User talk:Mr Ernie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

British versus American spelling.[edit]

It looks like you're changing spelling from British style to American style. We generally don't do that here. The basic rules are:

  • If the article is about a Commonwealth (English, Australian, Canadian, etc) subject, then British spelling is used.
  • If the article is about an American subject, then American spelling should be used.
  • If the article is about anything else (say, Japan or South America, then the spelling is decided by whoever started the article.

If you jump into an article and change the spelling from one version to the other, you're probably going to annoy somebody. Usually it's best to just leave it the way it is. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I changed this one back. The topic was English soccer, and they spell the word 'organised' instead of 'organized'. I'm not sure what the breakdown is, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are as many Wikipedians from Commonwealth countries as there are from the States. We have this little agreement...they won't use British spelling in an article about New York; we won't use American spelling in an article about London. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Although I haven't been editing very long, I don't think I've seen or interacted with a nicer or more responsible editor than you. I greatly respect the manner in which you work with others, address contentious issues, seek to resolve disagreements, avoid drama, and strive to improve articles. If a lot more editors were like you, Wikipedia would be a much friendlier, enjoyable, and productive place. I don't know if it would be of any interest to you, but I suspect that you would make an excellent administrator one day. Tracescoops (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness...[edit]'s time to deflate that "kangaroo court" balloon, lest we think it's a serious matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Very true - thank you for that perspective. It's easy to get carried away and reminders like that are often helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
But you have a good point, and I'll stay away--or at least I'll try, haha. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Drmies At this point it is probably smart for me to as well. I get the feeling that I'm not going to change anyone's mind ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)



Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for Sons of the Oak, the one article you started almost 11 years ago, for improving articles such as Dezso d’Antalffy, for seeking enlightenment, for dealing with clarification and amendment, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Gerda Arendt for these kind words! Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You are most welcome, - I hope you aware that the award comes from the cabal of the outcasts ;) - I was trained by arbcom to make only two comments in a given discusion, - you spoke for me after I exceeded that limit, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh I agree completely. Thank you Mr Ernie, for all you've done for the project. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1738 of Precious, a prize of QAI! I like your advice to Sagecandor! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Wow I can't believe that was already a year ago! Thank you for checking back in! I've also just noticed my account birthday is October 3...12 years ago I registered an account. Again, hard to believe how fast the years pass.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Bravo! - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary[edit]

I was referring to my comment as unhelpful, not your question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I’ll amend my comment. Can you help me understand how the community can restrict something the TOU explicitly permits? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
My answer is still "easily". The TOU is what the server owner finds acceptable - policy and guidelines are what the editing community finds acceptable, and there's no reason it can't be more restrictive. It's going the other direction that's problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. User:TonyBallioni and User:Ajraddatz also weighed in here and here. Thanks to all for providing some input. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Hordern[edit]

Hordern was an interesting one to do. His war service was particularly interesting and if I were convinced enough that it would have got through FAC, I'd have expanded the war stuff more, as there was so much information on it. George VI knew of him because of his work on Illustrious; Hordern was particularly proud of his war service, perhaps more so than his acting career, according to his who I spoke to not so long ago. As for what's next? Well this and this are up and coming, although RL is somewhat getting in the way at the moment. Hope all is good with you. CassiantoTalk 06:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the photopgraphs in the Matcham article are stunning. I've never been to the UK, but now I really fancy a walkthrough of the Blackpool Tower to see that ballroom. I'm sure the process of developing the Hordern article was very enjoyable to you, given that you were able to speak to his grandson. That must have been quite an engaging conversation! Thanks for stopping by, good to hear from you, and Happy New Year! Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fake News Awards[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Annual refresher[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee why are you posting this on my talk page? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no presumption that you are doing anything wrong, however if you do violate a restriction this alert needs to be given before you can be sanctioned. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That's one practical reason; it's also to make sure people do know, and it is hardly disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm already aware of this, as I've commented at ARCA about it. It's disruptive that Coffee didn't do any background and slapped this template on many users. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Fine then, you can just ignore the message.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I would like Coffee to answer the question about why he didn't do any research before posting a disruptive template to my talk page. Please do not post here again regarding this topic, as your answers are unhelpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I find the templates are the pause that refreshes -- an opportunity to take quiet time to reflect on the nature of disruption and to refresh our non-disruptive spirits. Ernie I would be honored if you would template me with the annual notice. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not intended in any form to state you've done anything disruptive, this is merely because it is required that editors who edit in this topic area (as you have been) be made aware (or alerted to) the existing sanctions in the area. It is just to ensure you haven't forgotten, even if you hadn't. I checked all applicable logs and it appears it had been around 12 months since your last notification about, or AE comment on, this topic area. Please don't take this as something bad. I've even posted it on administrator's talkpages, since everyone isn't always aware or paying attention to the fact that these sanctions exist. It's just meant to ensure you have all the info you need before continuing to edit in the area. Face-smile.svg Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Coffee I commented on the clarification request here. Additionally I was sanctioned in this topic area less than 12 months ago (see my talk page archive. Lastly, I successfully appealed this sanction less than 12 months ago. Therefore I'm triple aware of the DS ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I somehow missed the appeal date being so much later than the February date. My apologies. I didn't intend to just blast this on your page if there was already a record of your awareness. Please understand this action wasn't done in malice. I just wanted to be sure you knew of them so you didn't run into any trouble. Face-smile.svg Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. The ARCA area isn't something the editnotice warns us to check before placing these alerts (there are 4 links: your talk history, your edit filter history, your edits at AE via a search, and a tools search of the same thing). That's something we should probably fix sometime soon to ensure this doesn't happen. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry to say it...[edit]

