRM systems to Wikipedia, a social platform that was established towards that purpose; it is dependent exactly on such people like Msd1986 (experts in their field and willing to invest their time towards sharing their knowledge with others). Your persistence to block her from enriching the discussion is inconsistent with the essence and raison d’etre of Wikipedia. Beyond that, you fail to understand that her contribution does not contain anything which could be interpreted as negative criticism on DRM systems. On the contrary: as some companies reject DRM systems since it is wrongly understood that DRM and content sharing cannot coexist, she explains briefly the background to that misconception and then surveys the available solutions so that the described misconception is cleared. We view this contribution as an essential and constructive addition to any discussion on DRM systems. The most worrisome part in your arguments is that it seems that you think that a Wikipedia page should not include criticism on the subject of the page. While I disagree with you on that issue even when the subject of the page is a person or a social movement, I totally reject this conception when the subject of the page is of a technical nature. Removing or limiting criticism in such pages (or removing things which are wrongly identified as criticism, as it is with our case) is an act that goes against the truth, against transparency, and against the users of Wikipedia!

Given the above, I have updated the DRM page with the contribution made by Msd1986 under some modification and removal of text which seemed to have disturbed you. I do hope that the above clarifications and the modified text which I uploaded will enable the conclusion of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I fear I’m a bit confused. You claim you are an ardent Wikipedia contributor. But, you use an IP with one previous edit, you didn’t use the cite tablet for refs, you don’t appear to understand WP:BALANCE, you didn’t sign your edit, you appear to believe Wikipedia is about “truth”, and you have made no attempt at obtaining consensus. Further, you are suggesting that this is an expert adding her personal research. That’s called original research and is not allowed. Also, in no way, shape, or form did I say that an article should include no criticism. Indeed, the article should and does include criticism.
Given the location of your IP, the initials of one of the authors of one of the papers added, the university associated with that paper, and the editor name, I fear there may be a conflict of interest. If so, I don’t believe that this was in bad faith. Further discussion on the article talk page could result in some inclusion somewhere. O3000 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
First you shot down our article, in a matter of minutes, because you claimed it was heavily biased against DRM (a claim that we clearly refuted as our article in fact supported DRM). Then you criticized it that it adds material which was already represented in the article (wrong again, as we explained). Then, after uploading another version of our article where we removed the sentences that for some unclear reason annoyed you, once again you shot it down in a matter of minutes (no real thought or consideration was even an option here), this time with new excuses: technical issues like not using some citation tablet (I used the same format as other citations in the page), not signing the addition (I was not asked to sign; if it was a mandatory thing then Wiki would have mandated such a signature), or COI (I won’t even waste my time at refuting this nonsense). Not to mention your reference to “original research” which showed your failure to understand how scientific research and review work. You also tried to undermine my credibility as you found only one other contribution from the same IP (you are aware that people are not IPs, right?). When someone juggles between arguments as to “why not” it indicates that this someone has reached the “not” decision upfront, and then one is only fishing for supporting arguments, whatever works.
When encountered with such conduct, I am intrigued to learn more about the person. So I entered your page. It included all the answers I needed. You write there that “Only a fool or a masochist would edit Wikipedia controversial articles.” Then you write, as your main Credo about Wikipedia (no less!), that “Wikipedia is the only game I’ve played where so many players argue against the rules.”. First, I am glad to know that I and my student are not the first ones in this way-too-bizarre situation with you. But I have also learnt that you have self-appointed yourself as a Wiki-Cerberus, a bouncer that protects the gates of Wiki from “infiltrators” who care about truth, facts, adding points of view and enriching the discussion, as opposed to caring for some technical rules or their twisted interpretations. You also conclude your personal page with a proof of paranoia, and for the first time I agree with you.
You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wiki rules. But you are completely ignoring the most basic rules of Wikipedia: assume good faith, use etiquette, be civil, and be ready for compromise. (See here: You showed the total opposite of those fundamental rules of Wikipedia with your aggressive and power-drunk conduct. You did win. I will not attempt enriching Wikipedia pages any more. But Wikipedia as a whole, one of the most amazing edifices of our time of social solidarity and knowledge sharing, loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that almost nothing you said is true. But, it'd be pointless to go item by item. I had added a welcome notice with some advice on your students talk page and gave you advice on how to proceed, which you ignored. So, I'll just say good luck with your future endeavors. O3000 (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie AdamsEdit

Just wanted to quickly discuss the American murderers of children category, I see that you chose to remove it and I appreciate you explaining your reasoning behind that. I am just seeking clarification as nowhere in the category does it state that a conviction is required, and the New York City Medical Examiner ruled it as a homicide. Cheers. Greyjoy talk 11:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that murder is a crime. Homicide may or may not indicate a crime. I find it a bit odd that the category doesn't require some sort of adjudication. O3000 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, appreciate the clarification. Greyjoy talk 11:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)Edit

Just a heads up, its under consensus required. Bull removed, the elf restored, and you reinserted. PackMecEng (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Ignore me, I didn't see the stuff bull removed was put in a few days ago! My bad! PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Thanks. Not sure that's true. But, I self-reverted as it's unclear to me where the text originated and I'm not going to interrupt breakfast to figure it out.:) O3000 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was first added by elf here, partial revert by bull here, and then readded by elf here. One of those most confusing restrictions I swears. Again sorry about that, looks like I was straight up wrong. Enjoy your breakfast! PackMecEng (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to rvt my rvt of the rvt. You are welcome to undo my self-rvt, or restore to consensus which would be the same. Even if we're both wrong now wrong, it would be in good faith and not actionable. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like SPECIFICO reverted the revert of your revert? So back to status quo now possibly. It's to early for this still. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The staus quo is better, until there is a consensus. Elf is using three partisan sources we normally consider unreliable here: The Daily Caller, Washington Times, and Daily Kos. Now they're gone, and that's fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't pay any attention to Daily Kos. TDC is worse than the Moonie paper. O3000 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican PartyEdit

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts regarding the edits by a.k.a. "The Democratic Party, est. 1792" on the article Democratic-Republican Party. I reverted his/her edits several times, and even incorporated some of the defensible ones into the text while reverting the others. Then, hoping to avoid an edit war, I started the following thread:

Talk:Democratic-Republican Party#Recent edit disputes regarding connection between Democratic-Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

I'm still not happy with his changes, but I don't want to revert them until other editors weigh in on this matter. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick peek, looks like someone adding their unsourced changes. I'm busy at the moment and maybe a stalker can look at it. Unfortunately, it's probably not a heavily watched article. I'll look again in a day or two. O3000 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Message deliveryEdit

It would appear that MediaWiki is now able to correctly determine which newsletters are to be sent straight to the sandbox. –dlthewave 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your userpageEdit

Well said, all of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. O3000 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
An old friend and a new--what a lucky day for me! Dear ones, you both make me feel like dancing. (I came here to tell Objective3000 that this is one of my all-time favorite user pages and who should I find but my all-time favorite user!) XXX and OOO to both of you fellow travelers. Gandydancer (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Stop by any time. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Help needed at Trinity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Already read it. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please Help Me Edit Alex JonesEdit


I'm a brand new user. You and others obviously have took down my Alex Jones edits a few times... I am not sure what I'm doing wrong. I read the consensus is achieved after publication through talk pages and letting others re-edit. Maybe I mis-understand. I'm not trying to cause harm. How am I supposed to get "consensus"? Why is it that even a tiny edit, still backed by the source, or the addition of a word, are taken down?

