User talk:Goodone121: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:06, 16 May 2018

Your entry on my talk page

Thank you for your entry on my talk-page. I'd say my posting was actually concerned with bettering the article, but in this post-modern world, who could tell right from wrong? Thanks for being so understanding and possibly handsome, you stud. Karoschne (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington's disease

I'm a bit puzzled that you nominated Huntington's disease for good article candidacy despite the fact that you have had little involvement with that article. I see that Leevanjackson (talk · contribs) has done a lot of work on it recently, and I also see that it was failed a GA candidacy in the past. Could you clarify whether you will be involved in this? I will ask Leevanjackson if he thinks the article is ready. If not, then I am tempted to fail it again until he thinks he can carry the workload of GAC. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, you should fix your signature to include a link to your userpage. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally only nominate pages if I don't work on them.Bettering the Wiki 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your enthusiasm on the (possible) GA quality this article: I see that you have nominated it again - but there are still issues left unresolved from the previous GA review, more time is needed to address these - then I think it should sail through a GAR. LeeVJ (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean GAN-GAR is for articles that either failed, but remain largely similar, or passed;Huntington's disease satisfies neither criterion.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I did mean that... but also I meant please hold off GA nomiination for a little bit whilst I catch up with the last one - assuming other editors don't fix anyhissues first ...? I did have the crazy idea of fixing all the issues (and a couple of unlisted improvements) and going straight for FA as the next step considering the in-depth critique by delldot and JFW = what do you reckon? LeeVJ (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Sorry, but I think going 1 step at a time is better;after first graduating this to GA, we should wait a month or two, then going to FAC.

I have removed your second GA nomination of the Huntington's article. When I left my message above (10 August) I really expected a better response. You have been asked directly by Lee to delay a further GA nomination until the ongoing efforts to improve the article have been completed. Your assistance in implementing my previous recommendations would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted, as "previous suggestions not implemented" isn't a quick-fail criterion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 07:11, September 7, 2008

Hi Goodone121, I think it's great that you're eager about getting this article up to GA status and about Bettering the Wiki! However, I agree with the others that the latest nomination is currently premature. It is important that concerns from the second GA nomination be dealt with--to ignore these is an insult to the reviewer, it could be interpreted as "I don't think your concerns are worth dealing with". Also, I think renominating the article without first discussing it with the other people who have worked hard on it is kind of disrespectful to them, and it could cause them stress (presumably they're going to want to spend time working on the GA review, what if now isn't a good time for them?). I'm going to fail the latest GAN; JFW's concerns from the last review really are important to fix, and surely we can all agree that if an article isn't up to the GA standard yet, it should not be rated GA yet. I'm respectfully asking that you not nominate the article at GAN again until you've gotten consensus with the others who've worked hard on the article, both out of respect for them and in order not to be disruptive (I feel that continually undoing other serious contributors' work by renominating would be considered edit warring). The disruption itself and the effort needed to deal with it will both take valuable time away from improving the article. Sorry, I'm not trying to come down hard on you, I just want us all to be able to cooperate smoothly. I'm glad to help however I can with getting the article to the point where everyone agrees it should be nominated, let me know if I can be of any help! Peace, delldot ∇. 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Huh. It's still nommed. Anyways, to fail with the above rationale would, IMHO, be outside proper process.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, I'm just slow. :-) I'm not sure what you mean about being outside process, surely you agree that concerns from GA nominations should be met before passing as a GA? That is the GAN process. I appreciate that process is important, but I think we can all agree that it's the substance that matters most: articles that are listed as GA really should be of a high quality. I have no doubt that this one will be GA worthy as soon as those issues are dealt with. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have renominated, for reasons outlined above (I am a strict constructionist, BTW).Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm disappointed to see that. Can you explain which of the problems outlined by JFW you don't feel are important to resolve? Or why you feel it should be GA quality without having dealt with those concerns? I guess I'll have to take the matter to ANI, since as I said, I feel you're being disruptive, but I really hate to do it. As you've seen, I'm very slow at it so this will probably take me a while. I really don't think any reviewer is going to pass it without the previous concerns having been met anyway. I really would love it if you'd change your mind and undo your actions, that way I wouldn't have to go through the whole ANI thing. At any rate, I really hope we can find a peaceful solution to this rather than having blocks and drama. delldot ∇. 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had one other question: I wondered if you could specify what part of process you thought JFW's and my closes were violating. Thanks much, delldot ∇. 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've brought the matter to WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails, I hope if someone else gets involved they can help us find a solution that suits everyone. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alright. I'm an outside editor (you can check my contributions, I've never contributed to the Huntington's disease article). there is no hard and fast rule as to when you may or may not renominate an article for good article nominations. This is done explicitly because GAN is meant to be an informal process without the imposing nature of Featured Article Candidacy. However, the social expectation is that if an editor puts hours of their time in a good faith review, that review should not be discarded. You are free, on the review page, to disagree with individual findings of the review, often reviewers aren't subject matter experts and so may not know what you know about a subject. If you

