User talk:Earl of Arundel

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Earl of Arundel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! FalconK (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Earl of Arundel, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Earl of Arundel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Exponentiation

Hi Earl of Arundel,

It doesn't seem to me like there's any point continuing our conversation on the reference desk, but I wanted to address one or two things from your last message to me. You wrote,

You still haven't addressed the division-by-zero issue. At any rate, the interpretation of 0^0 is, again, dependent on some convention. I understand that. I was specifically referring to any given g(x) that does not itself evaluate to zero. Or am I missing something? Earl of Arundel (talk) 11:24 am, Today (UTC−6)

Your first sentence is mistaken; the function that I defined could be written more formulaically as follows: $g(x)={\begin{cases}e^{-1/x^{2}}&x\neq 0\\0&x=0\end{cases}}.$ There is no issue of division by 0 in its definition, and no convention is necessary to understand the limit of g(x)^x as x approaches 0. On the question of what happens if g(x) approaches some other value than 0 (which you say you wished to restrict focus to, though I do not think this was clear from what you wrote earlier), this is easy to read off already from Trovatore's very nice comment; we have $g(x)^{x}=e^{x\log g(x)}$ , and with a suitable choice of branch of the logarithm the term $\log g(x)$ approaches some constant, the exponent approaches 0 and so the entire expression approaches 1.

All the best, JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but whenever x = 0 then g(x) is also defined as evaluating to zero. That's a convention (albeit, a perfectly logical one). And that was precisely what I wasn't aware of when I made the remark about division by zero. But otherwise I agree and do appreciate the enlightening elaboration. Cheers! Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Lane. 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) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ambiguous words, March 2017

In attempt to use sophisticated vocabulary, kindly do not add ambiguous words, which can lead a sentence to have a dubious meaning. This occurred previously in your edits when you used "so-called dictabelt evidence" in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, casting a doubt on the authenticity of the dictabelt recording itself.

This refelcted again in your recent edits on David Atlee Phillips when you edited "In 2014, at a conference dubbed The Warren Report and the JFK Assassination [...]", giving an impression that either the conference never took place, or that it was renamed later.

Kindly be precautious with the words you use from now on. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a poor command of the English language, that's the problem. Just to illustrate, you've mistakenly used the word 'precautious' instead of 'cautious'. Perhaps you would be better off editing this encyclopedia instead? Or, at the very least, stop bothering other editors for their use of common-usage phrases which you've inadvertently read out of context (and moreover, which had only been inserted in the first place because you had introduced a grammatical error into an article). Anyway, Wikipedia is free to edit. If you think you have a better choice a words in mind then go right ahead. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have good command over English language. I am human, and mistakes happen. Mine was a mistake, but yours is repeatation of uncommonly used phrases, and words. You think your vocabulary is common, but it is not.

I used the word "precautious" correctly. Similar to the word "revert", there are many words that have different meanings in different parts of the world. (If you dont know, in some parts of the world, the word "revert" is used as a synonym for "reply".)

Thats the issue of English Wikipedia. It is not limited to any one particular country. It is global. So it must be constucted in such way that meaning will remain the same in any part of the world.

I hope you are understanding what I am trying to say here. It is not about making the Wikipedia "simple", it is about making it global.

It is not just about the command over English language, or the grammatical accuracy. You previously made one "grammatically correct" edit, which changed the meaning of almost entire article. If you dont remember, this edit of yours resulted in these two lengthy discussions: discussion 1, and discussion 2. From one of these discussions, it is evident that you discussed this edit on another user's talkpage as well.

And if such discussions, suggestions and/or warnings were considered as "bothering", the talkpages wouldnt have existed on wikipedia, as it is their purpose. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say your English is good, and yet cannot even use the word 'repetition' correctly! (Which you've misspelled horribly, by the way.) I think we're done here. Thank you for the input. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, apparently this discussion is over as you've got nothing for a real reply other than pointing out a spelling mistake. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over

As you said, we should really stop fighting. As i said earlier, i have no personal conflicts or animosity towards you. But even when i mentioned about starting over, you didnt respond anything. Hence i have no idea what you are thinking. So let me know. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??
I'm willing to walk on any path. Choosing it is up to you. Choose wisely. I mean, we can work on wiki as friends, or we can work "not as friends". —usernamekiran (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see buddy, you have responded on Oswald's talkpage, but you didnt reply to me. It feels bas when you ignore me like this Earl. It is this kind of treatment you give me that makes me think you dont want to be friends with me. I am okay with that too, but just let me know if you want to be my friend or not.

