User talk:Objective3000

R      E      T      I      R      E      D   ish

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia This user has left the building.

.

Note

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Objective3000_2. If that's not what you want right now please say so and I'll strike/withdraw it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please return

This all sucks. It's a real clusterfuck of misunderstandings. Please return. Taking a short pause from the Trump arena might be good, but you are needed elsewhere. --Valjean (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, O3000. Best wishes, starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. As someone once said: "it is what it is". Or was it: "there are good people on both sides". O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Over these past 15+ years. I've been banned for a 'year', been through 2 topic-bans & due to my dedication to Wikipedia (which requires hours in a chair) been through three bouts of hemorrhoids, but have never retired. So don't you retire. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm honored that an editor who has sacrificed his ass to the cause has visited my page. Sitting at my PC too much, with a sharp edge at the front of the chair, once bruised my sciatic nerve causing my left foot to flop for weeks. Switched chairs and damaged a transverse nerve. Obviously, chairs are evil. I'm going to remain retired. WP is a magnificent project. But, it has problems in the political arena. Something wicked this way comes, and the problems here prevent adequate reaction time to handle the Stormfront heading our way. Interesting discussion here: [1]. Rgds, O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 closed and archived

The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thank you. But, I'm, no longer here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean.. You are right there... PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The word "right" has almost as many meanings as the word "here". O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed, especially as you were likely not following closely the discussion. Hope all is well. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

miss you, like you, see also - why do we loose the good ones? - I liked last year's quote: "you realize there are no answers, just stories" especially. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Stories are of such value. Answers are only good as a start -- not an end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I hope this means you're coming out of retirement! :) Rray (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I just don't see a reason to put up with the nastiness and cliques. I put in the request for page protection after seeing you put up with behavior that clearly wasn't about to end on its own. It brought discussion to the TP where it belongs -- if you can call it discussion. After a few weeks of being blamed for everything but the Defenestrations of Prague, I thought I'd add what I thought was demonstration of what happens when you exaggerate a point with walls of text. I meant to thank you for the work you've been performing lately on the articles. The improvements are certainly worthwhile. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've been semi-retired from the Wikipedia myself until recently, and the language had gotten a little unwieldy on some of these pages. Rray (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Aabcxyz (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaand I've closed that discussion and blocked the filer. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I got an EC responding to the COIN filing and didn't bother to respond. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I was all set to interject in the RSN discussion that checkuser would not be useful here since none of the older Drlesmgolden accounts have edited lately, but a friendly neighborhood checkuser proved me wrong - Aabcxyz is  Confirmed to Drlesmgolden per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drlesmgolden. Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to put up with this latest sock's nonsense for over a year. GeneralNotability (talk) GeneralNotability (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just saw it. He's lived in the same place for a thousand years.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is funny. After claiming that I am not an acceptable source, he violated copyright by taking a great deal of work from one of my sites and copying it to another article in a small encyclopedia praising himself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Booo hisss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your non admin close to save Thinker78 from a well-deserived boomerang block is not a valid reason to do a nonadmin close, IMO. And this is especially true given your "retired" template at the top of this page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

PS.... OMG, I just realized you're an involved ed. You should avoid non-admin closes where you are involved like the plague. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• He wouldn't have been boomed unless he pressed far, far harder -- which he wouldn't have been able to do; as an admin would have closed before it got to that point. If you wanted him to get boomed, you could have advised he go to ANI, which would have been slightly closer to a correct forum. But even there, he wouldn't have received a boom without first making this into a bad habit. In any case, my NACs have usually been designed simply to save editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

<snort> NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrt babbling

babble: to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds (Merriam-Webster)
babble: talk or speech that has no meaning (Cambridge)

Your gratuituous mention of Hitler, with immediate false disclaimer that it wasn't Godwin, and your anti-Trump rant, were both intelligible and had meaning, but inappropriate and off-topic, and thus meaningless on the Joe Biden talk page. YoPienso (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Both of my examples were exactly on point, contained no falsities, most certainly nothing approaching rants, and not babble to anyone who understands simple sentence structure, debate, and logic. Do not post here again until you understand WP:CIV WP:NPA and how you have violated these policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is Jackson Sinnenberg and why are you going to a local TV station?