feel that a review was wholly wrong, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I strongly suggest that you not do that with this review as it appears to be accurate, careful and made in good faith. As for the nomination, I am going to remove it again from the GAN page. If you feel that this is innapropriate, please say so here or on the article talk page. But do not replace the nomination without gaining consensus from reviewers AND editors who work primarily on the article in question. If you have any questions you can ask me here or on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wow,Protonk, you're everywhere. However, delldot, I meant you shouldn't quick-fail a page without said page meeting the criteria explictly laid out on the associated page.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, due process is surely less important than article content and the fact that we are wasting our time discussing your actions. You are not being constructionist, you are being disruptive. You were told essentially that on 10 August.

Will you accept that by renominating the article last night you were essentially discarding Delldot's and my previous review, as well as sidestepping Leevanjackson as the primary contributor to that article? If not, why? JFW | T@lk 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept the former charge, but not the latter, as I am not nearly as active on that article as LeeVJ.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal template

Your thought processes baffle me. What was the reason behind putting that template, apparently intended for use with specific articles, on my talk page? Wjmummert was the one who posted the WQA, you should be ~~bothering~~ recommending him to MC. dfg (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how's bettering the wiki going? You never alerted me that you posted a WQA about me (whoop whoop! Wikiquette violation on your part!), but I do find it soooooo telling that no one bothered to respond to it. Have a day. dfg (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaving that to the 3rd party, to not have this escalate. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please refer to Wikipedia:WQA#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts, bullet #5. For future reference. dfg (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not using that for chat. I'm simply asking a question. Besides I read the article and I didn't see anything about what I asked, so there.

You were, even though you didn't realize. What you said was connected to the article's subject, but not the article itself. BTW, sign your posts .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Neopets

Please actually see what was removed and why before leaving inappropriate warnings. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and not the article talk page is not the place for general discussion of something not specifically related to the article. Hence the comment was removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain

Please explain your edits in an edit summary. What is the point of adding ^{[citation needed]} next to the reference which states the fact? :) - xpclient ^Talk 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I explained on its talk.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory In The House

Please do not add deleted content or images from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cory in the House, without giving a valid reason for the reissue in the edit summary. Your content reissue does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Cory Malik (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Island

Copied content from the main article isn't discussion, nor is it any more relevant on the talk page than it is on the main page. Neither is chat about myspace. I also refactored an excessively long header. Please check the edit before reverting. Thanks. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you failed to supply a reason in your edit summary. That's why I warned you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the lack of an edit summary should not stop you from checking what was removed. Also see WP:DTTR. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer following User:DESiegel/Template the regulars.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The summary "rv" should have made it clear what I was doing. Again, please review what is being removed, and please don't place templates on my talk page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a page protected

Hello, I may not be asking the right person but how do you make a page protected because I can't seem how to find out how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-joe123 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask an admin on WP:RFPP.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello, Goodone121. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sig=

It is not a good idea to use a sig that has no relation to your user name -- it just confuses people. (the one you seem to be are currently using is "bettering the wiki") DGG (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very confusing. --mboverload @ 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend changing it too - sounds a bit self proclaiming, just stick to a derivative of you're username and let your edit's speak for themselves...but it's a free world so it's up to you.. LeeVJ (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Advanced Technology Attachment

Thanks! But, how did you do that? I thought it required an admin, b/c the redirect page already had more than one edit. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. There is a link, on unprotected pages, to "move". Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I thought... oh well, it worked. Thanks again! Jeh (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

If you continue being an idiot you will be blocked from editing on Wikpedia. --J-love-lee (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

Goodone121, I have reverted your listing of Huntington's disease as a good article. At the moment the article fails the good article criteria, and your insistence on using GAR as a back door to GA status is simply not supported by policy.