Again, not trying to cause harm. Please help. Thanks :)

--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. Try reading WP:BRD. This is only an essay, but provides a path toward gaining consensus. If an edit is challenged, it's a good idea to go the article talk page to forge a consensus with other editors. Unfortunately, with Alex Jones you are editing an article that is more difficult to edit than most for three reasons. First, it is a biography of a living person. Secondly, it is a controversial, political individual. Lastly, that article is experiencing a dramatic spike in readership at the current time. You will also find that phrasing in such articles has already gone through significant discussion on the talk page and should read what other's have already said. You also have some warnings on your talk page and should read them carefully. O3000 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have read the warning. I really just jumped into the whole Alex Jones thing right away after being auto-confirmed. Good way to get a confused first impression of WP editing. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Internet CensorshipEdit

It might be true that they removed 20 million videos. But most of those don't meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability, none of them belonged to a channel with millions of followers, nor did any of them generate such widespread media attention.

That section needs an example, and there is no more relevant event I can find. Nearly every major news organization has an article or video on the subject.  — Kdrβats22 || Talk —  19:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First, edit summaries are for brief explanations of an edit. Never make personal attacks in an edit summary as you did in your article edit. Secondly, you are now violating WP:EW. As for the edit content, you need to take this to the article talk page. The article appears to conflate government censorship and TOS violations. Removals due to TOS vios occur over a billion times a year. Under too broad a definition of censorship, deleting SPAM would be considered censorship. This should probably be handled differently than it is now. Also, using this particular example is probably contentious and should, in my mind, be avoided. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Federation Against Copyright TheftEdit

I am not trying to push an agenda, I am just trying to make language more precise.

I am "being brave" with my edits, not making "unilateral changes to add [my] point of view to articles."

Rather than simply reverting the edit and accusing me of not writing with a neutral point of view, could you please respond me on Talk:Federation_Against_Copyright_Theft? DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did. But, I have to say that my comment was not due to one edit but multiple such. In particular your edit to a redirect, rather unusual for a new editor. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, fair enough.
The reason I was prompted to edit the redirect was because a while back I have noticed "digital restrictions management" is used interchangeably with "digital rights management" in some articles on Wikipedia. My mistake was neglecting to check Talk:Digital rights management for consensus and only looking at the talk page for the redirect. I am going to clean up the inappropriate uses of "digital restrictions management" I have found. Thank you. DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 02:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
God idea. I hadn't realized it was used elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kingdamian1 clearly NOTHERE. funplussmart (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On blackjack and ScarneEdit

Hi, I've noticed you've reverted my Blackjack edit and cited Scarne. Unfortunately Scarne is not a reliable source on the history of board or card games. I can list some of the errors or outright fabrications Scarne has done if you wish. Cervantes did not make clear whether he used the 40 or 48 card deck in Rinconete y Cortadillo (which can be read on wikisource). I tried to play safe and mention that it lacked 10s which is true for both types. As you mentioned, the bonus existed during WW2, but that is quite late. There is no evidence that it provided the name for the game.--Countakeshi (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Scarne was an ass when it came to blackjack strategy. He was better at history, but certainly invented when it served him. The history is certainly muddled. I believe the very similar Sicilian game 7 1/2, used the 40 card deck, which tends to suggest the Spanish used stripped Spanish cards. I believe the OED dates blackjack back to 1910, but without explanation of the etymology. Considering the original bonus, it sounds like the bonus was the source of the game. But, no one knows.
BTW, when I learned skat over a half century ago, it was spelled with a K. The OED also lists it as Skat with a second spelling of scat. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm very weary of Scarne as he is known to plagiarize and not give due credit for the research of others as well as making things up. The blackjack bonus can't be traced before the First World War. Because its etymology is uncertain, the folk etymology should not be stated as an encyclopedic fact. There is skat and there is also scat which are two different games. Feel free to fix Thirty-one (card game) which I think is scat but the entire page is a mess. There are several card games called 31 which I believe cause this confusing jumble to pile up over the years. I'm thinking of turning it into a disambig page and splitting the article up.--Countakeshi (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree on Scarne. I don't know who added the removal of 8's & 9's and don't have the cited source for use of a stripped deck. Wouldn't be surprised if the game was played with both stripped and unstripped Spanish decks. Perhaps we just need less specificity in the history section, and perhaps that was your aim.
Didn't know skat and scat were different games. Yes, 31 should probably be split up. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Google censorshipEdit

I don't agree with your taking down my edits on Google censorship. While Google's instructions say to include an FEC if applicable, in practice, they require an FEC id. You should try going through the process before you make the assertion that there is no censorship.

In my experience, I had to talk to a real human being before the issue was resolved. The first people with whom I spoke were just drones in a distant call center. They demanded that an FEC be included. They made it clear it was not optional. Even after I explained to them that I was not interested in registering with the FEC. There is censorship. It is real. Just because you assert it isn't so does not make it so. It was wrong of you to delete my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escribano2000 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. What you are talking about is original research. We don't do that here. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not our personal experiences. You will need to find a source for your claim. WP:IRS. Also realize that terms of service are not necessarily censorship. In this case, disallowing manipulation of elections by foreign states is not censorship. O3000 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Flake, and the "nuclear option"Edit

I am at a significant disadvantage, because I am not electronically adept. But as Potter Stewart might have said, I know bias when I see it. If you share with me the same interest in fair, unbiased Wikipedia articles, you can easily find the Guardian article to which I am attempting to link, among many other bases for the historical balance I am attempting to include.

I wrote something on the Flake "talk page", as per your request.