In the edit summary when you deleted my edit at Twitter Files tonight, you asked 2 questions. The story was on a CBS affiliate's night desk, and Jackson Sinnenberg was the byline.Kmccook (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I know that. But, only person I can find with that name is a jazz person and this is a local station. Why would you add this to such a controversial article under discretionary sanctions? You need a better source for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Your objection to my screen name

How is stating a fact offensive?23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk • contribs)

Are you actually claiming that no one will be offended by that name? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

The Jurassic era is starting to look good. Not sure the Holocene era will last as long. But, until we master time, we must do the best to enjoy our current location in whatever time is. As Mamet wrote: “Everybody makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, it isn't fun. It's entertainment.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP pages

Thought you were retired? suppose the template tricked me. Anyways, concerning the Trump page? I certainly wish to be proven wrong. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not easy to find good things to say about him. And, I'm talking about his life from his teen years on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect many sources which come up with good things about him, have been deemed as mostly non-reliable. While many sources which come up with negative things about him, have been deemed as mostly reliable. I'm no fan of the 45th US president, as I consider him to be a demagogue. But, I must not let my personal views about him, cloud my judgement when it comes to NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with personal views. And no one is deeming sources as reliable or unreliable due to one person. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

you mentioned stories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Looked at your stories. I'll require another lifetime to catch up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

You said that I deleted a post after it received a response. Not true. Here's the edit. After an edit conflict with you in the prior edit, I first took the text I had tried to update my prior comment with and turned it in a response to you. But, then, I decided that extending the conversation would not be productive, so I just updated my original post, and I pinged you in case you would want to update your reply. In other words, I posted a reply, but before you responded to that reply, I deleted it and incorporated it into my prior response, properly tagging it as an "update". You did not reply to my comment before I deleted it. Accuracy matters.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You are updating text after a response. You are leaving bad edit summaries about other editors. You make snide remarks. You make false characterizations about other editors posts. It's like you came to WP with a permanent chip on your shoulder. And this is the third EC I have run into trying to respond to you in the last 15 minutes. Before you accuse someone of RGW, look at your own behavior. Seriously, this is not conducive to collaboration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You are updating text after a response. That's not what you accused me of doing. And for someone who just made a false accusation, "you make incorrect false characterizations" is a rich claim. Yes, I updated my post ... I marked the post as updated, and I even sent you a courtesy ping you to alert you to the update. You responded by falsely saying that I had deleted a post after you responded to it.

Finally, I said your argument—let's censor information so we can push back against the narrative promoted by this Fox push alert-struck me as a RGW argument. You seem to have taken that oddly personally, but I didn't intend it as such.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My argument was not to censor anything. My argument was not a response to Fox. This is not personal. More false characterizations. You seem to always look for the worst case scenario. And this is now four ECs I've run into. If you have something to say somewhere, think it out first so you won't run into these situations. Do not post here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You specifically invoked Fox ... you're literally arguing that we shouldn't include the rape finding so that people don't think the sexual-abuse finding isn't serious.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It was an example of what not to do in an encyclopedia, not a push back against Fox. And that wasn't my argument about mention of rape. Please try to understand what people say instead of assuming the worst. Just --- stop. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Jerome Frank Disciple, you need to stop the confusing practice of updating posts that have been responded to, as you did here. Without even adding a new timestamp, I might add; what chance does a reader have to see whether your "update" comes before or after Objective's post below? It's impossible to figure out the chronology without studying the page history. Please follow standard practice: add new posts chronologically below previous posts and date them. (Incidentally, I see you have already once ignored Objective's request not to post here again, which is considered very rude on this website. Don't let me draw you into posting here again; feel free to come to my page if you have something to say to me.) Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC).

