User talk:YeOldeGentleman

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, YeOldeGentleman! Thank you for your contributions. I am Demiurge1000 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Articles about leftism

We need a complete re-writing of Marxism from someone who knows what he's talking about, expansion of information about the soviet democracy in Russia (sourced data would be much appreciated, see Russian Wikipedia which has separate articles for each congress), expansion on theoretical concepts in communism, expansion of information about Russian pre-revolution elections(1) around 1917.

I once began an article titled Marxist-Leninist state but never published it. If it interests you then you can finish it. Another subject of interest is the creation of missing articles on works by Marx/Engels. e.g. Principles of Communism did not exist until I created it in Sep. 2014. The expansion of information on articles such as Anti-Dühring and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which are started yet do not contain enough information.

The creation of articles for various leftist political parties and international organizations and expansion of information on many of them is also needed. This is especially relevant for parties which are not part of the western/first world. E.g. there is little information about Asian and African leftist parties.

The improvement, expansion, cleaning, embellishing and sourcing on articles such as state capitalism, mode of production, capitalist mode of production, crisis theory, and so on... The expansion of information on decentralized and non-bureaucratic economic planning.

1. See this page. It would be good to consult the following sources: William Rosenberg, The Liberals in the Russian Revolution (Princeton University Press, 1974), The Russian municipal duma elections of 1917: A preliminary computation of returns (same author), etc. All we have currently is Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917. Zozs (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, Zozs. I will have a mooch and see if I can do something. Thanks for getting back to me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal question

Do you have any affiliation you would like to disclose with User:Iloveandrea?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, TheTimesAreAChanging, you know how much I love you. Please, let me continue my lovely editings. Do not use your power of exposure to have me banned. Let us work together. Let us support one another—through the thick and through the thin. You are like a brother to me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm VQuakr. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on The Holocaust, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that WP:BLP applies not only to living people, but also to living politicians. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, VQuakr! Yeah, forgot the rule applies to edit summaries and talk pages! Just as well what I said wasn't horrendous! Thanks for the polite reminder. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Communism

Something that definitely needs to be removed, however, is the hammer and sickle used in the communist sidebar template. It is simply unprofessional and appeals to emotionalism based on imagery, and also is limited to the Russian and 'Marxist-Leninist' experiences. Zozs (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo attack

There seem to be multiple reports that the gunmen yelled "Allahu Akbar" and, in French, "The Prophet is Avenged." That sounds pretty Islamic terrorist to me, although I'm okay with waiting until there are more cited sources. Lahaun (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Lahaun! Yeah, I think the evidence is good regarding their religious background. I think terrorist is such an abused term, I really don't like it. I prefer militant, though feel free to discuss this with me and others on the relevant talk pages (here and here). I don't know if there is any Wikipedia policy on this. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To both: Read the policy on the word terrorist. Zozs (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Piketty

Please see the talk section at the Thomas Piketty article, to avoid an edit war I had explained the reason for my deletion of the sentence. However, if you still believe the sentence should be included, we should probably do a request for comment or get a outside perspective. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note on that Slate article on Gamergate arbcom article

While I agree that article isn't useful at the GG controversy article, I did add it to Criticism of Wikipedia where that whole issue with the Guardian/Arbcom decision has already been described. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflicted

Is this racism or satire? Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: All I can say is this: 'Dr' K. cannot be trusted. Why? Letme just say this: Best advice I was ever given was given to me by myself: do not trust Trojan Horses or people who try to give one to you.

Greece has demonstrated remarkable 'Trojan-ness' with this veering off to the Chinese and the Russians. This fact is undeniable. Perhaps you yourself are Greek, and resent my exposure of your betrayal of Europa Union. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I imagine this is all part of your libertarian fascist unmanifesto. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi:Some day, you and I are going to remember this and laugh!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Never forget: I have incredible power. I am more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Let me just close(?) this conversation by bidding you a fond farewell. ♥ --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm obliged to inform you that I've posted about your message to Dr.K. and our brief exchange here at WP:ANI. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Heeey! Dr K. and I go back years here on Wikipedia—and I mean as friendly acquaintances, not long-term enemies. I like and respect the Greeks; he knows that. My message was merely the latest ridiculous instalment of a long-running farce about the bearing of gifts by Greeks. I nevertheless acknowledge that my message was unacceptable, and pledge not to repeat my actions. Talk pages are not the appropriate arena for such shenanigans, as this episode demonstrates perfectly. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Lankiveil's condition below has been satisfied, and this all appears to be a misunderstanding, so unblocking. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that I'll be happy to unblock you once you acknowledge that edits such as this are completely unacceptable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

