User talk:Hrannar

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello Hrannar, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Kleinzach 14:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Battle

I HAVE ASKED FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF AND ADMIN IN THE BIO PROJECT. [[1]] In the interest of putting a halt to an "edit war" I would appreciate your not reverting yet again my edits. You are, of course, welcome to weigh in with any additional views on the Kathleen Battle discussion page. Thanks very much. NickInBigD ^(Hey!) 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the commentary on the Kathleen Battle talk page by Opera Project member Voceditenore who agrees that the Gelb opinions you keep inserting are irrelevant. I've removed them yet again. If you want to discuss this, then respond to Voceditenore and other on the discussion page and attempt to build a consensus rather than unilaterally continuing to insert these references. Also, if the citations mentioned by Voceditenore to answers.com, etc. are yours, can you address these? Thanks. NickInBigD ^(Hey!) 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've tried to. His comments apply to the both of us. Have you cited any sources? Have you followed the suggested format of citing a source also? Your comments to me aggressive in that you expect me to follow your requests and ask me to do various things, while seemingly dismissing my views on the matter and trying to come to a middle ground. Hrannar 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might take a look

Hello. Just wondering if you would mind taking a look at a collaborative effort I'm trying to start. Any feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! DxNate 11:40, 23 Nov 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

It really does help and if you could spread the word in any way it would be very helpful. Thanks for helping out! DxNate 11:40, 23 Nov 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kathleen Battle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Battle

Thank your for your email. It's difficult for me to see what's been happening on this page, but edit warring is bad. Anyway I will write something on the Kathleen Battle talk page. Best regards. --Klein zach 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kleinzach. Your help is greatly appreciated.Hrannar (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

A question of archives

Well I'm not sure exactly what you would like to happen. Were you wanting everything restored to the talk page? Did you want to fix your comment on the archive? Once I understand clearly what you would like to happen I can best answer your question. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a restoration of what was moved from the main talk page into the archives. We can move things into the archives once we consensually agree it is useful to move it to archives. Thank you! Hrannar (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

I guess we can talk this out here. My personal preference would be to keep the conversation archived for several reasons:

1. Once archived neither you or I or anyone else can change the conversation.
2. Since this issue is now being discussed on another page, keeping two open conversations is too confusing and too challenging to keep track of.
3. Other editors not aware of the new conversation may choose to interject comments in the old one which may cause problems when trying to work things out in the new conversation. It would be best to discuss everything on one page.
4. Archiving in cases like this is fairly standard practice.

I am of course willing to hear your side of things and counter reasons why the discussion should remain open. For the record, nothing has been altered or removed but directly copy pasted from the talk page. Nrswanson (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe you make some points. I tell you what. Since (1) we clearly disagree, (2) consensus was not asked for nor reached before this move (archving) was done and, (3) I actually make reference to several things on the page that would a) make me a liar and b) confuse people, since they would not see what I discuss, than I will just restore the information. ONCE THE BOTH OF US AGREE THAT THE INFO IS NO LONGER RELEVANT, than we can move it. But in the future, I believe you would want me to reach consensus before doing anything, and I am asking the same of you. In other words, TALK FIRST, before making a major move. I commit to doing the same. Hrannar (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

Ok. But now we have some problems here. We have two open discussions and that is not good.Nrswanson (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by two open discussions? How do we close a discussion? Did this problem exist prior to moving to archives? Hrannar (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Hrannar[reply]

An un-archived discussion on the talk page means that the discussion is still open. This is why we archive on talk pages, to keep a record of concluded discussions. Nothing ever gets deleted. All converations are saved. However, if a discussion is not archived it is assumed that the conversation is still open for further comment. Basically editors will now feel free to continue to talk on the Kathleen Battle talk page, interjecting comments anywhere that they please.This in my view will hinder dialogue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎ because everyone will have to keep track of what's being said in two places instead of just one. Understand? Common practice when moving a conversation to another page is to archive the old discussion with handy links to the archive at the new discussion. This way everything remains on one page. Make sense?Nrswanson (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension idea