Bain-marie vs. double boiler

It's so exciting to find someone who speaks your language. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Very fond of île flottante. But, I've switched to making Pavlovas. I like the texture differences. Crispy on the outside, fluffy on the inside, and top it with Cool Whip (no need for all the fat in whipped cream) for a delicate flourish -- then same raspberries. Or, you can crush some oreos and put them in the meringue to annoy the purists. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool Whip is already annoying the purists. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I was thinking that as I typed it. Better than annoying my doctor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That reminds me of a Zakarian recipe that came up when I searched for rhubarb upside down cake. All good, then I got to the part where it said "step 3, prepare the cake mix according to the instructions on the box..." Not good. Anyway, coolwhippe is likely worse for you than a little whipped cream, or yogurt. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

OMG. I mean, I get it...there's a reason people don't make cakes from scratch any more. Box cakes are a really good base because of all the chemical helps. But still. If I were Jeffrey Zakarian I'd be embarrassed to call myself a chef. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, speaking of Trump legal suits, as we currently are on his page, Trump sued Zakarian for $10 million after he withdrew from a restaurant at Trump's DC Hotel because of the things Trump said about immigrants. (Sorry to stoop to politics.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Last cake I made was a chocolate ganache cake. Can't use a box or avoid cream with that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Coconut fat/chocolate ganache is not bad. I'm pretty sure there's no heavy cream in a Hostess Cupcake. Zakarian had a couple of great NY restaurants in the 90's 00's. Doubt he would have saved the DC hotel however. The secret to upside down cake, btw, is to roast the fruit(s) in the cakepan with some honey and tapioca starch for about 1/2 hour before adding the batter. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wondering if the Cool Whip is why I'm growing gills. Well, may become useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like something gluten-free lol... Valereee (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I live in Manhattan, but I love international country food, particularly French and Asian. If we have guests, my favorites are bourguignon, which I did last week, cassoulet, and nasi goreng. (Of course, even famous chefs like pomme frites.) Nasi goreng is interesting. I think it began as a breakfast meal based on whatever was left over – hence the fried rice. First time I had it was in Kuala Lumpur. So impressed had it for three days straight. Cassoulet also originally depended on what was available. I used to go by recipes. Sorta/kinda still do. But, have to make changes according to what works for whom you serve. And, experimentation is valuable.

My wife makes a big deal about my food and I keep insisting she stop. I ain’t a chef. I just adore food, and it's easier than some work. And cooking is cheaper than going to places like Le Bernardin (heaven on Earth).

The biggest loss to the culinary field was the suicide of Bourdain. He didn’t have a cooking show. He went places and talked their history, their present, their maybe future. He talked to their food: Why it was what it was and its purpose and relationship to their community. It should be required viewing. (Before all the books are banned.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You have excellent taste, and I agree Le Bernardin (along with the original Jean Georges) is unsurpassed for purity and elegance. But we now know that eating animals is not good for you and certainly not for the animal, so after the seafood, you're left only with the rice. Fortunately, all the world's healthy foods are available at the stops on the #7 line, so there's no need to bother with airports, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Jean Georges' restaurant Vong opened in the early '90s in the lipstick building. French-Thai fusion. It was directly across the street from my office. Fortunately, I had a large expense account at the time. On getting away from meats, asparagus is in season. NYTimes has a full page on it today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Vong was classic. Those of us with West Side offices had Michael's and 21 for lunch with the usual suspects for dinner. At that time the old guard was fading and many top places closed since then. But today, there are 10x the number of places at 10x the price. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