I am simply amazed at your lack of consideration for other editors. When you first made a snap GA nomination on 10 August I double-checked with Leevanjackson, the main contributor, whether he thought this was the right time. You hadn't consulted with him. I did a GA review, and eventually failed the article. You then renominated, again without checking with anyone. Many of the recommendations made earlier by Delldot and myself had not yet been implemented. When I removed the nomination for this reason, you felt this was not in keeping with policy. However, policy doesn't cater for situations like these and I'd rather ignore all rules and take the pressure off editors rather than have to perform a further GA review just because you feel like it.

You are wasting people's time. Not just mine, but also Leevanjackson's and Delldot's - two contributors well known for their dedication to high-quality articles. I request that you clarify with me what your intentions are, and stay away from the Huntington's disease article until you have done this. If I notice any further interference, I will ensure that an uninvolved admin reviews your case with an aim to blocking your account. I hope this is clear, but please leave a message on my talkpage if any further information is required. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goodone121. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing articles for review without the agreement of the main editors is inappropriate, reverting was wrong, and so is giving a user an final warning when your uw-del3 was very questionable. Basicly, you have a lot to learn yet, so dont be so sure you are right. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the idea that GAR is an adequate way of getting an unlisted article into GA status. It is not - it is for exactly the opposite purpose. Please clarify what you are basing your decisions on, and stop changing the status against consensus until we've reached some sort of agreement. JFW | T@lk 14:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave Huntington's disease and its talk alone, and dont list any other pages for any review unless you are a primary contributor to the article. Next time it happens, I will block you so you know that this type of disruption isnt necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha

Ohhhhh I'm scared now!!!!!!!! --J-love-lee (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR problems

I thought this was settled, Goodone? I suggest (piling on, here) that you steer clear of the Huntington's article for now. If there is anything I can help you with, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. This really is a silly, silly issue. Don't get caught around the axle on it. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to behave in a disruptive manner[1][2] and have clearly not understood the real issue here. I am sorry to do this, but I have blocked you for 24 hours. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your block has expired. And despite all these warnings you have changed the status to GA again. I think we have beyond the point of whether GAR is a suitable process to get an article listed as GA. I think you have reached the point where you should stop changing the status and leave the article alone. You may feel passionately about it being a GA (which I cannot imagine because you have not made a single contribution to its content, or even assisted other editors in doing so), but other editors have explained that it is still in need of improvement.

Even if you believe that I failed it inappropriately, and you want to use GAR to that effect, you did not follow process outlined on the WP:GAR page and should not have closed the GAR yourself, let alone change the article's status on its closure.

I have left a message on WP:ANI to the effect that you've gone back to your previous behaviour. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you permanently! You were given plenty of warnings, and were blocked to indicate that we were not joking. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodone121, I'm sorry to see that this issue has escalated to this point, but if an editor disagrees with one's actions, one should step back and check them out, if several editors do then warning bells should sound!. Personally after just one revert I take my suggestion to the talk page and discuss it there, if no consensus can be found call in continuing levels of outside opinion. The procedures and policies have been forged over time to help, although sometimes misused they have a good heart - in this case preventing disruption. As to the HF article, your initial call for a reaccessment, although premature, was mutually agreed to be tolerated and actually ended up with a very good appraisal by JFW. Trouble is although there are a number of contributors, being a complicated article, it is more of a slow grower. I personally edit in spurts, gradual editting and occasionally a burst so it doesn't suit my editting style to be forced into ga after ga that quick - this is where the disruption and undue stress comes from and why the admins try to prevent this. If you are that keen to see an article meet ga please contribute - the removal of an fact marked as unsourced for less than a month doesn't count ( I'd set this as a honey trap - an easy to reference one for editors looking for an easy way to help whilst looking at the trickier points). So basically the whole GAR argument detracts from important issues on the talk pages for the improvement of the article, the fact it is classed as a wikipedia GA article does not actually affect the quality of the article itself - maybe this is where the problem lies, an article we call a 'good article' may not actually pass GA review ( which sometimes seems to have a much higher standard than expected ), but that doesn't matter - it will with time. I will ask the admins to reduce the length of the block whilst you reconsider your position, can't promise anything though. LeeVJ (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user shows a marked improvement in their ability to communicate, and explicitly promises to not disruptively interfere in processes that they are told they dont understand, I will unblock. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Leevanjackson that a stated intention to work collaboratively with other editors would help in shortening the block. Personally, I would prefer that Goodone121 simply stays away from the Huntington's article altogether and focus his attention on other articles. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be a wise move, and if you still seriously wanted to improve the HD article, there are plenty of articles it links to which could do with more help - and an article's quality improves with those around it.. LeeVJ (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my account is still set to an indefinite block.

