User talk:Redzemp

welcome to my Talk Page. Feel free to comment your thoughts and ideas.

Notice: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as 2015 San Bernardino attack, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 18 December 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 Worcestershire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplex. 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) 10:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasians. 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) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Newspaper Logos

Hi,

I noticed you removed the logo of The Washington Times from the article infobox. I also noticed that the logos for the New York Times and Washington Post articles were removed too.

Is there some kind of style guide change regarding the logo? Why are the logos being removed?

Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi. Because of unnecessary redundancy, I would think. Redzemp (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong precedent for having the title for newspapers on Wikipedia. Unless the Template:Infobox_newspaper is changed, don't remove the title. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marquis de Faux. Thanks. That was un-intended. I only intended to remove the top (redudant) part. Not the rest of the info. But apparently it's all tied in with that template there. Redzemp (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Spheroid. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Redzemp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say my actions are out of line [1]? Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddst1. You saw it too quickly. I changed it to "Todd is putting the onus totally on me, which is false on its face, as even another Admin Neiln the other day did NOT put it all on me, but a lot on Strebe too. Why didn't Todd put ANY of Strebe's reverts from days ago till today? He left those out. Giving a very slanted picture here. What's up, Todd??" Redzemp (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Spheroid

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Redzemp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, EdJohnston, I do appreciate your concerns, regarding edit-warring, but I have tried desperately and genuinely to show compromise, and I have...with sources, though that gets reverted too, and even better reliable sources I presented on article talk yesterday (for real, see them), but that gets dismissed too by David (dishonestly so). But you made the statement that it seems I have no support from other editors, that's not entirely true, because (and I pointed this out repeatedly), contributor Mark viking did show at least some support in saying that the words could be in the article, in his own suggested form, which is the very form I've been trying to put in since yesterday, but where David and Strebe showed literally ZERO compromise at all. I've bent over backwards trying to compromise, and find half-way, and get sources. Please see the article talk page. Like with instead of "commonly called" saying "sometimes called"...etc etc. Also, if you carefully read what I wrote on the notice board, you'd see the proof and facts there. I did not violate 3RR, technically, as some of the edits were comment edits, and just minor wording adjustment (of my own edit) edits. Not 3 reverts, in that actual sense. Plus, again, it's factually clear, that David and Strebe have not been honest or cool players, compromisers, or collaberaters in this at all. Their idea of compromise is "revert to original and don't have any new wording at all". But again, contributor Mark viking, as can be seen in Talk, showed somewhat siding with me (way more than Strebe or David, clearly), and so it can be seen that I was actually attempting to put MARK'S suggested compromised wording. No go, though, with Strebe and David Eppstein. But Mark was cool overall. (please check out his comments on the article talk page here. I do appreciate your concern about edit-warring, but FOR REAL, I've tried to big-time compromise, but the other contributers that you also said were not perfect and are warned, showed literaly (for real literally) zero compromise at all. Mark, on the other hand, on the article talk page, did. So that's why I feel, in overall context, and taking EVERYTHING into consideration, though I may not have been totally perfect in this, my block should be overturned. Please give honest, thorough, and careful consideration to this and proven points here. Thank you. Redzemp (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading your unblock request, I see a long and detailed account of why you think you were being totally reasonable, and everybody who disagreed with you was being unreasonable, but I see no acknowledgement of the fact that you were edit-warring, nor any indication that you would not do the same again. No matter how reasonable you believe you were, and how unreasonable you believe the other editors involved were, the fact remains that you kept on putting the same, or a version of the same, content into an article repeatedly, after other editors had reverted your edits. That is what "edit-warring" means, and that is why you are blocked. You also do your case no good by imputing bad faith to other editors, as you would have realised if you had taken the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting here, particularly the section WP:NOTTHEM. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2016 (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.

Hello, JamesBWatson. Thank you for reviewing this matter. But I have to be blunt. You're incorrect in some of things you said, and franky out of line. Apparently you didn't read everything I wrote carefully. You wrote this: "but I see no acknowledgement of the fact that you were edit-warring". Did you catch where I wrote: "Though I may not have been totally perfect in this"? And if so, what do you think that means? I'm admitting error. Also, as to the other two editors in question, ADMINS THEMSELVES also said they were wrong in this matter too. (You acknowledge none of that, I notice. But it can be seen if on the notice board, and on Strebe's talk page, and on here too.) Let it be noted, that I always abide by consensus on talk, which has not really been reached yet. As far as putting bad motives on others, I simply stated observed fact of what David and Strebe did. Other Admins said that Strebe should be blocked too, and that Strebe definitely edit-warred. Was that other Admin "putting bad motives" if that's the case? I was simply stating my case!!!! I had a right to put on a defense, no? It's interesting how YOU put everything on me and see me as totally unreasonable and the other two as reasonable totally dodging the actual facts and specifics in my points and presentation here (and on the notice board.) And YOU put bad motives on me and make assumptions that I would continue and not change. Why?

Again, did you read the part where I clearly wrote "though I may not have been totally perfect in this"??? Obviously that's admitting and acknowledging error on my part. So with all due respect, you're wrong on many levels, because it's proven that the other editors (David Eppstein and Strebe) were far from perfect themselves (not just my words but the words of at least two other Admins, which please see), and the facts and history themselves, which you basically ignored. Thanks for your consideration, but no thanks for your conclusion and rude unreasonable out-of-line inaccurate assessment and words here. Not cool and not valid. I admit error, but in my defense and presentation of my case, and as other Admins also stated, the other two editors were not perfect angels in this (as you seem to be thinking or giving the impression) either. They ignored reliable sources and how I bent over backwards to compromise. See Mark's suggestion on article talk. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that message consists virtually 100% of Strawman arguments. I will give just a couple of examples, to illustrate the point.

You said that I "see ... the other two as reasonable". However, as far as the other two editors are concerned, I never made any comment whatever about what they had done, let alone suggesting that they were reasonable. I made no comment about them whatever for the simple reason that what they did was irrelevant to the one and only issue which I was considering, namely your block, which was based on what you have done, not what other people have done. Likewise, you say that I "see [you] as totally unreasonable", but I never said anything whatever about whether I thought you had been reasonable or unreasonable in your editing.
You wrote "Apparently you didn't read everything I wrote carefully. You wrote this: "but I see no acknowledgement of the fact that you were edit-warring". Did you catch where I wrote: "Though I may not have been totally perfect in this"?" and later you wrote "did you read the part where I clearly wrote "though I may not have been totally perfect in this"??? Obviously that's admitting and acknowledging error on my part." However, I had never suggested that you had not admitted or acknowledged error on your part: I simply stated that I saw no acknowledgement that you had been edit-warring, which is not at all the same thing.

You also refer to "the facts and history themselves, which [I] basically ignored". I ignored everything in the history except the issue of the fact that you edit-warred, because that is what the block was for. Wikipedia's policy in edit-warring is, basically, "no edit-warring", not "no edit-warring unless you think that other people have been doing unacceptable things". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#Citation overkill for uncontested facts

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#Citation overkill for uncontested facts. Hi Redzemp. You should not add redundant sources and should avoid adding Washington Times as a source for a subject for which there are literally hundreds of better sources. Please comment in the linked talk page discussion if you disagree. - Mr X 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a CheckUser block. My second block in the block log was an error on my part. I forgot to uncheck the Block box when I added the above block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Redzemp. 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]