YeOldeGentleman, I apologise for misunderstanding. Should we assume that your user page is also satire? Alakzi (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no apology required! Yes, my user page is complete nonsense. Well, I am English, a Leftist, and male, but the fascism tripe is just pure, immature silliness. One of the reasons I am interested in Greek history is because of their left-wing political history. Please accept a ♥ from me. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then, from one leftist to another, your ♥ is accepted and reciprocated. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad this was all resolved amicably, but it would be best if you didn't make such jokes in the future, as obviously they're very easy to misinterpret. Happy editing! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Eduardo Galeano

nice work on the bibliography. however, i think the biography style is to include isbn in list so world cat links will work. for example, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies. i will try to cleaning up, but if you object, let's discuss. Duckduckstop (talk)

Primary sources

According to reliable source policy, primary sources are at time acceptable but secondary sources are preferred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

I opened a new section in the talk page to discuss my edit. Please explain what you disagree with. As there is a dispute on what exactly was said I believe we should add a few words to make clear the context of what he said. I am basing my edit on [1]. עדירל (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You will note that my edit was not a deletion. עדירל (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States

I know, I am an American and am more prone to bias in topics relating to United States, so sorry about that. I'm just trying to be helpful here... you need to try to focus on arguments alone, and do not call other editors "American nationalists". I'm not part of this discussion and don't plan on becoming part of it, but I still feel like I should say that even if you really feel that way about another editor, you should try to keep from displaying such thoughts; behavior such as that is going to make others not want to listen to you. Imagine how you would feel in a similar scenario. I'm not trying to be troublesome or anything, so please don't interpret it that way. It's just a suggestion. I've made quite a bit of an effort to avoid letting this thread here convey the wrong message, so please understand.

If you have any problem with this thread whatsoever, feel free to remove it. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Hey! I tried to delete the offending thread, but then got told off for doing so. A few other people have given specious responses, but I'll just let the discussion die. Seems the best thing to do, especially given that I'm on a hiding to nothing with the number of petty-minded nationalists piling in. "Nationalism is an infantile disease," as someone famous once said. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, this did not ping me. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion. Regards, Dustin (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Our Conservative government

Thanks for the appreciation.

• I haven't finished with David Cameron and poverty, I'll keep on researching. I'm sure DC expected reminders about promises not fully kept to be published in media like, The Independent, The Guardian, The New Statesman where mainly his political opponents would read them. From now on DC and other leading politicians will have to remember that broken promises can return to haunt them on their Wikipedia page where their supporters will get reminders for years, hopefully indefinitely. Long live free speech.
• I haven't finished with unfair sanctions to benefits. Too much has been taken out I'll be away for a few hours, pelease help and advise. I've come back, I added the references to the numbers of sanctions, I also added references to diabetic claimants sanctioned and people in hospital sanctioned. I hope it's now OK, please check. JRPG should also be checking. Fighting Poverty (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• I haven't finished with the heartless July 2015 budget.
• I haven't finished with heartless government policy on food banks.

There's a great deal I haven't finished with. Fighting Poverty (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fighting Poverty: I fully support your editing goals. I will assist you. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

POV

In regard to this: Reverting an edit because it contains Fox as a source is not a valid reason for not accepting an edit. Fox is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Your personal feelings about Fox is not germane. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sorry. I did not realise Fox counted as RS. Obviously I won't repeat the mistake elsewhere. Thanks for the explainer. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edt war warning

I meant what I wrote. If you cannot distinguish ancient Isreal from Judaism, you are not competent to edit the article. In any case, please do not edit war. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You did actually mean what you wrote? I thought you didn't. I find most people usually don't mean what they say. Thanks a lot for clearing up my misapprehension.

I'm quite capable of distinguishing between the two. I mean, Judaism is a religion, right? And Ancient Israel was a kingdom, right? Two quite different things. It is a relief that even you seem able to grasp this fact.

What you are whimpering about is… I just can't even see where you are coming from. The only use I made of Solomon 2005 was to immediately close off in the first paragraph ("General views on war", or whatever it's called) exterminatory war as a historical curiosity perpetrated by Ye Olde Israel. The obvious point being made is that Judaism and exterminatory war are mutually exclusive. A summary of my summary of the start of Solomon 2005:

Proposition 1 Ancient Israel was told to carry out an exterminatory war.