Decline reason:

Indeed, it is. This is not a reason for unblock; see WP:GAB. — Sandstein 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I meant there was consensus to shorten it.

Decline reason:

I don't believe there is. If I've missed something, please point out exactly where a discussion reached a consensus to unblock you. An unblock may be possible if you address the behavior concerns that led to this block: see WP:GAB. Mango juice^talk 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goodone, the admins want you to promise that you won't repeat your behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would probably help your case very much if you would outline what you did wrong, and maybe list what you will do once unblocked. And I would stick to it if you are blocked, if you go back to your old ways you'll probably be indef'd again, and there won't be any way out of it. Templarion (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other admins, but I would oppose an unblock unless accompanied by an article ban on Huntington's disease. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, no article ban, please. Secondly, I will revert again, but only to start the followup community GAR with true info. Afterwards, I will wait at least a month before renomming, if consensus is to delist. (That's not to say I won't contribute in other ways to the article.)Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my plan is given above.

Decline reason:

Agree with Sandstein and Mangojuice. Also, stating as part of your "plan" above: "Secondly, I will revert again...." not the best way to go about trying to get an unblock. Jfdwolff also makes a good point. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will just start a community GAR.

Decline reason:

No, you won't. The consensus here, which I fully agree with based on reviewing your edits, is that you will not be unblocked unless you agree to a topic ban from the Huntington's disease article and the good article process in entirety. Your refusal to listen to our offers, or in fact even acknowledge them, is not convincing us that you should be unblocked. Please see Jayron's comments below as well. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the larger issue here is that you lack strategic distance from the HD article and the GAR process in general; you have not shown the ability to work in a collaborative manner when either of these two is part of the situation; I would unblock you if you volunatarily agreed to avoid the article in question and voluntarily agreed to avoid any attempts to change or seek the change of the good article status of any article; including the use of GAR. Wikipedia is a big place, and this is such a small issue, yet it seems you have become unhealthily fixated on it. If you would promise to avoid that article and the GA process in general, and would agree to an immediate reblocking should you violate that promise, I could see unblocking as being a good idea. Otherwise, I only forsee a resuming of the former problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a community GA? The public at large , not me, has the final say. We would also be finished on the matter.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We actually are finished on this matter. You're the only one that's not in agreement here. The problem is that you have, as stated by Jayron32, become unhealthily fixated on this one topic. From what I have seen you do not discuss, and make no attempt to understand what is being said to you. You still have not indicated that you understand the problem. At this point you have two options. 1) Agree to a topic ban from huntingtons and the Good Article process, or 2) Remain indef blocked. Templarion (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not agree to concessions. I want to contribute to the Huntington's Disease article.

Why? Why is it so important to you that you are willing to remain blocked rather than compromise? From my count, at least three admins have stated that they will be willing to unblock you, with the condition that you avoid the article. There are none that are willing to unblock you otherwise, or they would have done so by now. Templarion (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What about a ban only from Huntington's Disease? I have lost interest in the subject, but would like to use GAC again.

Decline reason:

I believe the consensus is you would have to stay away from HD and also from the good article process. I would agree to an unblock only if you agree to a topic ban against both of these areas... however, I would very much support you later being unbanned for the GA process if you demonstrate the ability to work well with others in other similar areas, say, after a month or so. Mango juice^talk 15:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Deal.

Decline reason:

Please be more specific. What exact terms are you requesting an unblock under (just to make sure that we have some clear agreement). Just state what articles and topics you agree to be banned from in the unblock request. Anyone who thinks this is excessive can overrule me and unblock the account if they wish. — Protonk (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was agreeing to the terms you laid out.

Decline reason:

Protonk's request seems quite reasonable. Please clearly state the complete and exact terms of the deal you are agreeing to, in your own words. This may seem like unnecessary bureaucracy or drama now, but it should help spare everyone even more of it later on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not going to decline this again, but I'll try to be more clear. We have had problems in the past with people being "confused" or "unclear" on the terms of their unblock. This has caused them to be reblocked or to undertake behavior that we wanted to stop with the terms of the unblock. So I'm trying to make sure that everyone is on the same page. All I asked was that you say, in your words, what the terms of the unblock would be. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I am accepting this unblock request contingent on the editor avoiding Huntington's disease and articles and talk pages connected to the GA process. Any violation of these terms can result in a restoral of this block without further warning.

