Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4

.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael blocked O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

(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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI, see this.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First of all, I hope all is well with you. Apparently you've had to endure some bullshit here; I do my best to stay away from the drama boards; had I seen this nonsense when it was taking place, I'd have happily attested to your unimpeachable character (probably a good thing that I missed it all, as a character reference from a no good son of a bitch such as I is unlikely to work in anyone's favor around these parts). I see that you've retired; I hope that your sporadic activity indicates that it's more accurately semi-retirement. Anyway, a friend of mine, having recently returned to the States, following a trip to Curacao, told me he played blackjack there, blackjack that offered early surrender. Now I've heard rumors over the years that early surrender games still exist in far-off remote locations. I've always treated such reports similarly to alleged sightings of living dinosaurs (non-avian dinosaur, that is; obviously anyone who has seen a bird has indeed seen a living dinosaur, but I digress...). Occasionally I've encountered folks who don't understand the difference, and think "early" surrender means "before playing the hand" (I honestly encountered a pit boss who took that position when casino games were first introduced at Philadelphia Park racetrack ("You mean if the dealer has an ace showing I can surrender before he peeks?", I asked, to which she quickly responded, "Oh no, no, not like that."). More often I've encountered folks who are just completely full of shit. However, this came from a long-time friend who does know t he difference, and who's honesty I've always found to be beyond reproach. It's not that I disbelieve his account, but - I don't know exactly how to put it; if my brother told me he encountered a stegosaurus during a stroll through the woods my incredulity would still trump my instinct to believe him. Can you provide any information about this? Are there truly early surrender games still being offered anywhere? I guess the reason I find it so difficult to believe is that unless I'm very wrong, with early surrender, advantage play is possible without card counting. If I'm correct, just playing BS correctly will give the player something like a 0.02% advantage. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, but I think Curacao has no hole card. Which means it may have early surrender vs. ten. The combination is nowhere near as great as surrender, but playable depending on the other rules and penetration. Full ES is indeed rare nowadays. They had it for a time in Vancouver, Kenya, and the South of France. Those Vancouver casinos went under. Nowhere in the US currently. Not like early AC and the golden days of LV. It does pop up now and again. But usually with an offsetting rule or as a brief special where you can't get a seat as the pros quickly fill them.

Then again, I did once see a stegosaurus at AN/I. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: By an odd coincidence, just got an email from Aruba which generally has the same rules at Curacao. He wasn't aware of any surrender rules. That's not definitive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's likely one of those instances in which the casino may have had it at one time but then realized that it was conceding an edge to the players who were paying attention. Blackjack rules in casinos seem almost unrecognizable to me now as compared to years past. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the info. I have indeed played in some of the "European style" BJ, in which surrendering v 10 will play even if the dealer's next card is an ace, but (at least every time I've encountered it) there's no refund given for splits and doubles should the dealer wind up with a natural BJ. I always assumed that offset the minimal benefit of ersatz early surrender - I mean one could split, then (usually) resplit 8's, draw a 3 on each one, then double down to the tune of a 10 each time, and wind up losing six times the original wager, should the dealer get an ace for the second card; Paul Erdos I'm not, so my take on it mathematically may be far from correct, but that's how I've always viewed those games. BTW, am I in fact right that playing perfect BS in an otherwise-normal game of BJ which allows early surrender will indeed result in advantage play for the punter? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ES along with DAS and S17 will give you a small edge. There are four version of no hole card:

Blackjack Wins All - This lousy option means that all split hands and DD bets will be lost if the dealer has Blackjack.

Original Bets & Busted - OBBO means that if you split, the original bet will always be lost and the split hand will be lost if it busts. Double-Down bets are not lost.

Original Bets Only (OBO) - The best version. Only your first bet is lost. DD and Split bets are returned

Busted Bets + 1 (BB+1) - This Australian rule means that you will lose all busted bets, plus one other bet if it exists.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, now that you mention it, I recall reading about those different rules at Herr Shackleford's excellent Wizard of Odds site. Unfortunately, every no-hole-card BJ in which I've played personally has been under the version at the top of your list. Thanks for all of the info! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vast percentage have the dealer BJ wins all rule. Not surprised Shack has them on his site. When he can, he tries out new rules to verify how the dealer deals and pays and spends a huge amount of time creating content. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Killing of Laken Riley.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hello,

I strongly disagree that anything I said was a personal attack. However, in the interest of "burying the hatchet" I repeat my non-contentious questions.

I also abided by your wish in regards to no "pinging," though I am confused by it.