PS: i just remembered, a long time ago, i read somewhere "Ego of goofballs doesnt get hurt usually. But if it does, they [goofballs] dont tend to forget it easily." —usernamekiran (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl of Arundel: dont you want to accept my friendship Earl? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earl of Arundel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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:Earl_of_Arundel reported by User:Usernamekiran (Result: ). Thank you. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, thank you. Earl of Arundel (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR sanction and interaction ban

You are hereby placed on an interaction ban with Kiran. You are also sanctioned for violating 3RR and for edit warring with a 72-hour 0RR on all articles. Thanks. El_C 01:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I fully agree with that decision, but fair enough. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Earl of Arundel. 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]

ITN recognition for Dan Kohn

On 6 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dan Kohn, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I wasn't aware of your feelings, as I said they seem to come out of nowhere as I've had no interaction with you ever as far as I can recall. However, you also seem unaware of my feelings. It's not nice to be called a bad steward who abuses other editors and is sociopathic. Try to empathise with how that makes me feel, and think about whether those words were civil. DrKay (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so very sorry for the misunderstanding. I have been rather inundated with work lately and honestly a little stressed as a result. Regardless, I was wrong and I do apologize. Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on Wikipedia pages : Metallic Mean, and also on Pythagorean Triples

Relation to Pythagorean triples

Metallic Ratios in Primitive Pythagorean Triangles

Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c), if c - b = 1, 2 or 8, the Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) exhibits a particular metallic mean $S_{m}$ ,

where $m=2{\sqrt {(c+b)/(c-b)}}$

and the Metallic Mean $S_{m}=cot({\frac {\theta }{4}})$ where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle.

For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on. ^[1]

Neat! I am assuming that your are asking for help? I would love to, but unfortunately rather busy these days. Perhaps you could take this to the talk page of the article in question? Also, please do be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Cheers! Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rajput, Chetansing; Manjunath, Hariprasad (2024). "Metallic means and Pythagorean triples | Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics". Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Metallic Mean page

Dear Sir, you had added the section GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION on the page Metallic Means in 2021. However, now some editor has vindictively removed that entire section from the page. You are requested to indly revert it because it is a cardinal feature of Metallic Ratios. 152.58.22.180 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sol Estes