Request handled by: Trusilver 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baraminology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Auntie E. (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Baraminology

Please do not edit war when a change is reverted. When a change is reverted (particularly one which was a consensus decision), the appropriate action is to go to the talk page to discuss the change. Regarding the specific change, you are removing a long-standing community decision on wording, which is well sourced on the page. The comment directly below your change (which you've also removed) specifically states this. The appropriate place to go is the talk page PRIOR to removing it. That's what the comment was there for, and explicitly stated. Feel free to bring this to the talk page there, and I'd be happy to discuss it further. Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Baraminology. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. B (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

This is pursuant to this report on AN3. --B (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goodone121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will seek dispute resoultion

Decline reason:

You can if you like, when your block expires, but they'll expect you to show that you've made a genuine effort to establish consensus. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think that i am comfortable supporting an early unblock, mostly due to the past block log and the large amount of warnings. You have been blocked three times and warned twice in just over a hundred edits spread over two years. You equally received two warnings earlier (One in May, and another one in July) regarding edit warring on the same article you have been blocked for. Around that time you could have opted for dispute resolution, but instead you continued which lead to this block. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baraminology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Renewed edit warring at Baraminology

See WP:AN3#User:Goodone121 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: ). I hope common sense would tell you not to go back to the same article to continue the war. It may be too late for you to avoid another block, but you could try promising to do better at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month

You have been blocked for one month for repeatedly edit warring on Baraminology after being blocked for the exact same behavior before. I'm not going to give the standard speech. You know the expected norms, you know the unblocking procedure and you know where and when you crossed over the line. A POV tag on a article is not the end of the world. If you cannot help maintain a collegial atmosphere then you are not welcome to edit here. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Sorry about my revert on Abrahamic religions. I don't know how did that happened, as I probably clicked "edit" on the wrong version. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 09:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

thx for the cleanup on aisle 5! sounds better your/the correct way Darkstar1st (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church in the US

You're right. I apologize. My finger slipped as I was typing in edit summary and got distracted here. Forgot to explain reason. Articles must be included in navigational templates. Otherwise, they cannot be used for "navigating." See WP:EXISTING. Student7 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

I believe that "totally unnecessary" is clear enough. Anyone seeing that can ask him/herself "do we need to have a source to confirm that they moved back? Perhaps you should read up on sources and the need for these. Does the fact that the family moved back to Vienna have a specific significance? Was living in Viemna reserved to specific people? Did the move cause any turmoil in the city? Where there street protests against the move? Read the section and put things in perspective and context: His father was posted out to oversee construction of a railway line. A few years later the family moved back to Vienna. As simple as that. What is soooooo odd about it that we need proof of it? We are not saing he moved to heaven or hell, are we? How about doing something really useful and constructive like looking for places where citations are required and fiding them? The entire artcle needs citations, there is even a notice to that effect in one section.

In that section alone I could think of quite a few, each far more in need of a source then whether the family moved back to Vienna:

Ludwig von Mises was born to Jewish parents - citation?
in the city of Lemberg, in Galicia, Austria-Hungary - citation?
The family of his father Arthur Edler von Mises had been elevated to the Austrian nobility - citation?
Richard von Mises, a member of the Vienna Circle - citation?
[....] becoming influenced by the works of Carl Menger - citation?
Mises's father died in 1903 - citation?

What about the intro?

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises was a philosopher, Austrian School economist, sociologist, and classical liberal - citation?
He became a prominent figure in the Austrian School of economic - citation?
is best known for his work on praxeology - citation?
Fearing a Nazi takeover of Switzerland - citation?
Mises emigrated to the United States in 1940 - citation?
Mises' thought has exerted significant influence on the libertarian movement in the United States since the mid-20th century - citation?

So, to say he moved back to Vienna we need a source, while moving to the US is fine, no citation needed. Great stuff - living and learning. Have a nice day. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not mustered the courage to admit you were wrong and reply, let alone undue you revert. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Democrat Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry??