Vcuttolo (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but Potter Stewart didn't say that. And, he wasn't writing an encyclopedia. We must take care not to allow our own opinions to color our edits. I'll look at your TP addition. O3000 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No good sources?Edit

Hi, I don't really know how to use or read these pages and histories of edits, etc. Lots of techie or programming language and code words to me. But anyway, the comment said regarding the Newsweek Obama as Shiva cover: "Revision as of 15:49, 24 August 2018... Undid revision 856346596 by Isengrim01 (talk) I can't find any good sources for this. It's on lots of right-wing blogs and The Daily Mail. UNDUE)"

I'm unclear on what you mean. I linked a Fox News website. Are you alleging that's not a legitimate source because it's conservative, or they just make up interviews with Indian people about the cover disrespecting Shiva? The controversial cover is still out there on the Internet if you want to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isengrim01 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fox News can be used as a source. However, when all the other sources for the story are poor, which is to say the highly respected sources all ignored the story, that’s suspect. This is particularly true when Fox is criticizing one of its competitors, which is quite common. The Times of India says: Hindu leaders in the US maintained that they did not believe editors at Newsweek sought to offend Hindus but they did articulate concerns over the trend of caricaturing Hindu symbols and deities.[6] Perhaps this could be included in an article related to Hinduism as a general story about the concern of Hindu leaders of use of their symbols, which would include Burger King and other American corporations that have used Hindu symbols. O3000 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


It sounds like you got some emails that were objectionable. Obviously, I don't know what the emails said, and you should not post them on-wiki, but I thought I should make sure that you know that you are entitled, if you want, to forward the emails to ArbCom if you believe that further action needs to be taken.

Also, the subject is within the scope of the Discretionary Sanctions for American politics, and the other editor has been properly notified, before the most recent stuff happened, of the DS. Therefore, this is something that can be brought to WP:AE. If you would like me to help you with that, I'll be happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. He's just pissed that I took him to AN/3 resulting in a brief block. I blocked him from my email. He's surely working his way to a TBan or long block. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the article- IdentitarianismEdit

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


Hi, I've unfortunately had to remove one of your comments at AN and suppress some revisions. Linking to other accounts off-site and providing a direct link to it falls under disclosure of non-public personal information, even if we try to talk around it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Understood. I took a chance because, in my mind, it is public, not a real identity, and I think pertinent. The appeal will succeed and I hope for the best. Unlikely given the history. Rgds, O3000 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the thought process, but unless someone has linked an account on another website to their account on-wiki, a good rule of thumb is not to link. Not mad or anything, just wanted to let you know what I did. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Que será, será. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I saw it, and I am glad to see that (I think) we agree that no malice was intended (and in fact, I appreciate the intent of following up on my own post). (To be clear, I think that the redacting was appropriate.) I also feel the need to point out that, having once been blocked for something that was similar but considerably less revealing, myself, I am pleased that you did not see the need for a knee-jerk block in this case. I guess that's progress. (End of soapboxing.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Objective3000Edit

I have some objection because you marked my contribution as spam. I have added link contribution on this page: about baccarat versions and game types (this link) - If you open the page you can see that there is very good information on how to play baccarat, the difference of baccarat games you can play. Also on this link, you can find a detailed guide about baccarat rules and strategies - Thank you for reading my message, and I hope you reconsider your decision to mark me as spam. Also, there is a chance that I didn't format my link properly if that is the case help me with that, please.

Regards, Abrewdok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrewdok (talkcontribs) 08:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've reverted another edit of yours elsewhere for the same reason. Your only edits have been links to the same casino portal. The link I just removed is to a puff piece that is full of adjectives stating how wonderful a particular online casino software company is. It's pure advertising. Please read WP:COI as it may apply to you. O3000 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

WP:NOTHERE O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  The Original Barnstar
This is crimadella, the one that was blocked by you and another on the "debunking of Pizzagate"

Forgive my dumbness, i'm autistic. Could you explain the jist of the rules to me, to be able to speak on a wikipedia page? I may be slow in areas, but i'm also excelled in areas, logic being one of them. It almost seems as if, nothing can be said unless a journalists writes about it first, or is written in a published, reliable sourced book(which doesn't apply to this specific page). So i ask, when did journalism become factual statements only? Is wikipedia the journalist made encyclopedia? I can only think of hundreds of accounts where journalism was very incorrect, even in well know areas like science, not conspiracy. I would say it really sucks, the workings of wiki. I obsessed on pizzagate for months, which actualy grew and changed names way past the so called mass media debunking of it. Sad to see how many people do not posses the logical mind, capable of seeing through deception. Many things were overlooked, but logically, it would seem to be on purpose. The so called "Free Media" is not free at all, it's very controlled, that is well known, to the people whom are capable of thinking for themselves. My mind works in odd ways, but it does work. (Redacted) Thanks to this wiki article, extending help for mass pedophilia rings, woo-hoo, go wiki! Crimadella (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added a general welcome to your talk page that guides you to Wikipedia pillars and guidelines. I have also redacted part of your text above as it indirectly makes vile, false accusations against living people. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. We do not allow original research. This is the only was to ensure verifiability. Please do not add any of your own "research" again. Incidentally, Pizzagate has been thoroughly debunked. It was a complete invention resulting in violence against innocent victims. There is absolutely no evidence behind it, and frankly the concept that major politicians ran a pedophile ring in the basement of a shop that has no basement is a shocking lie. You would do well to avoid conspiracy sites which invent lunatic conspiracies to harm others. O3000 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!Edit

wow, you also redacted things that had nothing to do with calling any person out, and then re-presented the false accusation of the pizza shop basement theory, as if i didn't inform you that bit was complete disinformation, intended to be easily debunked. No need to block me, i don't waste my time on foolish sites like this one. I don't know, maybe you like kids also? Weird, the actions you took.

Crimadella (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, most people like children. I do like goats. Without them, we wouldn’t have feta, Valençay, Caprino, Crottin de Chavignol, and most importantly, this:[7]. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Another goat for you!Edit

Sorry, i couldn't resist. It's really funny to me, watching those who think they are smart trying to let their (lack of)intelligence shine. Do you know what context is? Book-smarts? Who can't regurgitate things that others have written? That's not a skill. Having the ability to think for one's self and problem-solve is true intelligence. As you wish to be sarcastic, what you truly did was take the statement, "you must also like kids", in which the context was referring to molesting children, and make the claim that yes, you do like (molesting) children. Of course i'm sure that is not true, the whole logic thing, more a failed attempt at sarcasm. I like goats too! Or, i have no issue with them, they don't have a picture of ignorance, that's the best i could do. Farewell, Wiki editor. (Wikipedia, the journalist encyclopedia. The place where journalism trumps fact.)

Crimadella (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you, i figure i must have since everything i said got removed, and then of course the notice from O3000.