Proposition 2 The Jewish God himself explicitly said this war was unique to this time and this enemy.

Conclusion Judaism and wars of extermination have nothing to do with each other.

How can I possibly make my thinking any clearer?

Anyway, you seem like a dreadfully unhappy person. For that reason alone I have no intention of further interaction with you. The article—replete (as it is) with typos, shitty layout, and so on—is yours to take care of.

Don't post on my talk page again. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Classy At All

This is actually a quite horrendous sentiment; one that I and pretty much the whole community certainly does not share. The user restored it before I could delete it, so if if wants to keep it there on his page, he can. But I don't recommend you ever say things like that ever again to anyone else here. Seriously in very poor taste. Doc talk 09:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, I was trying to stay out of this, but this post is a wildly inappropriate thing to say to someone. Don't do that again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) He was already warned about this above. He made no more edits but was blocked anyway... half an hour later. Then you warn him again. Wow. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit overreactive considering the slew of personal attacks made by Alakzi to... pretty much everyone. He didn't get blocked for calling me a "piece of shit", but I'm not going to whine about it either. Block length far too long as well. Not a fan of this block at all - it's purely punitive. Doc talk 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doc9871: While I'm entirely willing to shorten it after discussing with YOG, or have someone else do so, there is a big difference between a reactive generic insult like 'piece of shit' and making unprompted insulting comments about someone's mental health. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the policy there aint. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was going to revert it when Alakzi restored it. I also issued the warning condemning the statement as horrendous. There is no part of me that condones the statement, but the fact is the block was excessive and out of process. Especially when we're talking about civility blocks, which a great portion of the community thinks applies only in certain circumstances to certain editors. Doc talk 10:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Doc, I saw your earlier post; thank you for that. I am the last person who is going to make a great fuss over mere "incivility"; I don't believe in generic civility blocks for established users, card-carrying cabal members or otherwise. (My card got lost in the mail, I assume.) But insulting someone's mental health in that way is not merely "uncivil"; it is unempathetic, ill-advised, and exceptionally insensitive, and is more comparable to attacks based on other personal characteristics or identities than to the usual sorts of cursing and flaming that cause people to start wikilinking WP:CIVIL.

YeOldeGentleman, as Alakzi has been blocked upon confirmed request, I expect that I or (probably) anyone else reviewing an unblock request that recognized the inappropriateness of that type of comment would accept it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's our "process" to allow someone to make negative comments about someone's mental health on that person's talk page (which was clear baiting, by the way), then our process is not very good. This was a good block, hands down, although the length could probably be shorter. Alakzi was not well-liked and their behavior was not always positive, to put it lightly, but that does not excuse a blatant personal attack from being placed on their talk page. Alakzi has a temper, and this was not something that was lost on their detractors when they wished for more shit to fling. This whole situation is regrettable. ~ Rob^Talk 15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take the block as it is. I plead no mitigating circumstances. I should not have made that post; we are all agreed on that. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look after all. Opabinia regalis suggested I do.

The log shows only one previous block. If it was for the "weak" attack, then that doesn't seem very serious. This block was preventative. Considering your last remark, I see nothing to prevent any longer. My focus is always on the project, not the individual. I think the project would be safe and better off with you back right now. Opabinia regalis expressed great compassion at Alakzi's talk on more than one occasion. Maybe she will lift the block here, if she sees fit.

YeOldeGentleman, whenever you are unblocked please be mindful of the rippling and cascading effect of your talk posts. Attacks draw responses and so on. The attacked can become angry and start new fights with others. The end result is often wasted reading hours in the dozens and keystrokes in the thousands. Those should be allocated to building the encyclopedia instead. Outside of Wikipedia there is something similar: war.

Best wishes, peace, and productivity,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna thank you for your thoughts and your excellent timing. YeOldeGentleman, thank you for your self-aware reaction. Ironically, you have been unblocked, based in part on acceptance of it :) To add to Anna's comments, it's not only time and energy wasted; it's goodwill and mutual trust and our sense of shared purpose damaged when we're not cognizant of the real human beings on the other side of the talk page.