Yep. I think I'm glad I can watch from the sidelines. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple difficult cases up for review. I have no idea what I would do in the committee's shoes. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
As I've said over there, it's far easier to deal with someone's "civility" than it is to deal with an Infobox 3 case, which is the real cause here. I made a point here when someone asked why all articles didn't have boxes. The policy, sadly, was the answer. It needs reworking completely. Hope you're both well. CassiantoTalk 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we need a section of the project called the Sand Infobox where people can build and create whatever type of box they want. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I see what you did there...😉 CassiantoTalk 20:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Alex Shih, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will ask you one time to retract those accusations, or provide diffs to show the purposeful and blatant harassment. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Coffee, stop abusing warning templates. --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I haven't ever done such a thing. Please provide evidence. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Coffee: Your warning above is an abuse. Don't turn legitimate criticism of your actions into an only warning for "harassment". --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: You need to back off. This user has repeatedly came into threads that don't involve them. This warning stands as issued. If you believe it shouldn't then I believe you're part of the group that is intent on removing my bit simply because you don't like how I enforce in AE. This isn't the first time you've harassed me either, I've got several logs saved of this type of behavior/attitude from you. I suggest you allow another actually uninvolved administrator tell me what to do. And get your hypocritical actions away from me. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Coffee how are you an admin still? Honest question. You either erase your scrutiny or threaten the editor that wrote it. This is not how you handle criticism and this is yet another example that can be held against you when your actions are inevitably reviewed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @TheGracefulSlick: I'm not going to dignify that preposterous question with a response. You're just another editor who continuously has held a grudge against me for some unknown reason, and you also continuously violate WP:HOUND. I wonder if I can find evidence for such a ludicrous claim? Oh wait, here it is: editor interaction report. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Umm Coffee none of that is evidence. How have I continuously held a grudge against you when this is the first time I have directly spoken to you? I suggest you strike your personal attack but I doubt you will.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I see no need to reply to someone who has no intention of having any form of a productive discussion. I do not engage with people who antagonize situations, without purpose or being a party to the discussion. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
          • A clever diversionary response. Coffee, for whatever reason, you may feel entitled to bully others and claim they are harassing you. Fine. But I am now requesting diffs to my supposed hounding against you or that you strike your personal attack. You must respond in order to comply with WP:ADMINACCT; by the way, that edit interaction summary doesn't cut it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
            • TheGracefulSlick don't hold your breath. I've asked for diffs documenting my "purposeful and blatant harassment" but have so far been met with more threats and insults. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Then I will report him to ANI. Admin accountability mandates a response with diffs or a strike out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • I've read WP:ADMINACCT more times than I can count, and no where does it state anything about diffs being required. I've provided you the editor interaction utility which contains plenty of diffs, just click the link and you'll find out more. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Commenting on a high profile noticeboard is not hounding. And your comment about me is pretty nonsensical considering we both work in the same areas. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:AN, Coffee, WP:AN. From the "evidence" you presented against Mr Ernie. --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That sentence isn't a sentence. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee in response to criticism about your admin actions, you threaten blocks [1] [2], belittle [3] [4], and insult [5] [6]. This evidence of hounding and harassment that you claim is just some interaction tool? Where are the diffs? I've disagreed with some of NeilN's actions before, but I'm sure if I brought these concerns to him he would not threaten to block me, or ask other admins to block me. You seem to just be convinced that your approach is not the issue, but the many editors who've brought concerns about them are the issue. I guess you view me as just another editor who holds a grudge against you, but I can assure you I've only tried to act in good faith. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You can sing until the cows come home, but I and several others do not buy this explanation one bit. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mr Ernie, I think has become evident that you, or somebody else, should take this to AN. Coffee's level of decorum has fallen well below what we should reasonably expect from an admin and it is time to hold him accountable. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m still holding out hope that it doesn’t have to come to that. Ideally I could express my concerns and we could have a discussion involving some self reflection for everyone. Additionally I think someone uninvolved should bring the request. If I opened the discussion it wouldn’t get very far before someone claims I’m still hounding him and applies a boomerang. I do appreciate your concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your eminently sensible post at ArbCom, pointing out the obvious, even if the residents don't quite see that yet. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I very much appreciate this SchroCat. However, I may not be able to accept it because I am, per above, a "purposeful and blatant harasser." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Posting this for informational purposes only, since you have recently edited Sarah Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination[edit]

Please stop your edit-warring [7][8] and explain your specific concerns about this particular information, rather than resorting to abstract generalities like "undue", "notnews" (a large number of citation in this articles are to news articles) etc.