Before directing me to SECTIONHEADINGOWN, it would probably have been wise for you to review it first. Especially, the sentence that says: "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." You failed to do that and I stand by my revert. I don't own my headings, but you don't either. But if I inadvertently reverted your other comment(s) as well, I won't object to you restoring it. X4n6 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@X4n6: No, I never edit war. You must restore my TP post. Also, you demanded your consent (ownership) for removal of the strongly negative term "whitewash" in a section header. A clear violation of WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN and WP:TALKHEADPOV and WP:PA and WP:AGF as well. Why would you restore such violations that I cleaned up for you? Look up the etymology of this term from 1762. As I said, you would do well to self-revert before someone less kind notices. Late for me and I enjoyed a good dinner. I'll see if you have acted properly in the morning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Curiously, you keep demanding that I read this or do that. I'd rather just continue to bring the receipts. I can buy your unsupported, unsourced word-origin claims re: the term "whitewash" - or I can just post 3 dictionary definitions, all of which indicate, very clearly, that it is the exactly correct word to accurately describe what some editors are attempting with the content on that BLP. You also claimed you never revert, yet you "reverted" my heading, without either discussion or my consent. Which is why we're even here. But then again, you're also supposedly "retired." Just shows there are many words that we understand very differently. X4n6 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not say I never revert. Anyhow, it was two other editors that reverted you while I slept, a total of three times. Do not post here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor received a block. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Paraphrasing vs. plagiarizing

I stumbled across a two-sentence passage in Ron DeSantis that was pretty much copied from Encyclopedia Britannica and posted a question at the Teahouse about the line between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. A fairly new editor posted this answer. I'm trying to parse "essentially the same with but rephrased in certain areas" in terms of acceptable or not. I've also been under the impression that we shouldn't be using Britannica for cites. Could you take a look at my comment on the Ron DeSantis talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, problematic for multiple reasons. Responded there. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Herbert

I love his backstory on the Orange Catholic Bible, in short made to bring all religions together in peace, and caused the worst religious wars anyone had ever seen. It's so plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, more like fission than fusion. But both create heat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Google Herbert and all you see is Dune -- which turned into a movie he hated. I thought it was OK given the difficulty in fitting in all the explanation, and read the first three books. But, his earlier books I thoroughly enjoyed. At least I must have because I'm not a reader and read them anyhow. I seem to remember one where it started, or a chapter started, with monks creating a new god. The text saying you never know when you create a new god just what you will end up worshiping. I found the concepts refreshing, along with his early concentration on ecology in multiple books. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And if you google "sand worm" you see "his" sand worm. I don't recall the story with the monks, but I re-read the original Dune-books a few years ago. I liked that in God Emperor, perhaps 20 000 years or so from now, at least one person is still quoting Shakespeare. Also read some of the post Frank Herbert novels, IMO not at all as good as Herbert Sr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Read Whipping Star when it came out. Reread it once sitting at a St. Martin beach. That was long ago and still not sure what it was about. Sort of like talking to ChatGPT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Trout

With regards to your comment: sorry, but I have been told templating regulars is naughty. You can have a cookie if you apologise to Jack4576 for assuming bad faith. Politrukki (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not much of a regular these days. And no, not considering his history and the gall of creating a biography of an innocent, 4-year-old girl essentially saying bad things. What the hell was he thinking? Her fault I suppose for poorly choosing her time and circumstance of birth. In any case, you also said I should be trouted for invoking G10 in the nomination. Only, the closing admin specifically cited G10 for the delete close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, we have Wikipedia:Don't template the retirees, but I don't think it suits well. I disagree with closing rationale that G10 applies, but I would rather accept that per IAR than eat sour lemons. Politrukki (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Anything involving politics in the US over the last decade starts a food fight. And over the last decade, anything involving religion, guns, children, sexuality, race, immigration, vaccines, climate change, science in general, now books, and next the pattern on your tie (apologies to the Yardbirds) has become political. The Thanksgiving family dinner has become an uncomfortable event for many. Of course this has affected Wikipedia. As I say on my user page, “Only a fool or a masochist would edit Wikipedia controversial articles. I prefer to think of myself as a fool."