Earlier this evening I googled someone and coincidentally her wiki article was just created as a stub yesterday, so I gave it a quick spruce-up while I had the search open. "Let's all go work on an article" is turning into a cliche around here, but it does often work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points, Opabinia. Thank you all for helping this work out favourably. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Like. Doc talk 05:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Pie all around. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I worked on articles yesterday, Erfurter Bahn and de:Zourafa, - it helped against feeling empty, "up to a certain point". See also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you, Olde Gentleman, word an apology to Alakzi here, and one of the admins can place it openly on the protected talk, - as a first step of healing. (My own recovery is in progress.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Everbody seems to have forgotten that the other editor was equally uncilivil; and there's nothing in policy about some people getting different treatment than others. Even if that's how it would liked to be. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Please read about the differences, just above. One is the difference of using incivil words vs. questioning mental health, the other that Alakzi was not blocked for incivility but upon own request, asking for help to "wikicide" (I have seen admins blocking themselves), - something I would not perform if I was an admin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on Gerda. Let's not do this, please. Alakzi will most undoubtedly resurface again. He can't help it. Doc talk 09:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever see my response to your all too certain "must be"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'differences,'User:Gerda Arendt, are minimal to say the least. All I'm reading are the facts: editor insults another; editor gets blocked. End of story. No apology necessary or required. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Now you truly task me!

Well, I could commence healing, take a small step towards becoming a better person, but… my gut reaction stems from the same root that supplied the victuals for my heartless post to Alakzi: I did not like the guy hysterically ordering person after person to eff off—most of whom had said nothing to warrant such an abusive retort, some of whom had been extremely patient with him and his frankly appalling attitude. I myself have previously, and thanklessly (no surprise!), supported Alakzi against a permanent ban. In hindsight, I wish that I and others hadn't bothered; look at the trouble we all would have been saved.

All in all, I am disinclined to offer an apology right now, despite the fact I should unquestionably not have said what I said; however! let me mull it over. Perhaps I will have a unexpected act of contrition addressed to Alakzi for you here by Monday morning. All my best wishes! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking, - it's fine. For less publicity: I think email is enabled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, sure, telling all and sundry to eff off isn't very nice. Why would anyone do that, anyway? Well, it could be because they're just a jerk - we have those in plentiful supply around here - but we're talking about someone who made thousands of productive edits, was well known to be helpful and patient with technical matters, and obviously cared about the project and took a lot of pride in his work. Not really the usual profile for someone who just can't work collaboratively and doesn't belong here.

Another hypothesis: someone who behaves that way might feel some combination of hurt and frustrated and angry and insulted, and have a sort of volatile temper, and get stuck in a cycle of escalation when more people keep turning up with irrelevant or insulting comments. It doesn't make sense to tell someone who feels that way 'you have a bad attitude' or 'you broke the rules' or whatever; those things aren't going to sound any different than any other insult until they've had time to disengage. The thing about 'personal attacks' is that someone eventually has to say 'I'm going to choose to not care about that' and it won't be the person who's already lost their temper.

Here, again: you wish you hadn't bothered objecting to a ban, and everything that came after was just trouble to be avoided? That's a pretty hurtful thing to say about someone, isn't it, when he's put many more hours of productive volunteer work into the project after it considered banning him?

That's it for comments on this specific case - let people who leave leave in peace, and come back in peace if they choose - but think about where you are in the cycle next time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I have a bad habit of answering back instead of just suggesting to agree to disagree. I will attempt the latter here: I agree with some of what you say, disagree with some of it—and that is all I have to say. You are, without doubt, the nicer person out of the two of us.

Well, this episode has chewed up more than enough of my time, not to mention that of others, though I can blame none but myself. If you change your mind and want to add anything else, please do so. I promise to read it, though I won't reply. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've only scanned the above because I have just a minute before din-dins. I am in favour of avoiding anything that involves even mentioning his name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I confess that this is much more in line with my thinking. Let's move on. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Every editor is a human being." - while not by me, that sentence has been on my user page and in my edit notice from 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well; as long as no-one's editing with any kind of POV (even if well-intentioned), that should be fine. 22:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Maldives Cherives Blairives

Much better now, thank you! I wished you'd used a better edit summary though - on first glance I thought you were being a ahem, whatever we call it these days and I nearly did something rude and hostile in a hissy fit of misplaced retaliation, per the textbook definition of being a ahem, whatever we call it these days; oopsie bumbum narrowly avoided. On second glance, I saw what a good job you'd done: huge improvement, so cheers! DBaK (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Yer, sorreh. I meant to change the summary, but then I was hit with an uncontrollable urge to become extremely nekkid, so finished up in a mad rush. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well quite, I can see how one would. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine T. Hunt

