User talk:Signedzzz

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Dilling

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elizabeth Dilling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Not in ref"

What do you mean by "not in ref"? Did you mean that the text I added don't match with the ref?

And remember that we have also pending discussions to which you must participate; I don't know why you fail to do you while being still active in the very same article.

Urutine32 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Dilling

The article Elizabeth Dilling you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elizabeth Dilling for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Dilling

The article Elizabeth Dilling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elizabeth Dilling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Dilling

On 12 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Dilling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that right-wing writer and activist Elizabeth Dilling claimed that Einstein was a Communist and Hitler was a Jew? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Dilling. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth Dilling), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk � contribs) 12:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Signedzzz reported by User:Pincrete (Result: ). This complaint might be closed with no action if you restore the RfC and leave it up to others to decide what do do with it. Otherwise, the normal procedure calls for a block for edit warring. Your belief that the RfC is in bad faith does not create an exception under WP:3RRNO, so all your removals are counted against 3RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. [1] zzz (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Juding from the thread at WP:AN3 which is still open, there are continuing problems at Elizabeth Dilling. I am starting to doubt your good faith in this dispute. For some reason there is now a second concern about your edits which is now being presented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and failure to collaborate in capital punishment. This is starting to suggest to me that the problem is with your editing and not with what the others are doing. Can you explain why you should not be blocked for long-term edit warring at Elizabeth Dilling? To avoid that, I suggest agreeing to take a break from Elizabeth Dilling and from the topic of capital punishment for at least a month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston So you want to terminate my participation on this website because of 2 complaints that you haven't bothered to look into, is that correct? zzz (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you are preventing all further progress on the Elizabeth Dilling article. My mention of the capital punishment business is to show that your edits have been getting unfavorable attention at ANI on more than one article, for whatever reason. The common element might be your temporary inability to negotiate. By stepping back from one or both articles, I suggest you will be allowing progress to continue, without much loss to yourself. And with an improvement of your reputation as a benefit. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You already probably know some of this, but I'll repeat it anyway: at Elizabeth Dilling, a user tried to rwerite the article while it was on the Main page, I reverted (after the mistakes remained up for 4 hours). She immediately retaliated by announcing in a RFC that the GA article needed to be redone and that no one should bother trying to discuss anything with me about it. Initially, nothing was discussed with me, therefore, but now finally the changes are being discussed. I reverted yesterday, because the user added back a factual error that I had already pointed out, as I stated in my edit summary. And discussion had actually started on talk (for one day). What is "long-term edit-warring" about that? How about you block them instead?

At Capital Punishment, I have been removing edits like the two I have put at ANI. The first one of those, which basically amounts to a hoax, was in the article for months before I went through the article history examining the user's edits (they recently tried to restore it again ), or it would still be there now, along with their many other POV distortions, (you'd think I would get thanked for that tedious and unpleasant volunteer work, but no, this is what happens instead). The user saw the other complaint and thought that he could get rid of me by means of a spurious complaint on ANI - "personal attacks", because I stated, two times, that his edits could probably get him banned from editing, which, the evidence shows, is an obvious fact. He thought some admin would notice 2 complaints about the same user and assume I must therefore be a problem. The last time he reported me for edit warring, a few weeks ago, he got blocked for disruption and editwarring instead. Presumably you would count that against me as well though, since it's another complaint?

You suggest my "reputation" may improve by admitting wrong-doing by disrupting their actions, and promising to stay out of their way in future, "allowing progress to continue"..."your temporary inability to negotiate." It's not clear what you could possibly mean by any of that, unless it is meant as some sort of a joke or insinuation. You are not even claiming to know anything about what happened at either article. What is the point in ANI, ARBCOM, AN, etc., if at the end of the day you can just be quietly removed at any point by any admin, with no discussion, based on some vague hearsay - or whatever your reason for this is? What is your reason for this? I reverted a "veteran editor" who was treating Wikipedia's Main Page like their personal property; is there anything else? I reverted them again, a couple of days later, when they added one of the same mistakes back (after I had explained why it was a mistake, and she had not responded). That is the reason, as far as I can see from what you have written here. zzz (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"By stepping back from one or both articles" - obviously I have no problem stepping back from the Capital punishment topic area, someone else can deal with it, fine by me. Whether I am allowed to edit the other article or not makes no difference now anyway. Obviously Ive got no intention to write any more, so it makes no difference whether you block the account or not. zzz (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious

Operation Onymous

Thank you for quality article such as Elizabeth Dilling, Operation Onymous and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, for copy-editing, for explaining even in an edit summary, and for "I believe it is more fun than doing nothing", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)