Please actually look at what you're reverting to. Why would you revert to Category:Businesspeople in the food industry? I just diffused them by nationality. He seems to be selling to farmers which are part of the food industry, but I didn't add them to the Businesspople in food category. You're putting him in a less specific version of the category.Mason (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sol Estes was a con-man who *scammed* farmers by concocting schemes to cash in on government subsidies. Putting him in the category of "business people in the food industry" is akin to labeling a pick-pocket at a music festival a "concert-goer". (Full disclosure: he is/was a relative of mine so I can personally attest that I for one have never heard of him being involved in the agricultural industry in any capacity other than fraud. He was a wheeler-dealer and long-time member of the old "Suite 8F Group". Ordering a bottle of champagne is about the closest that man ever got to being involved in the food industry!) So please do your research to verify for yourself. In the meantime, I do ask that you please rollback the edit. It isn't backed by any reliable source and as such it should be removed. Thanks. Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not "edits" but my own personal perspective posted to a talk page. Moreover, may statements are amply supported by incontrovertible evidence. There seems to be a systemic problem across the Wikipedia foundation. Congress should hold "non-profits" such as this one accountable for engaging in political smear campaigns. The fact that it has been allowed to reach such a level of yellow-journalism is inexcusable, to say the least. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages aren't fora for "personal perspective." You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that. There is a reasonable discussion going on at that talkpage between editors about whether the issue should be included, soapboxing about your perceptions of journalism is out of place, and you should be aware of community expectations for editor conduct on talkpages in contentious topics.. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you excuse such practices, I presume? Because clearly you are not in the least concerned about clear violations of Wikipedia's own guidelines in the maintenance of that article. I would expect an administrator such as yourself to be a good steward towards others and guide things in the right direction. Was that a failure on your part or shall we just blame someone else? Earl of Arundel (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your recent editing history at Talk:2024 United States presidential election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What have you as an administrator done to remedy the situation other than reinforce such censorship? Partisan politics has no place on Wikipedia and I will continue to speak out about it until things do change. Have a nice day. Earl of Arundel (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will ensure that your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is not permitted. Enjoy your below barnstar for disruption. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, I gave him this barnstar not for disruption, but for showing a little bit of a backbone while trying to help maintain a neutral tone within an article. His edit to the actual article makes perfect sense, just attributing certain accusations to the media outlets with which Wikipedia verifies its' information, and not in WP's voice. It's not about his "disruption" on the article talk page. Their tone might be confrontational, but I'm sorry, it's hard to blame them. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Showing backbone" by violating WP:3RR. And I just undid the edit you're talking about for adding WP:WEASEL, removing wikilinks, and changing "false claims" to "claims" where the claim is false. Odd choice of edit for a barnstar. A range of opinions are needed, but this is not the way. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		THANK YOU for your edit to 2024 United States presidential election. In today's world (especially the U.S.,) our trust in mainstream media is on life support, at best. Wikipedia's policy to find certain outlets reliable has created some distrust in this project, and we NEED voice like yours to bring back a truly neutral tone. While I am not holding my breath, it's good to see there a some out there who continue to try. Can't overstate how important I think that is. Thank you!! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 15:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how others feel, Earl of Arundel, I stand by awarding this to you, inconsequential as it may be, even if others consider it "odd." My confidence with this project moving toward the neutral side is eroding by the day, especially given how you've been treated on your own talk page. Hope to see you back. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 13:28, 15 November 2024 (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:Earl_of_Arundel reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more post like the one I just removed, and I will increase the length of your block to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to remove my call for Congressional action. Conservative voices are being silenced and your actions are proof of that. Have a nice day. Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining about censorship while calling for censorship. Good times. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution regulates the government, not private entities like the Wikimedia Foundation. You are violating WP:No legal threats and I assume Bbb23 will have to respond in kind. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: I'm assuming you mean the comment I removed. I thought about whether it's a legal threat, and I was on the fence. You're welcome to take the issue to ANI to get others' opinions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, yes, that's what I'm referring to. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. I will go to ANI. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My call for Congressional action is not a legal threat, as there is currently (and rather unfortunately) no law preventing such partisan practices. That was my response to the censorship of a discussion related to Wikipedia:Libel activities which seem to be allowed or even encouraged by administrators, an issue which should be a serious concern to all of us. Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds based off a discussion at ANI that you may be blocked for a longer period of time to permeant. I am sorry that you are blocked for whatever amount of time, but you are taking it too far and need to cool down. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your (BS), or host you while you share it. The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly implying that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is somehow "BS" and that partisan platform censorship should be allowed? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm implying that Wikipedia is privately-owned, and so administrators, acting as agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, are within their rights to sanction you for breaches of its policies. The rough equivalent to your block would be you throwing someone out of your house for being a Harris supporter who can't shut up and won't change the subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking is that we, as editors and administrators, remain committed to building a free and open encyclopedia which is more or less neutral in tone. Is that really too much to ask for? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the admins are just adhering to policies, which are designed (purposefully or not) to mirror what mainstream media/news outlets are reporting, most of which are obviously partial in one direction. Nothing on this project will change unless that is addressed. I don't really agree with the way you're being treated right now, but of course I have zero scope of influence here. Just offering a little bit of an explanation and support. If I were you, I wouldn't even waste time with this anymore. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do appreciate that. I have no issue with content supported by reliable sources. What I do have a problem with is adopting a non-neutral tone in reporting said content. That is a much bigger violation of Wikipedia's policies than anything which I have been accused of here. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, of that I agree. But the fact that MSNBC is considered "reliable" in green category, is beyond preposterous and sheds light on the composition of the WP community. That's just one example. I'm very much with you on all of this, I just resigned long ago to the fact that this won't change, and it's largely driven me away from supporting this project as a whole, which really sucks. I hope you don't get blocked indefinitely, especially since you've been an active member for eight years. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 18:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled upon this but I agree with Sheriff U3. And I don’t want to dogpile on you but I believe that edit warring and approaching this topic area in this way on Wikipedia is not exactly the most productive avenue to go through, though you may be frustrated. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I understand your argument but you did edit war, which is why you are banned. But I do agree that there are some neutrality issues with the article in question. My suggestion is to let be for now. In a few years the topic will die down and the truth will come out. And sadly it seems that you may have got yourself in more trouble. I would take a break, try to cool down. I have been in your place before, I got a little heated. The topic is still new, it will die down at the next election, cause it will be the "newest thing". User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do appreciate your thoughts, but please do bear in mind that I was banned for removing a "hat" template tag which had been placed on an ongoing discussion. Later my NPOV edits to the article were undone. Is that really how things are supposed to work around here? Sorry, but that is simply indefensible behaviour. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is but not in this manner should it have been done. You should have gained consensus first, then added/removed. And you should not have continued to revert, you should have stopped and talked about it. Personally I am surprised at the fact I am talking to you as I would a new user, and you have been here for 8 years. You should know a lot of what we are talking about. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know, after you've been censored and silenced for years on a platform which claims to be committed to neutral reporting, that can be a rather frustrating experience. Sometimes you have to shout to be heard. It is extremely unfortunate that administrators are not addressing these issues, which is precisely why the problem has become so compounded in the first place. We owe it to ourselves, the project, and indeed the world to ensure that the content on this site conforms to Wikipedia's (once-higher) standards. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is over. If you wish to make an unblock request, do so. Otherwise, no more using your Talk page as a platform to complain about Wikipedia, administrators, left-wing bias, etc. If you persist, I will revoke Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that I am asking is that we uphold ourselves to the standards which Wikipedia was founded on. Can we not work together to improve the project in a more productive manner? Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in upholding yourself to the standards which Wikipedia was founded on, can you explain 6 reversions in less than 12 hours? You can't claim you don't know about WP:3RR, as you were previously sanctioned for violating it. Your behavior, even if you were 100% right everyone else was 100% wrong, was unacceptable. Your block is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this was a "hat" template tag placed on an ongoing discussion, so I completely disagree with your conclusion. Violations of the "letter of the law" should also be so "in spirit". Otherwise we only have what amounts to an arbitrary (mis)application of the rules, do we not? Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you return to the same behavior that resulted in this block, the next block will be considerably longer. There is no excuse for edit warring. You now have three admins (me included) who are telling you that your edit warring was wrong. You are welcome to disagree with our conclusion. You are not welcome to continue the behavior that got you blocked. Are we clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been perfectly clear that I am committed to working with others in a constructive manner. Are you willing to do the same? Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in engaging in meta discussions with you about your editing outside of your edit warring. I am not interested in discussing the merits of your editing or that of people with whom you are in dispute. My point here was to make it clear that your edit warring was completely unacceptable, the block was correct, and if the behavior continued you could expect to be blocked for considerably longer. Since you've acknowledged this, there shouldn't be any issue with expectations about edit warring in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that is your prerogative. Have nice day. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With just barely 400 mainspace edits over eight years -- and less than fifty in the last four -- you'll forgive us for skepticism about your claim to have been silenced and censored here for "years." In a consensus-based environment, the fact of the matter is that sometimes you find yourself on the wrong side of an argument, in which case it's incumbent on you to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "losers" are the one who fail to stand up for what it right. Would I, as an editor, condone partisan drivel if it were directed at, say, Kamala Harris? Absolutely not. That would be a blatant disregard for BLP guidelines. So why are we not doing that here? The lack of reflection is not very encouraging. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned (more than once). TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin discussion

I've started a discussion about your latest edits at WP:ANI#Earl of Arundel, with a suggestion to indefinitely block you. Fram (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Rick hadn't blocked you, I would have. Further, the last time you were blocked you continued to use your user talk page here inappropriately despite warnings. If that behavior happens again, your talk page access will be swiftly revoked. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly surprising, considering that censorship does seem to the modus operandi around here. Sadly, there simply aren't enough good admins around willing to stand up for what is right either. This project is CLEARLY not dedicated to neutrality as it once was, and that is a very unfortunate thing indeed. SHAME ON YOU! Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've once again chosen to refuse to heed the warnings and continue your battleground attempts here on your talk page, I've changed your block to remove talk page access. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rajput, Chetansing; Manjunath, Hariprasad (2024). "Metallic means and Pythagorean triples | Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics". Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]