There is a reason for the wording I used in the AfD, and why I moved G10 to the start of the list, and possibly why an admin was able to speedy delete. My wording was not about bad faith or motivation. It was about the dangers of perception. Perception is not reality. But, the effects of perception are real. The World has become a nasty place. Many folks seem to be looking for reasons to become yet more nasty. Doesn’t take much. (Fox hosts find hours of nastiness to express every day.) This girl, who thankfully is below the age most folks learn to read, is caught in the never-ending search for mud to sling. The reality is that her life will be affected. And it can be more affected by supplying more material which many folk will perceive negatively. Not our job to supply such. The scandal sheets will fade away. But, an encyclopedia probably won’t. In any case, no one !voted keep. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Poltrukki, please give a link to where agent 3000 templates a regular? SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Pot was referring to a comment I made, now in the Talk Page of the AfD close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Politrukki (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

About Trump

I would like to make it clear that I was not disagreing with you in any way. I agree with all the points you made. I just didn't like the way you said things. That's all. I understood that you were speaking sarcastically, but that was my entire issue with what you were saying.

Also, I only used the quotes from your user page in irony. Cessaune [talk] 04:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Man is invited to a monthly dinner party by a friend. It's his first visit. They sit at the table and each guest is handed a list of numbered jokes. Someone says #14, and they all laugh. Another says #8, and they all laugh. The man asks his friend what's going on. He replies that if you like a joke, just say its number. Man says #12. No one laughs. Bewildered, he asks his friend again. Friend says: "It's not what you said. It's the way you said it." O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Read dummy edit

I made a dummy edit in the conspiracy theory page because the other editor was disparaging my edits. Therefore, it was only fitting to clarify things in the same place where the disparagement was being made. I don't intend to hold discussions with edit summaries though. Read Help:Dummy edit. I am assuming good faith that you will understand instead of being a completely biased editor. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What you did was obvious. Which is why I advised you do otherwise as it invites a discussion via edit summary. I have no idea what this has to do with being "completely biased". O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Adam Schiff - You took down my edit saying you didn't see the comment in the citation. It is at 5:21 in the CNN Youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerseusMeredith (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The video does not state it was false. Maybe it was, but this is not a valid cite for Shiff making a false statement as it doesn't say anything like that. You can take this to the article talk page. This is not the correct place. WP:OR O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM

I'm not going to revert you here, but that's more of a meta issue than an issue with this article in particular. I generally agree with the point you're making, but Wikipedia gonna Wikipedia, and breaking news articles will always exist. Maybe self-revert and start a discussion at the village pump, perhaps? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I understand but respectfully disagree. Yes, recentism is a meta issue; so much that I have stopped linking to the essay. Read the Talk Page. My attempt was not to be forumy. It was to slow the rush to draw conclusions and acceptance of moment to moment info in a particular case where danger lurks. Much of what has been added may very well be found incorrect within days. It needs to be said on that particular TP, IMHO. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think that talk page finger wagging is going to be effective. What's happening there is the same that happens on every breaking news article. No worries, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it won't be effective. But, I thought it ought be said nonetheless. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You know I have great respect for you and appreciation for your good work as an editor O3000, though I agree with SFR on this one. See ya around, though. Andre🚐 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and understood. My senses tell me the subject of this article is about more than another spat. I feel it could lead to serious repercussions in worldwide economics, concepts of democracy, the place of religion, corruption, and caste systems. Now that is forumy; and I would never consider adding that to an article or even an ATP without RS. Problem is, we have so little actual information. Yes, folks are quoting RS. But RS are just reporting what governments are telling them. And the main source is a government under heavy protest for the last nine months (which this incident conveniently paused). As SFR says, this is a general problem at WP. But, this specific instantiation I find particularly troublesome. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just an aggregator of RS opinion. Wikipedia will contain errors, omissions, hyperbole, incendiary material and all manner of other rubbish so long as RS do. There's no sense in trying to prevent the article from forming, but we can certainly try to keep it sane. If RS treat it differently in the future, so will the article. Andre🚐 02:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Should have left it for the irony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't irony ironic? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought about it, or about leaving something snarky in the edit summary. Andre🚐 02:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries are like newspaper article titles. You can't always trust them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not a meta-issue. It was an instance of a general content issue. In that respect, it was typical of most talk page topics. And it's hard to see NOTFORUM when O3000 was addressing editorial concerns, not any opinion as to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Andy Ngo edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