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

King's College London

Please provide a reliable and verifiable reference for the claim about the college. Without one the information in unverifiable and cannot be accepted. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Hey! I actually switched the source (original one had died, apparently) when I did the reversion. I should have made that clear in the edit summary! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War

For the record, I had second thoughts and was reverting my own edit when you beat me to it. Czolgolz (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Czolgolz: I beat you to it because I am awesome. For the record, I am actually usually supremely awesome; today I am simply awesome. All my edits are awesome, and never need reversion. Thank you for tacit acknowledgement of these crucial, crucial facts. I salute you! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahem

This was at the top of my watchlist when I looked at WP for the first time today. What? That's completely inappropriate ("it", really?). You got unblocked a couple of months ago for backing off after making uncalled-for personal attacks against the same editor, and now you think it's a good idea to do it again, about a block that's been over for days, in which you were most certainly not involved or being referred to in any way? If all you're going to do on another editor's talk page is harass them, don't post there at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"If all you're going to do on another editor's talk page is harass them, don't post there at all."

Acknowledged. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, though rather too late, and I see you've missed your chance to self revert. The thing is, you also acknowledged the problem last time - and declined to apologize, but that's fine as far as it goes, apologies aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them compared to being productive and not doing it again. And yet as far as I can tell, this is completely unprovoked stirring of stale shit. What made you think this was a good thing to post? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"What made you think this was a good thing to post?"

Alakzi craves attention; I furnished him with it. That was my thinking. I see he has retired now, which is a bad move. However does he cope in real life? His retirement is a self-inflicted wound, though perhaps he is just fishing ("Please, come back, Alakzi…"). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you just referred to another editor as "it" on their talk page? I can't think offhand of any other insult hurled by any other editors that I have seen here that so casually denies the humanity of another person. That little two letter word is, literally, the worst thing I recall seeing one established editor call another established editor. Due to the timing of your comment, and your responses above to Opabinia regalis, it's clear that this was not done in the heat of the moment. Opabinia regalis's other points about the general sleaziness of your post are valid, but the main reason I'm blocking you indefinitely is for using that one coldly, calculatingly chosen word (smugly defended above) in your ambush. You can expand on how this was actually giving Alakzi what he wanted, or any other rationale you think will help your cause, inside an unblock template.

@Opabinia regalis:, if this is stepping on your toes, I apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record: I am on my phone and not logged in to my admin account, but I fully endorse this. To make such a deliberately dehumanizing comment, and then to defend it as above rather than responding with a complete retraction given the opportunity to do so, indicates inability to work respectfully on a collaborative project. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"That little two letter word is, literally, the worst thing I recall seeing one established editor call another established editor."

That is literally the most hysterical overreaction I've ever seen from an established editor. Actually, let me revert myself with this next clause: I admit that I committed a truly unspeakable act of verbal violence. I myself have seen words like kike and nigger thrown around on Wikipedia over the years, but I recognise this complete, total, and utter dehumanisation of Alakzi is in another league. It is out there on its own. I just don't know how I'm going to sleep tonight. Or tomorrow night. Will I ever sleep again?

It's safe to say that with editors like you around, able to be even more offended than the victim of this vicious assault, who just left it all with a simple Meh, the project is in good hands.

Or maybe… Maybe this is the reason for the overreaction: "if this is stepping on your toes, I apologize," says the hero to his female co-editor. Maybe she'll sleep with you now? Get a life! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a strange reaction; I've said "didn't mean to step on your toes" to male editors many times. What in the world makes you bring up gender out of the blue? I mean, I know the answer - trying to find the thing that will upset me the most - but I don't understand why you thought that would upset me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"trying to find the thing that will upset me the most…"

Jeez, what do I say now? Umm, cat's… out of the bag by your picking that out to reply to? If so – and I thank my lucky stars that nothing is provable in this regard – I do feel a bit bad about having said it. I'm sure that wasn't the reason – and, even if it were (there are antediluvian males out there, after all), still pretty shitty to pick someone up on it in public and in such a sardonic tone. Well, nothing's provable (no one knows your subconscious motivations, if there were any), and it's all anonymous here. So, actually, I don't feel guilty now, since no hard done. Anyway, YeOldeGentleman has served me well, but he's all blocked now. It's curtains for this account. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the most important thing right now is to forget about my talk page and acknowledge my incredible power (Aaaah). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"indicates inability to work respectfully on a collaborative project…"

Yes, always best to make a general statement on someone with nearly three thousand edits on the basis of two of them. Adieu! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, YeOldeGentleman. 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)