An interesting idea but I am afraid that is a violation of wikipedia policy. Talk pages are public forum pages and must remain open for editing. Editors may also choose to bring up issues about this page un-related to the firing and need a place to do it. Archiving is the standard practice here. If you like we can take this to Kleinzach but I think he would agree with me. Also we can simply add a link to the archives at the new discussion page so they can read them easily for comment. Everyone there will understand because most wikipedia editors are used to archives and how they work. Nobody will accuse you of lying or anything like that because the record will be there. Nrswanson (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I left the the talk info for all to see and put a note at the top that discussion has moved to the notice, per YOUR CONCERN that the discussion would take place in two locations. Your taking action (moving everything to archive, after both you and I discussed it) without concensus, seems ironic to me since you suggested at various junctures that I was not acting out of concensus. Furthermore, you have now made several accusations about me on the talk page. Since it seems like a breech of civility, I will consult with an adminstrator.Hrannar (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

Civility

{{helpme}} I am concerned that someone has breeched civility here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Battle&diff=231579325&oldid=231579086; I also believe someone has untimely archived relevant discussions we were in the midst of would like to know what to do. I await responding directly to person or taking action until I get assistance. Thanks in advance for your help.Hrannar (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar}}[reply]

You can try talking to the person or asking an admin. I'm not an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TenPoundHammer! Hrannar (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

Response

Hrannar I have chosen to not participate in this conversation anymore, so please just leave me alone. I archived it because you and I were the only significant participants beyond two mediators who now have nothing to mediate. The conversation is now over and the best place for it is to archive, for the health of the talk page if nothing else. Members can still puruse the archives as they please. I do not take back what I said because I believe it to be true. I will ,however, archive my last statement with the past discussion if you prefer. It really serves no purpose sense the conversation is now over. Go ahead and do what you want with the article. I will not revert or contest anything you do on the talk page or otherwise. I have given up trying to work with you for several reasons. One, you have never for one minute even acknowledged an ounce of validity in any arguement I have made in the last several weeks. 2. You seem to have a vendeta to destroy my credibility in the wiki community by airing my past mistakes, even after I have admitted to them (a long time ago I might add). Repeated attempts to ask you not to do this failed. 3. You have also fought me on several very minor and practical points to the point of high frustration. In short I think you just like to disagree with me now out of spite and I can't work with someone like that.Nrswanson (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I lost you there Hrannar. What request for help? I never saw one.Nrswanson (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrannar you can't instruct suspension on a talk page. That is against wikipedia policy. I already explained that. The only viable solution was to archive. This is once again a small and obvious point that you fight me over. Any administrator will back me up on this. Any responsible editor would have removed it. I have already explained this to you.Nrswanson (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right, nrswanson, on your assertions of me as an editor. I will try to do better and am now excited to get to focusing on the content. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

question re contacting admin

{{helpme}} I was advised to contact an administrator about breech in civility. I tried looking around, but I simply don't know where to begin. How do I contact an administrator in this case. Hrannar (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

To gain an administrator's attention, leave a message at either WP:ANI or WP:AN ——RyanLupin • (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your recent edits at the article on Kathleen Battle. I was simply going to warn you at first until I noticed that this is not a new thing for you (see warning above on this talk page).Inmysolitude (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask users to investigate for themselves inmysolitudes allegation against me. First, please go the Kathleen Battle discussion page and judge for yourself that level of integrity and adherance to wikipedia protocol being followed by the parties involved. And recall, anyone can "report" anything. Also, consider the source of the person reporting my edit warring. Allegedely Inmysolitude is a new wiki contributor, became a member in Mid March of this year. And already, in less than a month, has had himself blocked for "disruptive behavior which includes behavior like vandalism and personal attacks." (You will not see it if you click on his talk page. You have to click on the Archive 1 link.) Seems suspect. Contentr usually archived if the content is too long or is old. Hrannar (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Kathleen Battle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|My being blocked does not necessarily prevent damage or disruption. I actually asked that an adminsitrator get involved, but I didn't know how to do it. May I please ask that you look at the discussion page of this and see what has happened? The user who has invoked, requested the block, seems a little suspect. In fact, if you look at the archives of his talk page, in just a short amount of time, he has already gotten himself blocked for "disruptive edits." Secondly, it is a little suspicious that this newly registered member (since mid march around the time that I began editing the Kathleen Battle page again) is acting like a seasoned wikipedia contributor, warning another member of edit warring, when they have only been a member since around March 16? Their chastising me seems extremely random. Didn't they see nrswanson changing my changes. Perhaps nrswanson didn't use the "undo" key, but essentially, the action was identical. Or Eudemis not responding to my calls to discussion his addition first on the discussion page, like wikipedia protocol suggestions. I am doing my earnest to follow protocol and would ask the same of other contributors. I am only editing out a single sentence that is clearly questionable. Again, please see the current discussion, and even archives to see my civility and cooperativeness official wikipedia moderators, whereas other contributors seem angry and uncooperative. Thanks so much for you assistance with this. I am wondering if the person who reported me might be the same individual as nrswanson. Thanks for your consideration.}}