Ignorance and stupidity are two different things, i wasn't suggesting you are stupid, as we are all ignorant in areas(nobody knows everything). You have errors though, as we all do. From what i could gather, you think the pizzagate conspiracy is just too....out there, as you stated that bias in your own words. I still don't agree with journalism trumping fact but whatever, this just isn't a place for me. Just to state some facts. Mass pedophilia is nothing new, it's been around since ancient times. Corruption of governments has also. Money can trump the good nature of man's intentions to expose such, which is done quite often. To you, i'm just a person, you have no idea or way to prove whether my claims are real or fabricated, to me they are factual because i experienced them for myself. Wikipedia or no Wikipedia, you do have the option to put some level of faith in the things i claimed, i do not wish for you to have faith in me, do as i did, research for yourself rather than trust every word mass media reports, they are controlled you know? Control is the way of the world, notice weird things, like how freedom of speech is ok, until a media source says it's not(president Trump). Sorry, i just like giving hints, surely you can put it together. Either way, sorry if you felt offended by the things i said, i get that often. That's why i love programming, i can tell a computer what to do in 100 different ways and it knows exactly what i mean every time, though with people, it's just hard for me to correctly get a point across. You could say i have my own bias, but the way i see it is, if i were to visit the moon and walk around on it, would i be bias for insisting it exists? Researching the topic at hand, i found more than i care to remember, it actually scared me, i stopped watching TV, listening to music other than select few groups mainly consisting of 60's and early 70's psychedelic/progressive rock with positive lyrics and awesome instrumentals. I'm no fool, meaning i'm not easily deceived, i do my own research because that's all that can be 100% trusted, for the most part.

Off topic but one of my biggest obsessions in my life has been, what is reality/existence? How did it come to be? Is there a God? Of course these questions have no answer, but the urge to seek what is real and what is not has lead to some very interesting discoveries. I once asked myself, Magic, to be or not to be? My research and tests formed a theory over the course of many years, i dubbed the Extended Placebo. It explains how even intelligent people can believe in such, yet still proves hocus-pocus to be what i call the wild imagination of man(& woman) touching on something that is real but not understood. Explains why positive thought often reaps positive benefits while negative know the rest. The lucky man, the unlucky man. As for any form of practice, imagine expecting a sugar pill to aid your health when you are aware it's a sugar pill, hence the tittle of the theory. Which is the reason that it would be extremely difficult to be scientifically known, which is a bummer, because i love science, especially particle physics and electromagnetism, which i do believe has been merged with another force and new name given, The weak force? Been a while. Anyway, sorry i offended you, no matter what your opinion may be.

Crimadella (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

Your recent editing history at The Gateway Pundit 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. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT. Templating as retribution for a received template is disruptive editing and can be a blockable offense. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Some brain food for you!Edit

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  The flaw, defined by Wikipedia it's self. Encyclopedia = fact based material about any given subject. Journalism may have approval of peers but is not a source of "fact" based material. Therefor deception is at hand, insuring readers that they are reading fact based material yet often cited by journalism, where bias opinions and flawed research are commonly expressed as fact based material. I would suggest that Wikipedia would gain more ground, acceptance, respect and funding if it stuck more to "fact based material" rather than citing journalism which is often flawed in fact based material. That would be the purpose that many specialists will not recommend Wikipedia as a source of reliable information.

Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory, and i'm sure many others, has been deemed by mass media and journalism to be made up then presented on Wikipedia as a "Debunked Conspiracy Theory" which is more opinion than fact based. Personal research i understand cannot be used as Verifiable but in the same light neither can journalism and media reports, the only thing you would be verifying is that a journalist wrote an article about any given subject, which actually doesn't have to be "fact based", as mistakes and bias opinions are very common within journalism. I would say that it is very wrong for a project which calls itself an encyclopedia with fact based material to cite journalists personal agendas and opinions as if it is fact, as even peer-reviewed journalism is full of disinformation and flaws. You can't present something as a fact then cite it with a source of non-factual information. I did my own research on pizzagate and the pedogate theory it morphed into, what i found flawed about the journalists debunking is they actually picked the things that could be debunked, false claims and made up material(disinformation), while failing to even mention the bits of information that was verifiable. With this particular strategy anything someone could suggest is a real conspiracy could be "debunked" even if the conspiracy was factual. All you need is a conspiracy, produce false information to add to it, then debunk the information you produced. A real "debunking" must debunk all claims, not hand picked claims which can be debunked. Concerning pizzagate & pedogate, this has never been achieved, yet deemed to be debunked even on something calling itself an encyclopedia, factual based material. If you dislike my research and opinions, that's fine, but this actually applies to anything, not just conspiracy theories and is my theory of why little respect is given to Wikipedia from professionals of nearly every field. Crimadella (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crimadella: Stop editing my talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring, and Jeff Flake: Response to your commentEdit

I received your message regarding the edit warring that has been ongoing on the Jeff Flake page. I can happily tell you that I had already taken the steps you prescribed: I addressed the issue on the Talk Page of the Jeff Flake article, and also on the Talk Page of the individual removing my correction. I have also addressed the various reasons given for undoing my edit, by including appropriate links as necessary.

Perhaps I have now satisified whoever it is who had previously removed my correction: All I know is that my edit is still there, approx. 24 hours after the fact. I call that an improvement. I also know that noone has responded to any of my Talk Page messages. Should the editor who chose to edit war with me continue to do so without addressing my Talk Page comments, I hope you will ask him to please decist from doing so, with a message similar to the one you sent me. In his case, it would be far more appropriate. Vcuttolo (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to give the appropriate sign-off: Vcuttolo (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit will be removed. It is good that you went to the TP. But, you are still edit-warring as you have failed to gain consensus and keep trying to force in your text. O3000 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Unable to edit/add contentEdit

I'm unable to add content to the existing articles, which I found to be interesting and would fit well in it. The content has gone into review and displayed the message "It appears that you are adding links to a blog with which you have a marketing connection." Tanaya.navalkar (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be adding links to a blog with which you have a connection. This is a conflict of interest. Please see the info that I posted on your talk page. Also, the blog does not appear to be a reliable source. See WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a possibly inappropriate closure of RfC. The thread is "Neil deGrasse Tyson". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpentine noodle (talkcontribs) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Wow, you have more patience than I do. It is quite the mess. PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Too much patience is one of my faults.  O3000 (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah I think it is a positive thing over all and something more people should have. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attackEdit

Please don't call a consensus idiotic as you recently did. Such an edit summary violates WP:AGF by attacking editors you disagree with. And edit summaries are particularly important as they can't be redacted. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't violate AGF as I've never suggested a lack of good faith. Also, I was commenting on content, not editors. But, I take your point. Fact is, I reverted the editor to restore the consensus that many of us find distasteful. The consensus could actually be considered a personal attack against a BLP (recently deceased) as, by definition, it suggests he carried out or perpetrated a mistake, crime, or immoral act. But, that's what I thought was the consensus; so I restored it.
Having done so, I've just reviewed the archives and TP and I'm not sure there is a consensus or good faith. Just editors being attacked that wish to discuss removing the word. Looks to me that more editors have tried to remove the word than have supported it; and discussion has been quashed. O3000 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!Edit

  Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Oh no, I got older again. Many thanks. I enjoy any holiday that involves food. O3000 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi O3000, thank you for your edit on the above article. I'm not sure why you've deleted the link to Macao when it is clearly cited in the sources as a likely ancestor to that well-known casino game, Baccarat, and its mode of play involves a banker, punters and money being bet on the chance outcome of cards. It was also banned in Austria because of its gambling nature. I wonder if you're confusing it with another card game, called Macau, which is not a gambling game. Please would you add the link back or, if you're still not sure about it, we can discuss its gambling merits on the talk page for the game. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted. However, I have a concern over the breadth of this template. Any game can be a gambling game. I've played Gin for money many times. Perhaps there should be a discussion of inclusion guidelines on the template TP. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
You have a good point. I was surprised at the number of gambling card games that weren't included, but I see from Category:Gambling games that there are 91 links already and I know there are more to come. I also agree in principle that any game with a scoring system can be used for gambling, but clearly there is a genre of games that are, or historically have been, used primarily for gambling (e.g. casino games, banking games, etc.). So I totally support coming up with some guidelines that bound those. But I also recognise that this template is very much a top level one and covers a broad area. If we add every gambling topic, including all the games, it will become unwieldy. So my inclination is to create a separate navbox template purely for gambling card games, broken down into their subtypes, and leave this template to cover what are considered to be the top level topics. Again, guidelines will be needed to keep the gambling card game template itself in bounds. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Continued at [8]. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

David Hogg trollingEdit

Hope you don't mind that I archived the thread; it's Qanon-level conspiracy theory trolling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No prob. I knew it was a conspiracy theory -- couldn't remember from where. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

/* Don Lemon */ Don Lemon racist quote addedEdit


I don't quite understand the logic behind rejecting the added content under CNN Controversies regarding Don Lemon irrespective of your assertion that some groups didn't like the statements. Who did or did not like the statements is irrelevant. The existing Wikipedia content provided examples of "Individual hosts and contributors" doing things that call into question their objectivity and professionalism. ("Controversy" is the stated purpose of this Main Article.) The added content underscored the continuing controversy of Don Lemon serving as a CNN host. The content is fact based and adequately referenced. Thank you, Myxyzemail (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) myxyzemail

Find a reliable secondary source that claims this is a controversy. The sources you used are quite weak. TV hosts say innumerable things that some people don't like. That doesn't make it a "controversy". If it did, there would be 100 controversies a day on each channel. An encyclopedia looks at the long term. Will anyone care what was said here in ten years? WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "Narrow" in Senate election resultsEdit

Narrow is subjective. 2.6% may or may not be considered "narrow" depending on many factors including personal POV. Much better to use the factual election margin and allow reader to decide how wide narrow or medium. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. I provided eight sources, all considered reliable. It would be more useful for you to respond on the article talk page where I posted the sources. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you are right "narrow" and "solid" are both subjective. Those subjective judgments have been removed and replaced with the undisputed numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and take to the article talk page. Your edit is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion of the edit and advice about placement of discussion. There is a section in the article concerning the senate election results. You may place opinions regarding the margin of victory in that section but I don't think the community will allow it to stand. The article already descrcibes the margin by citing the final voting numbers with sources. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I listed eight sources and there are more using that terminology. The reason they use it is because the results was highly unusual and unexpected. And please, this belongs on the article talk page -- not here. O3000 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Please stop edit warring. The greater preponderance of reliable sources states the margin to be 2.6%. What is your justification to call the election margin narrow rather than 2.6%? Both have RS but the latter has many more RS and avoids objective language. The appearance is political motivation which I believe should be avoided. __Jeff

You have been reverted by three different editors. You continue to ignore my advice to learn how to indent or sign. You have ignored the welcome message I posted to your talk page. Realize that at some point, patience will have an end. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks we will get this right I am appealing to arbitration over the politicized language you are trying to insert and factual information you are trying to omit. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The page has now been protected because of your disruptive editing. And, I added exactly nothing. If you wish to contribute, I again suggest you read the welcome message I posted to your talk page. and gain an understanding of our policies and guidelines. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. Can you please explain your preference to state "narrowly lost" rather than the election margin of 2.6%? The latter has far more RS so that's not it. I assume "narrowly" is intended to report the election in a more positive light for Beto O'Rourke and influence readers to believe the margin was lower than 2.6%. Please elaborate. Thanks! --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been explained to you. The lede (first section) does not contain details. It is a quick summary based upon reliable secondary sources. You really need to read and understand all the links that have been provided to you on your talk page. MrX has added additional links and explanations. You also need to understand that Wikipedia is built upon WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot force your opinions into articles. You must discuss them and gain consensus if they are challenged. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK I will gain consensus through arbitration or other means. You still have not explained your preference for subjective terms rather than precise factual terms. Seems obvious why you'd rather say "narrow" than "lost by 2.6%" and that's to use language rather than fact to influence political opinion. BTW, Please refrain from personal politics on Wikipedia in the future. It won't help the site or your personal reputation. Thanks and good luck --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Several of us have attempted to help you. You don't appear interested in help; but have rather decided that you know better than the tens of thousands of folks that have constructed the policies and guidelines here. Ainsi soit-il. If in future, you realize that you need some help, we are willing to provide. Until then, I have better things to do than listen to your WP:ASPERSIONS. O3000 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You're still ducking this debate and refusing to answer. For the lede, which brief description of senate election margin is factually correct, without dispute and unanimous among all sources? Why are you arguing against publishing precise undisputed fact in a wikipedia article? Either we should state the election margin in exact undisputed terms or leave that for the appropriate section. We should NOT publish vague terms to obfuscate according to personal political agenda. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We have responded to you repeatedly citing wikipedie guidelines. You continue to ask the same question which has been answered, continue to edit war, and still fail to sign or indent edits. At this point, I'll ask you to stop posting to my talk page. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

CNN wikipedia articleEdit

In regards to the conflicted edits being made on the CNN page, it is strongly arguable that the statement in question which is currently bringing up conflicted edits should be kept on the page as it is an objective fact which is backed up by a reliable source. There has been no attempts to change the tone or nature of the statement in question.


Clement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement4802 (talkcontribs) 10:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You have violated WP:1RR, enforced WP:BRD, and are edit warring. Also, you have attempted to add text five times against the results of an WP:RfC. I started a discussion on the article talk page. You can engage editors there. Continuing to edit war will likely result in a sanction.O3000 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Neil de Grasse TysonEdit

Hello! Kindly look at Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary, college and degree. Harvard University does not confer undergraduate degrees. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Harvard University offers 88 undergraduate degrees. Harvard College is one of the schools at Harvard University. So, Harvard University confers the degrees that Harvard College confers. And, the infobox for Robert Rubin states that his degree is from Harvard University. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Objective. Tyson's degree was conferred at Harvard College, AB. It shows on his diploma. Harvard University refers to the body of the graduate schools. And, do please see Robert Rubin, "...Rubin graduated with an A.B. summa cum laude in economics from Harvard College." I will change that infobox.~~
If you change the infobox, I or someone else will revert. Hardvard University refers to ALL schools at Harvard University. You are going to be very busy if you attempt to change every infobox in every article where Hardard University is used to refer to an undergrad degree. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Objective! There is an inconsistency on Wikipedia that many articles use Harvard College, where they received their undergraduate degree, and Harvard University, because people in general are unaware of the nuances. I saw Tyson's diploma with my eyes and it reads, "AB in physics" with the Latin rendering of Harvard College, and then Harvard College written at the bottom right in fine print. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You are still allowed to say Harvard University, as do most such articles in the infoboxes and most of the grads in their résumé. Harvard has 12 degree-granting schools. You can get a degree in any one of them and claim to be a Harvard Univ. grad. That's simply the way it works. You can take this to the talk page of any of these articles. It's been done before. O3000 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