So what is the problem with the "pings?" Is there an etiquette I am not familiar with about them? I am new here, but it seems common courtesy to alert you when I have made a comment or question directly to you. I certainly would want you to do the same, so I have tried to hold myself to that standard. I apologize for using them if you didn't want me to, I just wanted to make sure you saw any communication to you.

The following is a bit of a lighter question. I had hoped to ask you this after we had made peace, because I can see it could be construed as "passive-aggressive," (which is not my intention) but why do you describe yourself retired? Have you recently come back after a long break? I'm genuinely curious. I have wondered about that for a while, but as I said, I didn't want my words to be misinterpreted (and I am not saying that would be intentional on your part). Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer one question. As a major part of my work, I am working on a near intractable math problem related to Kelly Criterion that has never been solved despite several related PhD papers with less than optimal solutions. The numerous pings you have made, despite my numerous demands that you stop, keep interrupting my train of thought which sets back my work.

Now, how many times do I have to tell you to leave me alone? You have harassed me with PAs now on at least five pages for weeks. Never post here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering: Target Userpage, right pane: Mute this user. Please revert me and this whole section if it helps. Happy reading. JFHJr (㊟) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Was looking for such an option and couldn't find it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw some recent tp stuff and thought I would reach out again unsolicited. If someone WP:CANTHEARYOU, refuses to accept explanations, and generally talks/pushes back instead of contributing to and abiding by WP:CONSENSUS, I hope you'll consider just stopping responding (feeding, validating). Someone who denies the existence of a consensus in favor of one's own disagreement is not interested in consensus. Any such someone whose main sidetrack is also to boo-hoo outside WP:ANI (article and user talk pages galore) about others being unfriendly as a result of their own relentless and tendentious POV behavior is not worth anyone's time. Let them go to ANI themselves and eat a boomerang. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't send folks with 500 edits to ANI. If they want to send me, OK with me. Besides, I'm at my quota having already filed against two editors this month. I'd love to ignore this. But it's important that this doesn't become murder. Not calling any editor names. But the extreme attention to this case outside of Wikipedia (e.g. comparisons to George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery where I regularly have to restore the word murder) is 99.44% pure racism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate and resent the unjust and irrational difference in people's literally morbid interests. I'm glad to work with you. Till next time, friend. Happy reading and calculating. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now appears to be hounding me at Johnny Wactor O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you care and I don’t know if this is canvassing, but i’m curious to know what you think and if you want to start another discussion on the talk page for consensus for inclusion. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noticed there is a great deal of rewriting going on, and not an improvement. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP Blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop editing my comments, casting aspersions, and posting on my Talk Page. I very politely asked you to do the above in an article's TP and in response you posted on my TP. This is literally harassment. I am asking, once more, to stop interacting directly with me. You are a very experienced editor who should know better. Feel free to delete this after you have read it. Thank you. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] What the Hell are you talking about? My only post to your talk page was a standard Welcome template despite your many attacks. I have never edited a comment of yours. I will now post to your TP. If you don't like it, you can file a complaint. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) This admin does not see any evidence of Objective3000 editing the IP's comments. The closest was to change the answered= parameter of a header tag, which is not editing the words used by the IP. It could be more easily argued that the IP is harassing Objective3000 than vice-versa. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I have responded on the IP's TP, which they will delete. Just for the record. I'm not taking to ANI at this point per BITE, although the new editor apparently knows that BITE exists. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] I have taken it to ANI. Since they don't want to engage with me, the noticeboard is that way. It could easily have been an ArbEnf board, with their misgendering, except that I don't think they're on notice for contentious topics. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Saw you on the way and joined. Misgendering is serious behavior. But not the half of it on their first day here. I hate guessing, but have to guess someone starting two RfCs on their first day is not someone new. But not someone with a long previous record. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disable sections just because NathanSpooner has added an irrelevant comment to them. Either move the comment to the correct talk page section or delete them, but your current approach is giving NathanSpooner the unilateral power to disable any discussion he chooses... 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can start a new section if they have a source. That entire section was OR and FORUM. For that matter, anyone can revert my hat. I don't think I have ever complained about such a revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are certainly very desirable for material added to an article, especially if it is at all controversial or disputed, but sources are not necessarily required for talk-page discussions to be useful, and in some cases, due to the nature of the topic, are very unlikely to exist (to mention actual discussions I've been involved in, there are unlikely to be any scholarly sources specifically stating that the Hebrew word Amen does not come from the Egyptian deity name Amun, or that early Christians did not invent the abbreviation X for Christ in order to insult Jesus -- scholars in the relevant fields do not take the opposite hypotheses seriously, and so do not see any need to formally refute them)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources, there is a problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]