O3000, would you please self revert your Andy Ngo edit? The summary material is disputed and your edit violates the consensus required rule, "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Springee (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk to the two admins on the TP who appear to be OK with it. My aim, as is quite common, is to save editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Springee, can you show the discussion in the talk page which established consensus for the short description? My search yielded no results. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The long term stable description is the default. Given "journalist" had consensus in the past it is the default. Springee (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Springee nope, there is no consensus. A search determines that. Short descriptions should follow the opening sentence. This has been confirmed by two admins in the discussion in talk. To argue otherwise is ridiculous, unless you have a specific Wikipedia policy that says so. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel at war page?

Do you know what the big revdel was on the talk page and which Admin? SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap. No idea. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was Primfac. And probably a good move. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. That's not even revdel'd, it's actually oversighted, meaning admins can't read it either. Bishonen | tålk 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC).

That page could use some WP:TNT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a very unfortunate situation. I removed it several times from my watchlist, but I keep peeking and getting reengaged. Among other things, 1RR can't function as intended on a new article where every edit is a revert except for the loads of news flash, coatrack, unverified or other bad content added either for POV or simply by editors without the experience needed to work on such a page. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR is certainly a problem when there are a large number of brandy new editors adding breaking news and opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Now I've been brought to ANI by one of the more enthusiastic editors, so I may soon be out of my misery on that page. The good news is that the page is not getting as many page views as some of our other articles that provide background and context. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually retired?

I noticed the retired template and you wrote "The user has left the building". Unfortunately the template is categorizing you in retired Wikipedians. I notice the retired template does not have the option to turn off categorization. But aren't you supposed to remove the retired template if you return to Wikipedia? Awesome Aasim 00:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have retired from editing mainspace other than dealing with vandalism, SPAM, violations, and minor changes to hopefully reduce wasted editor time. I returned to talk pages when the US government and social media went batty in a quixotic attempt to reduce conspiratorial idiocy and rampant disinformation. Quite a few admins know that I am editing with this template. I even have "Ret." after my username in posts -- although that's actually a Monty Python ref. Anyhow, who cares what the category includes? If it really matters, I'll manually remove the categorization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed my username from Category:Retired Wikipedians. But kept the notice at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hope you're cool with me sliding into your talk page. Just wanted to give you a heads up – your recent comment, some folks thought it was a bit out there, like a "bizarre accusation". Someone else even mentioned it seemed like you were accusing editors of Islamophobia. I know you've got the Wikipedia civility guidelines locked in, and personally, I don't see it as a personal attack either, but it might be wise to tread lightly, especially when you're chatting about those hot-button topics. Stay good and live long and prosper! Infinity Knight (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that editors have violated WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Hardly unusual in CTOP article TPs. I have made no such accusations. You will also find that some editors, unable to debate what was said, will instead present straw man arguments. A massive amount of work went into the creation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I think they were brilliantly conceived. In normal circumstances, I have little to worry about as I respect those policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I know you've got the scoop on the rules. Are you saying you're cool with your diff, and everyone else who commented was off base? I wouldn't say it's that simple. Your current stance doesn't quite communicate your point effectively. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone else, no. Some, yes. WP:NPOV is difficult when most who enter have very strong opinions. If one is trying to push a POV, they tend to think anyone who disagrees has an strong opposite POV. It's like political articles or politics in real life. Many on the far-right or far-left think anyone in the center must be far-left or far-right. Everything is relative. The Arab-Israeli articles or worse than the modern politics articles. Interestingly, the religious articles are calm. The folks that edit these articles, no matter their personal beliefs, generally are interested in the history and are not single-minded in their approach. You simply have to deal with the occasional IP who comes in and insists on adding "The Truth". I always thought the truth a silly concept that interfers with progreess. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone else, no. Some, yes? So, you're kind of laying the blame on other editors and not giving a nod to any slip-ups on your end? Doesn't that feel like you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply following policies and guidelines, including WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I believe I have made exactly one of the last 2,000 edits to the article which was noncontroversial. The diff that you don't like did led to an improvement to the article. If someone has a problem with my TP edits, they can take it to WP:AE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See here. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A suggestion for the article talk page