I saw your comments on the Trump article talk re buzzfeed. Though we were on opposing sides of the argument on the Tyson article, and I suspect would be on opposing sides on quite a number of arguments, I wanted to commend you for your consistency in applying the your argument and rule. Its something seen far too rarely in the world (and especially on Wiki) ResultingConstant (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the story is true on the Trump article. I just want to see stronger sourcing on a WP:BLP when it comes to life-changing accusations, whether the accusation is against Gandhi or Hitler. O3000 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual DS alert refresh - American politicsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mandruss  19:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, the years pass quickly when you're having fun.  O3000 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth WarrenEdit

I do no have a talk page. You deleted my content + link. There is no valid reason for doing this. The deleted content is national news. You know this and are trying to hide it. Shame on you. Jbigjake54 BigJake54 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a talk page at [9]. You violated Enforced BRD as explained on your talk page. I explained my rationale. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC RequestEdit

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben SwannEdit

Mind explaining why you just reverted to enforce a sockpuppet's edit on this article? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking it might be a misclick ;) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops, tried to rvt the sock, you already reverted, and I accidentally reverted you. O3000 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the advantages of age is you can blame stuff on arthritis.:) O3000 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump reverted 2 edits.Edit


I noticed that you reverted 2 edits of mine on Donald_Trump. Can you care to explain? I know the edits did not contain the full details *yet* but anyone could've built on my edits. A total reversion brings us back to Square 1.


Aviartm (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits suggested that the report found no collusion when it fact it stated that the president was not exonerated. This report has just been released and comments are just coming out. We need to carefully construct an addition that does not mislead. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
At face value, you could conclude that but I am sure we can both agree that Wikipedia is built on edit after edit. My edit may only contain have the context but that does not mean it is the final conclusion. Other people can build off of my edits, yours, anyones'. I am currently providing more context regarding the news. Aviartm (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not a newspaper. There is no deadline. We should get it right the first time. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I never stated or insinuated Wikipedia was a newspaper or a deadline. We should get it right, 100% agreed but to think every edit must be 100% correct is a misleading notion. People mess up, miss things, provide too much info, typos ensue, etc. Even 100% edits get complete revisions overtime. I am just trying to get the ball rolling. Nothing else. Aviartm (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
For something this critical, it would be better to get the ball rolling on the talk page before adding something to an extremely heavily viewed article that is misleading. O3000 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose but reverting an edit that is half done does not help the next edit/editor to build on it. I was not done improving the article but reverting them impairs progress.Aviartm (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I had two choices, revert or correct. I could not correct because the info is just now being discussed and there are contradictory statements. Accuracy is better than speed. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course but if you were unable to correct, others could've corrected. I would've. I was in the process. I think the best route is to look at reliable and reputable sources and the four-page letter itself to detail the findings. Aviartm (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The four page letter is a primary source that has not been fully digested. Verifiability and neutral point of view are important policies. Speed is not a policy. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

You cannot keep reverting changes. The fact is, the absence of evidence doesn't mean something has been debunked. The story has not been debunked, however, serious doubts have been raised. My edit was the proper compromise. If you keep reverting, I will be making a report for your rule violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMemeMonarch (talkcontribs) 15:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am one of several editors reverting your vandalism. A large number of sources are included all saying that this conspiracy theory was immediately debunked. Go away. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of vandalism for acting to make a compromise. You have edited more than 3 times and, therefore, reporting this. == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Damn. I was just about to buy a house, start a family, and go on the straight and narrow -- and now this. Guess I'll be relegated to writing angst filled novels of redemption in a Chinese prison. Such is life. O3000 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Christachurch shootingsEdit

The factual error you reverted my edits for was fixed on this edit. Steve Mulch Civic 19:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Mulch Civic (Pro): And you added another factual error. He did not "blame". This is highly inflammatory, and he doesn't appear to have any relationship to the mosque. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I avoid these errors? I am new to editing these kinds of articles, and need help. Could I perhaps revert it and make a new edit that removes all the inflammatory material? Steve Mulch Civic 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Read the articles carefully and make suggestions on talk pages until you get the hang of it. In this case, I don't believe anything about this should be added. Should probably also avoid highly contentious articles about recent events. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I should add that sources that are not excellent are often written in a manner that puts a suggestion in the mind of the reader that is not true. They aren't lying per se; just misleading. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Your efforts to protect this Wiki, including this very well set up SPI, is amazing, and despite the fact you seem to have violated 3RR, I do not doubt you edited in good faith and deserve a glass of beer! MrClog (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Yes, I violated 3RR as I did not know for certain this was vandalism. But, it's hard to miss a flock of ducks when there are duck droppings all over your shirt.  O3000 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Rule 803(2)Edit

Them there's some intimate knowledge of hearsay rules. I'm impressed.   R2 (bleep) 20:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; but I coulda made it up.  O3000 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Or an avid reader of Wikipedia. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Damn, that's the term I was looking for. O3000 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm required to post this, so I will in an abundance of caution. I started an WP:ANI thread related to you. The content of my post was simply, "Eyes needed there [at User talk:Atsme] before things get out of hand." R2 (bleep) 23:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of DS notifications and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alertsEdit

Hi, in reference to your comment here [10], a reminder that while the awareness criteria are considered by some to be too bureaucratic, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts is quite clear that an editor is aware if "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement". While it may be understandable that people will accidentally issue notifications when they aren't aware that this happened, it does mean once it was established in the discussion [11] that the person concerned successfully appealed in AE their topic ban in the area less than 3 months ago Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme it's also established the notification was not necessary. While it may have been an understandable mistake, if the editor concerned is aware for whatever reason, there's no reason why "DS refreshes are required annually". DS notifications should only ever be issued to ensure the editor meets the DS awareness criteria. Oh and if you feel that appealing a sanction to AE doesn't count as "participate in any process", remember there is also either "In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict." or "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" as may be appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Nil Einne:, and thanks for the note. The reason that I defended the editor leaving the DS notice is that they followed the correct process: examine the edit history and 602 log. The editor was not even aware that Atsme had been TBanned, much less had appealed. Atsme’s response that her notice at the top of her page that she is aware of DS and therefore there is no need for DS notices placed on her page sounds unacceptable to me. Also, DS notices are logged and the log is examined if an editor is brought to AE, and may prevent an editor from bringing a filing to AE as they wouldn’t know of the awareness. Bureaucracy is a pain – but has its points. Regards, O3000 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


