User talk:Grez868

The Pirate Bay

Good catch on the TPB homepage doodle. I saw it, but neglected to snapshot it on the 24th. The good news is that it was up on the 25th as well, and on the Doodles page as of the 24th.
In future, please use Webcitation & archive.is for website snapshots; external archivers are considered neutral and archival. Personal screenshots and image upload sites are not considered wikipedia-reliable for screenshots. Webcitation is considered a neutral, reliable on-demand archiver, and archive.is is a newcomer which is currently being evaluated for persistence and (technical) reliability. See WP:Link rot. --Lexein (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip Lexein. I have used webcitation before but neglected to remeber it for this scenario.Grez868 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Vox Media page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berliner Synchron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. 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) 09:02, 17 April 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) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zika virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. 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) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Memoriam

There was no need for such lecture, i know what wikipedia is and i know for what purpose it is. I removed only because last year same thing happens, with plenty artist were omitted in Oscars including Joan Rivers, initially editors mention such omissions and cited with all major news sources but latter such edits were removed, because In Memoriam section is for those list of artists that are shown by Academy during the show, only. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 13:45, 1st March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Motown page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Grez868. 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]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

T P-T

Please don't add tabloid sources to articles on living or recently deceased people, as it is forbidden by our policy WP:BLPSOURCES. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Grez868. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Grez868. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Kamala Harris, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for egregious personal attacks.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:44, 13 August 2020 (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).

Grez868 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block only happened as a result of an arbitration case opened against an administrator who is abusing his power, and instigating a targetted harassment campaign among his fellow team members. The discussion in question which began this whole ordeal was an honest one, with valid points made throughout. Neutrality, the administrator who kicked off the whole thing made blatantly racist remarks about a black ethnic race. This was pointed out, without names and without malice or direction towards anybody in particular. Hence perfectly respectful and not warranting a "personal attack" label, as is stated above. What is personal however, is taking personal offense to your remarks being labelled as offensive, and making threats against the contributor. These threats lead to an official complaint to the arbitration committee. This committee thus now has three names. Because this hasn't become a blocking of importance for integrity of Wikipedia, it has become an outright harassment campaign. One which outright goes against Wikipedia's rules per the subsection "Behavioural Standards", located at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Behavioral_standards.

The three administrators involved here, Neutrality, Drmies and El_C have broken most of the clauses in one single event.

They didn't behave calmly: rather, they acted irrationally, and defensively.

Accusations of personal attacks, despite none being made. This makes a mockery of the role of administrators everywhere. This is in of itself, a personal attack on the integrity, and done entirely in bad faith.

The threats and the ganging up of three people onto one rather than just providing an apology for a misunderstanding (on their part) are incivility personified.

Disruptive point making: Making accusations of bad faith, and personal attacks to try to shut down a conversation is frankly, the most ridiculous thing to do, and is the most disruptive part of this whole situation.

I'll repeat my original statement from the discussion. Not all Jamaicans are of African descent. It even says so on the wikipedia article on Jamaicans. For Neutrality to suggest all Jamaicans are African, is frankly racist towards the ones who don't have ancestral roots in Africa, of which there are many.

He could have accepted this point, and everything would have been ok. Is this a personal attack? NO. It's a suggestion to better oneself, and provide better arguments which don't impose blanket characteristics on entire ethnicities and races.

Finally, Neutrality knew there was a problem the moment he threatened me on Kamala Harris' talk page. If he thought there was likely to be escalation, he should have asked someone else to talk to me, not approach with more threats. In what world does the pursuing of harassment against another editor go under the actions of being an administrator? If Wikipedia was an employer, and Neutrality a floor manager, in a paid role, Wikipedia would be in court for this, for wrongful dismissal and bullying. Why should these three admins think of themselves as above all this? Standards should apply regardless.

By the way, informing the relevant user that an arbitration claim has been started as a result of harassment and overreaching a personal attack. It's a statement of fact designed to inform the user they are to step back...and stop harassing the relevant party until a resolution has been achieved. There are absolutely no valid grounds for this block to have been made. Grez868 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block only happened because you made a personal attack. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:41, 13 August 2020 (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.

Calling an editor in good standing a "racist" is an egregious personal attack. That is the reason for your block. El_C 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is in addition to the previous block rationale, not in place of it. Any further appeal will need to address both issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Leaving this here in the interest of not modifying the block yet again: the legal threat aspect has been dealt with off wiki and can be considered no longer a block reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]