Sorry, how am I being disruptive? I never even made a single revert, I made a simple change under the guidelines of MOS:QUOTEMARKS and correct quotation mark usage. You reverted that, and I made a compromise change with different grammar, which you thanked. I do not deserve a warning template (and please WP:DTTR), and I will remove it again. Reywas92^Talk 07:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted to removing warning templates, and, as there are multi-level talkpage vandalism templates(tpv), which specifically address that, it is obviously wrong (for posterity, I used substituted disruptive2 and tpv3).Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why did you put it there in the first place?? The latest nonsense says "legitimate talk page comments" The template was never legitimate in the first place, as I never disrupted anything. Good luck blocking me, as a removing a non-legitimate template warning, about which there was zero explanation, does not violate the rules. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Reywas92. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Your recent editing history 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 article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I never made disruptive edits to supermajority, why did you template me in the first place? This is inappropriate that rather than discussing my original supposedly disruptive edit, which I have stopped, whatever your problem with it was, you have chosen not to respond to my above discussion. Reywas92^Talk 08:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican party vice presidential candidates selection, 2016

Howdy. I removed the navboxes, because we don't have them in most of the others Republican & Democratic veep candidates articles. Also, I find it disrupts the article needlessly. A proper infobox would be better. The types that are placed around the top image. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Goodone121. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

115th US Congress

Howdy, 115th United States Congress is under an Arbitration ruling of 1RR. It's best you undo your second revert. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Murray's title was confusing me. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Solidarity Party

I deleted the ideology descriptions because none of it was sourced, which is generally a requirement. Furthermore, it has an insanely long list of ideologies for a party that describes itself simply as "Christian Democratic." Furthermoremore, it is not, in any way, a Catholic Party. Necropolis Hill (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Goodone121. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dina Powell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. R9tgokunks ✡ 04:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per ANI

I accept your apology. I wasn't sure if you were joking when you said that, or something. Thanks and sorry for overblowing it myself. R9tgokunks ✡ 09:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I always love getting thanked for my contributions. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

I removed blatant violations of WP:NOTFORUM, as amply explained in my edit summary, from Talk:Brexit, and you reverted me without even giving a reason — no edit summary at all.[3] And now I see you're edit warring about it. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Another point: you use a signature with no relation to your username. Do you understand that that can be quite misleading? I thought the person on my talkpage was someone else at first. What's the purpose of it? Bishonen | talk 08:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: The same question was asked by DGG ten years ago: User_talk:Goodone121 #sig=, so please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

@Goodone121: I'm not going to template you for edit-warring, as you've been around long enough to know better. But you have a clear history of edit-warring and your block log reflects that strongly. So I'll give you formal warning now, that continued edit-warring on Talk:Brexit will lead to a request for further sanctions for you. I hope you will take time to consider, and not repeat your actions at that page. --RexxS (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redid my correction to the Steve Scalise page that you incorrectly undid.

As I previously stated, in my first correction on the page, you can reference the archived obituary of my father. You will have to go to the archived version. Also, you may have to click it a couple of times to remove the banner that blocks the stated children. As well I have added a new reference from cspan in the talk section of my most recent edit. I don't normally edit wikipedia pages so forgive me of any sloppiness & I know your intentions were good. Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.2600:8807:4400:C8F0:3913:FCDE:AA38:6D56 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 :: {{ping|Bishonen}} The same question was asked by DGG ten years ago: [[User_talk:Goodone121 #sig=]], so please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
 :: {{ping|Goodone121}} I'm not going to template you for edit-warring, as you've been around long enough to know better. But you have a clear history of edit-warring and your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=user%3AGoodone121 block log] reflects that strongly. So I'll give you formal warning now, that continued edit-warring on [[Talk:Brexit]] will lead to a request for further sanctions for you. I hope you will take time to consider, and not repeat your actions at that page. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 11:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
+== Redid my correction to the Steve Scalise page that you incorrectly undid.  ==
+As I previously stated, in my first correction on the page, you can reference the archived obituary of my father. You will have to go to the archived version. Also, you may have to click it a couple of times to remove the banner that blocks the stated children. As well I have added a new reference from cspan in the talk section of my most recent edit. I don't normally edit wikipedia pages so forgive me of any sloppiness & I know your intentions were good. Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.[[Special:Contributions/2600:8807:4400:C8F0:3913:FCDE:AA38:6D56|2600:8807:4400:C8F0:3913:FCDE:AA38:6D56]] ([[User talk:2600:8807:4400:C8F0:3913:FCDE:AA38:6D56|talk]]) 17:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)