I am willing to unblock you under these conditions:

1. You agree to cease edit warring and continually reverting on Kathleen Battle;

2. You discuss any further controversial changes on the articles talk page.

Tiptoety ^talk 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Ok. I do. Tiptoety. Did you happen to see the discussion page. It was actually Eudemis who introduced the controversial change, and I asked that if he would agree to first discuss, but he has not responded. I am unsure what to do, since he doesn't respond. Hrannar (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the above agreement. Be warned that any further edit warring will result in another block.

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks you very much. I understand. Hrannar (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

Comment

Hrannar, as I commented above, you have been warned about editing on this page in the past. (a fact I am only aware of by looking at your talk page) This is why I reported you. Second, you did edit war by making five reverts. Third, I have no vested interest in the Kathleen Battle page which I have never contributed to. Fourth, I have also warned the anon IP and user:nrswanson for their behavior. Since neither of them technically broke the 3RR rule I did not report them. Finally, I don't appriciate being accused of something by an editor I have absolutely no history with.Inmysolitude (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inmysolitude - You mentioned that you have "no vested interest in the Kathleen Battle page" and have "never contributed to" it. Why would a contributor just check the history of a page? Just curious to understand. Hrannar (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

I like Miss Battle and her article happens to be on my watchlist (I often add interesting articles to my list that I haven't personally edited). I am not particularly knowledgable about her (or opera for that matter) so I am honestly not that likely to add to what is already a very thorough article obviously made by editors who know more on the subject than I do. I noticed when her article kept cropping up with "revert" and "restored" etc. when viewing my watchlist. That kind of thing puts up red flags. I wasn't singling you out personally. It seems like editors more aware of your situation have things well in hand. Best wishes with your editing and I hope your conflict resolves soon with a satisfactory solution.Inmysolitude (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the Kathleen Battle controversy. I'd just drafted a message asking everyone to support a one week moratorium on the issue, when I discovered that Hrannar had been blocked. In my view he was provoked.

The anon IP 98.26.92.151 appears to be Eudemis, see [2] and [3]. This user has been involving in editing the article since 8 March, see [4].

I suggest Hrannar be given a warning and unblocked. --Klein zach 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to unblocking, please see the section above. Thank for your comments, Tiptoety ^talk 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply to question

At one of the sockpuppet investigations you asked "this was an revert, but doesn't use the undo, since Nrswanson would be highly familiar with the edit rule, given his level of knowledge. Is this not, on some level, gaming the system?" - how the article was returned to a previous state, whether by the "undo" or by manual adding/subtracting of material, is irrel. What matters is the actual state of the article. So the answer to your stated question is, "No, not using the 'undo' function is not considered "gaming the system"" but the answer to what you really wanted to know is "Yes, whatever method of editing changed one content version to a previous version is used to calculate whether 3RR has been violated." -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, is this you?

Can you confirm that you sometimes forget to sign in and edit from this IP? [5] Thank you! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my answer on red doom's page. Hrannar (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar[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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]