Si comme vous le déclarez, vous maîtrisez la langue française cela implique donc que vous ne respectez pas les déclarations de députés à l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe reporté par un journal français reconnu. C'est très inquiétant parce que le conseil de l'Europe est une instance démocratique : User talk:Rebecca Jones

I said nothing of the sort. And please take your arguments to the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to self: Editor blocked. O3000 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page editEdit

Please don't remove my talk page comments. It goes directly in response to Huldra's comments that any armed person is a legitimate target and not a victim of terrorism. Her comments are disgusting as well, will you revert hers that say merely being armed is an excuse for being killed by Hamas/Hezbollah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talkcontribs)

I considered asking for a revdel. Please do not make extreme racist comments about a culture. Your last few posts suggest you are treading on thin ice. I suggest a break. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to self: Editor blocked. O3000 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

My revert of your edit on ANIEdit

I am so sorry about that. I misclicked, and when I hit cancel, it still made the rollback anyway. Ugh. Sorry again for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Happens. Did have me scratching my head a bit.  O3000 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


"Gender: Male. Not something I’m particularly proud of. Humans are not known for rapid evolution; as is most obvious by observing the male of the species in his habitat." I hope your misandry doesn't affect your editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) date (UTC)

WP:SPOILERALERT I choose the human, male form when I visit this time-space out of practicality, not illiberality. Mingling with those seemingly in power improves opportunities for observation. When I visit your planet 20 years from now, I come as a female human. When I visit 100 years hence, I come as a female cockroach. O3000 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The house edge on the hi low is 13.89 percentEdit

both the 2 and 12 have a house edge of 13.89 percent. So when the bets are combined they still have a house edge of 13.89 percent. The payoff odds are 29:2. A 2 dollar hi-lo get 29 dollars. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way because the payoff is different. Look at the edge for rolling a 3, which is the same. In any case, edit warring doesn't work. You should take it to the talk page. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

rolling a 3 or 11 have a 11.11 percent house edge but those bets are not included in the hi low. Two bets with a house advantage of 13.89 percent still have a 13.89 percent house advantage if played together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't two bets. It's one bet that a 1,1 or 6,6 will appear on the next roll. Betting on 3 is a bet that 1,2 or 2,1 will appear. Two chances out of 36 of a gain of 15 vs. 34 chances out of 36 to lose 1. Same odds. 34/36*1-2/36*15=11.11% O3000 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A 2 dollar 3 will pay 30. A 2 dollar hi-1o pays 29. Each has the same chance of occuring but the hi-lo pays less so therefore it has a higher house edge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a common bet. If you bet just the 2, it's 13.89%. If you bet just the 3, it's 13.89%. If you bet the 2 and 3, it's 13.89%. If you bet the Hi-Lo bet, which is also betting on the 2 and 3, it's 11.11% if that's the way the casino pays it. The point of Hi-Lo is that you are betting on both, but with a different payoff. Of course the casino could make it pay 13.89% as it is up to the casino. O3000 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Melania TrumpEdit

I added "the sun" source because it contains all the pictures, can I retrieve my edits? BestChance1 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Click the View History tab in the article to find your edits. The Sun is a very poor source, and the language is tabloid-like. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said earlier, just for the whole set of pictures. I would like to bring back the edits if you do not mind. BestChance1 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If you don't see photos or claims in reliable sources, you can't trust them. O3000 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA discretionary sanctionsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I hope that you're recovering well from your eye surgery. In my opinion, some of the remarks on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article talkpage have become overly personal. I think it's always best to carefully consider what is being said whenever the word "you" is used.     ←   ZScarpia   15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

They certainly have. And from the patterns that I have seen numerous times; one editor will not last. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sanity checkEdit

I'm just about at the end of my rope with Wikieditor who has (checks) yeah, they just reverted their tags back in. I don't know why they're getting under my skin; but like... I seriously thought I had made multiple efforts to engage them in good faith in exchange for all this hostility. Am I crazy here? Am I reading too much into some passive-aggressive talk page posts or do they have some beef with me over something? Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also I'm stealing your DS alert. That's great. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Bludgeoning is annoying as hell. No point in responding any more unless an actual argument is presented. I thought of hatting the thread with a note it could be restarted. But that would just start another argument about hatting. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tag removal at Antifa (United States)Edit

Please restore the tag you removed at the above-referenced page. If you refuse to do so, I will be forced to seek intervention by an admin. Removing a cleanup tag before the issue has been addressed is in violation of WP's policy on cleanup tags. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a good idea on your part. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I already have. I'll take this as a "no" on your part. Sorry to hear it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and bias in Carlos Maza articleEdit

Cement4802 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Carlos Maza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
Please note that a consensus isn't just an agreement between you and a few other editors. The overall picture seems to suggest that you're aggressively pushing an opinion that isn't true or representative of the interests of the wider array of editors

@Cement4802:, I strongly suggest you self-rvt. When you continue to make a change reverted by multiple editors, it is you that are edit warring. Further, templating someone that just templated you in retribution can get you blocked. O3000 (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000:, Persistently changing an article to satisfy the standards of you and a few other editors, despite a lack of a clear consensus from the wider community of editors, is a clear case of edit warring. You can't just deny the fact that you've been the aggressor to an edit war, because you point the finger at someone else. I'd warn you to stop with your destructive editing to avoid facing disciplinary actionCement4802 (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have done no such thing. If you want to change consensus, start an RfC. In the meantime, stay off my talk page. And don't ping someone on their own TP. O3000 (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Tacoma attackEdit

Thank you for the welcome note, I would like to notify you that you shouldn't delete sourced content without any discussion or consensus on talk page first. Amazonz (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's copyrighted, it should be removed. Also, read WP:BRD. O3000 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss it first on talk page, especially such large deletions so I won't have to waste time reverting it. Amazonz (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You have been restoring challenged content in sensitive articles without discussion. You need to stop this and go to the talk page yourself. It would be a good idea for you to self-revert your addition of a White supremacist manifesto and other content pushing White supremacy. O3000 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No, when content is properly sourced you need consensus on talk page for removal. Amazonz (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I again removed your addition of a copyrighted, White supremacist manifesto and started a talk page discussion as per WP:BRD which you are welcome you join. O3000 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Note to self: Editor CU-blocked. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir JosephEdit