It's not for me to instruct you how to use an article talk page, which you are very experienced at. But if I could make a suggestion that might help me and other editors who are making changes: I find it easier to respond to edit requests or suggestions when the bottom line is up front—i.e., what specific change to the page you are suggesting. I apologize for saying you were "hung up" on the word count on the page, which was an unnecessary jab. What I should have said was that I was unable to tell if your main concern was the amount of repetition of the specific words you highlighted, or the discussion of the topic altogether. You did make a compelling case that the amount of discussion of the topic should be reduced significantly in the article. I just didn't understand what the request was until after we had our back-and-forth. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well put and I'll take the advice. And I thank you for your article changes. I always thought AP2 was problematic. A-I is a nightmare worthy of Halloween and I think you see fewer admins taking part as it is such a morass. Neutrality has been defenestrated. I don't know that there is an overall solution now that we allow articles on breaking news on subjects where disinformation exists on all sides. I think there is a current discussion at WP:NOTNEWS or thereabouts. Again, thanks for your contributions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Option to omit subordinate sections on edit

FYI, see this.

Btw, when do you plan to change your banner to "semi-retired"? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to leave. The banner isn't a real template. It's fake so that I am not placed in the retired category. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The project would suffer, but one's life choices are more important. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, and I'm glad you are in the fray. Only reason I'm here now is I feel a tipping point. Multiple tipping points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dec 23

I warned them I have to warn you, you are bludgeoning the coverrsation at lab leak. Drop it now. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made a total of four responses to two editors, one an IP SPA with 21 responses and a clear WP:CIR problem. That's not close to bludgeeoning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I think I got you confused with someone else. But it really does need to be dropped now. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No prob. I'm too lazy to bludgeon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert

I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I sincerely thank you for that revert. I can't even imagine what it might have been, and don't want to know. I've been subjected to a few "untoward" comments over the past decade. I just want you to know that I truly and sincerely wish you a healthy and prosperous New Year. It is hard to believe 2024 is here and now. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I won't say what was in the edit. I'll just repeat what is on my UP: "Gender: Male. Not something I’m particularly proud of. Humans are not known for rapid evolution; as is most obvious by observing the male of the species in his habitat." Have a happy, happy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

today's story is as last years, to help you to catch up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Catching up is hard to do. Down dooby doo down down. Oh wait, Neil Sedaka sang Breaking up is hard to do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

look at images, perhaps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Not constructive" (1210862630)

like, bruh... don't dismiss comments for no reason. at least give reasons for the article saying that. 2600:1700:BA02:36E0:3C12:A2F7:67F0:60EC (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't say what article and you are using a different IP address. I assume you mean an edit on the Jesus article from three weeks ago. That edit was:

not most christians believe he was the incarnation of god the son and the messiah (christ literally means messiah so there's no way you're a christian if you deny that), ALL christians believe that. I get wikipedia is secular and atheist and hates all religion, but if someone doesn't believe this, he or she isn't a christian

First, statements claiming Wikipedia hates all religions are certainly not constructive. Secondly, there are Christians who believe in the teachings of Jesus, but do not believe Jesus was a god. See Nontrinitarianism. You don't get to tell these people they are not Christian because they don't share all of your beliefs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)