Hey man, he was out of line. We don't have to agree on everything to see he's being incivil by assessing your quote in that manner. I think everyone sees it. Chin up! :-) Buffs (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There are some strange days on WP. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You ain't kidding... Buffs (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a piece of advice. When those kinds of attacks occur, or you are misread, and a plea for correction is ignored, don't argue. Simply cite the major analysts, who (Raul Hilberg) will estimate 5,100,000 or Yehuda Bauer, who I think set the ascertainable figure' at 5,300,000. It may well be higher. The 6 million figure is a 1945 estimate by one Nazi, as the 4,000,000 at Auschwitz a Russian estimate at that early post-war period. We will never know with precision, and as long as the baseline figures in academic consensus are accepted (no fewer than 5,100,000-5,300,000) one can legitimately note that early estimates endlessly repeated are probably somewhat exaggerated (though the lesser figure in no way mitigates the enormity). Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but it wouldn't have helped. He insists that any fewer than 6m is holocaust denial. And, he has a remarkably long block log over arguments. In any case, I wasn't even trying to claim the number was lower. My entire point was that it was millions, and adding or subtracting a million would not change the fact it was a holocaust (destruction or slaughter on a mass scale), or as you say, in no way mitigates the enormity. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised a bit if it was higher. The Nazi's were meticulous record keepers, even of their atrocities. But, the Nuremberg laws defining who is a Jew were convoluted to the point you had to be a sick person to understand them. O3000 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it does help in situations like that. If you cite a world authority on the figures, that are somewhat lower than the Nazi estimate, then his argument is with Hilberg or Bauer, not you. If Sir Joseph wants to trust a Nazi's word rather than Jewish historians, that's his problem, not yours.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
Well put. O3000 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised. This is how wikipedia should work. (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV FlagEdit

Hi Objective -- I request that you revert your reversion removing the NPOV flag on the US Antifa page. An active discussion on the talk page is not a reason for removing the flag, per Wikipedia rules:

In fact, an active discussion on the talk page is actually a requirement in order to add the flag.

I hope you agree after reviewing the NPOV page.

Thank you for understanding and I appreciated you fair comment in the talk page.

MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of these tags is to get a discussion underway. Discussion is well underway. If we put an NPOV tag on every article in every controversial area, there would be tags on nearly every political article, which would negate the purpose of the tags as they would be ignored. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Objective -- you are rule stickler, per your bio. Discussion being underway is not a listed reason to remove the flag.
In fact, the rules state:
It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place.
WP further says the template should be added when "the tagger wishes to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article", which I think continues to be important as the discussion continues. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the point is to attract editors, and is often used on less active articles. But, this article is on 292 watchlists, has an extremely active TP, has had NPOV discussions for two years, and will likely always have NPOV discussions. You are welcome to ask for reinstatement on the article TP. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I can understand why you changed it -- but that's not actually a reason allowed under Wiki's rules on this:
Given that you call yourself a stickler for the rules, I would hope that you would revert this. How am I supposed to have faith in the Wiki rules if even the sticklers won't follow the letter of them? :) We can discuss on the talk page but in the meantime, in accordance with rules, I ask that you undo your revert. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
NPOV tags on whole articles are nearly 100% of the time nothing but badges of shame which damage Wikipedia's reputation in the eyes of readers. Specific tags on specific sections or words and phrases in the article are much more effective, and once a discussion has started, can usually be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


A central tenant of Wikipedia is to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent reversion of my edit establishing a neutral perspective to the "left/right" debate seemed less than neutral. Clearly as the talk page demonstrates the question of "left vs right" is disputed and therefor you should acknowledge the discussion and take an objective neutral position. My edit attempted to do this and therefore should not have been removed.

Further I was not requesting "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing". In my opinion the labels are misleading and inaccurate and in general are politically motivated. There are brilliant people on either side of that argument and therefore this article should not presume to render a final decision but instead take a neutral position and acknowledge the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromitml (talkcontribs) 01:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which call fascism "left-wing" This issue has been discussed endlessly on the article talk page, and the consensus has always been that it is right-wing, because that's what the sources say. Understandably, the editors of that article have become annoyed at the continual attempts to change that, and have taken a hard line about it. The editor above has attempted to make changes to the article three times today, and they have all been reverted. The next time they try it, they will immediately be reported to AN3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Why has he not been TBanned? I've reduced my editing 90+% as I just have a sour taste in my mouth from even looking at WP after his outrageous accusations. And, I'm just one editor he has lashed out at just plain not being Jewish enough for his tastes. O3000 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried to ping you here, but messed up the formatting. Since it involved yet additional libel against you in my opinion, I think you should be aware as it's been reverted. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
To cheer you up after the Sir Joseph ordeal. Please don't let people like him dictate how much you edit Wikipedia! ★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it just goes with the territory. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your revision on AntifaEdit

You reverted a legitimate post on the Antifa talk page. doug Weller can ot be supported on this as Brietbardt has reported his ties to Antifa. (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle. Brietbart is not a reliable source. (They claim that women should stay off the I'net, among other things.) Take it to the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Note to self: Edits from this IP can be removed on sight as block evasion. O3000 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
And Breitbart, or rather a banned editor called The Devil's Advocate, simply called me a supporter because I have kept right wing nonsense off their page - no suggestions of ties that I recall and definitely nothing specific. I've never even met anyone involved in Antifa. But the guy hates me so anything goes. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I just hope Breitbart doesn't find out I'm a Klingon spy. O3000 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Should recent presidents be included?Edit

Hi O, I'm not sure it's clear what Option C is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're suggesting that everybody be removed from the article, but then why would we move the article? Could you please clarify in the proposal? Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes. I'm happy to have a friendly discussion about this issue, but I want stress that what Markbassett did here, i.e. changing the page version before voting in favor of "keep the page as it is" is SUPREMELY unethical, because it now means that the "Keep" perspective would not be aware of the Trump nickname list that probably caused you to create the RFC. In that case, on general principle, I'd have to strongly insist that the RFC is thrown out until the status quo is brought back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, I gotta say that I'm not sure this RFC is written from a neutral perspective. The (Recentism) parentheticals are particularly problematic, because it seems like you're pre-establishing how people responding should think before they have a chance to frame their perspectives. Even the intro is not neutral, because you've established what you perceive to be problems without letting others decide what they might find problematic about the list. You might want to look at WP:RFCBRIEF. When I open RFCs, usually I'll just phrase the question like "Should the last and current president be included in this list?" and then wait until I think it's right to comment. Though I think you are right to open a discussion, I may have to technically object to how this RFC went down. Nothing personal, I hope you understand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's MarkBasset and someone else needs to revert his edit. I'll respond on the neutrality at the talk page. O3000 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


What's a "Boom"? Are you suggesting I should be blown up?--MONGO (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You have 74,000 edits, have been here for 14 years, are active on noticeboards and WP:BOOMERANG was mentioned in the edit just above mine. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Selective recital of the evidence I see.--MONGO (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a false accusation. Do not post here again. O3000 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A pun comes to mind -- which I shall keep to myself.  O3000 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
No please share. I'm not easily angered you see. But I will confess that you seemed to have never said thank you for almost throwing "my guy" under the bus when I defended your complaint that they had used one of your posts to allege you were antisemitic.--MONGO (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Objective3000".