None of the four criteria in WP:BLPREMOVE apply to this material, it has been covered in numerous reliable sources. I see your latest deletion was just undone by someone else. Please think twice before considering to resume your edit war.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. I’ve explained my concerns regarding BLP and NOTNEWS. Why isn’t anyone responding on the talk page? Kavanaugh and the only other witness have completely denied this occurred, there’s no way to investigate it, and the accuser’s memory regarding other parts of the story is spotty. What should we do? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't a template (I know you're a regular ;).
I have responded on the article talk page too. As for what we should do, I think we should follow reliable sources, and also give less weight to mere opinions/punditry and more to the factual statements in the case. Kavanaugh's denial of this specific incident falls in the latter category and sounds relevant too, feel free to add it. In general, please keep in mind that this is not about a criminal conviction or gossip about a minor celebrity, but about a personnel decision that is regularly considered one of the most important and most scrutinized in the United States, which is why the coverage in RS (and hence BLP considerations) may be different. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

For you....[edit]

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~
I believe it's well worthwhile to acknowledge editors who work hard, collaborate well, and strive for accuracy. Working to build an encyclopedia is a selfless task, especially considering the mine fields one has to navigate in pursuit of excellence. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips endeavor. Thank you for all you do and all you've done, and for collaborating in such a way to make it an enjoyable experience for others despite the opposition. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Atsme thank you - this is very kind. I really appreciate your qualities as an editor. You've been a model to me and many others I'm sure. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luitpoldpark[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 18 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luitpoldpark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that passersby in Munich's Luitpoldpark may get soaked when a figure on the Pumuckl fountain (pictured) spits intermittently? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luitpoldpark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luitpoldpark), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 thank you for sharing! Very cool! Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! Julemotiv tegnet av Jenny Nystrøm (24207687988).jpg

May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat! We’ve just moved internationally and are really trying hard to acclimate. This Christmas we will be getting a small tree as is custom here. I’m really glad to see you are still doing fine work and building high quality articles. I wish you all the best in 2019! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixing ping. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Jingle bells[edit]

Hummingbird Christmas 2018.jpg

Happy Holidays!
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!
Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

  • When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day?
Every year!
  • What do you call a bankrupt Santa?
Saint Nickel-less.

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻Atsme✍🏻📧 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Atsme that is very kind. I wish you all the best in the New Year. Things are very busy in life for me at the moment, but I’ve got a good idea about a new article or two once things get settled! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Arb noticeboard[edit]

Mr Ernie, I appreciate the ping, but what I would appreciate even more is a note on Bbb's talk page, or maybe a private message. I tell you again, being primarily involved with CU/SPI is a very ungrateful task which requires both technical expertise and administrative judgment (plus, you typically only get to see the worst of Wikipedia: it's very depressing). Criticizing someone like Bbb unjustly on a public board is really a slap in the face; if Bbb were to stop providing us this service we would all be worse off. Most CUs and SPI clerks remember how the workload doubled or tripled when Bbb took some time off last year or so, and how difficult that made things. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comment. I can't imagine the type of abuse CU's must deal with. I certainly shouldn't have added to it. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Drmies, thanks for the kind words. Mr Ernie, thanks for the apology.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MrClog (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Annual refresher[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, got it, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A clarification[edit]

I notice that you reverted my restoration (with modifications) of long-standing content (and your revert has been reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof), and I thought you deserved to know my thinking. Your edit summary read: "Undid revision 892227495 by BullRangifer (talk) RFC under way on talk, also the Attorney General announced that DOJ is investigating this - we don't know the results of that investigation yet."

The RFCs have no bearing on that edit as our content is based on what RS currently say, not what they might say in the future. The lead must still reflect what the body of the article is about. If future investigations reveal anything of relevance and RS comment on it, as they no doubt will, we will certainly update the article to reflect that. I have seen articles change quite a bit because of such developments. Maybe that will happen here. We just need to be patient.

BTW, I appreciate your comments about music. As I child I took piano and accordian lessons, but stopped when I was about 13. Now, as I put it, I'm very musical: I play the radio, CD player, and YouTube. I still love music of many types, and sometimes I wish I still played the piano. My wife (who plays the piano, organ, and guitar) and I like to watch music programs like American Idol. I have great admiration for talented people, and find it fascinating to see young talent develop. Have you ever recorded anything? Tell me more about your musical tastes and prowess. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thanks for the comment. I think I'm going to take a step back from that topic area, as I am not sure that my comments are making any progress.
I'm generally a fan of blues-rock guitarists, some favorites being Duane Allman, Steve Gaines, Allen Collins, SRV, etc. When I first started playing I learned the At Fillmore East album, and think that's generally the zenith of rock music originality and creativity (even if a couple of the songs were covers). I can't believe how talented those young guys were. I think their approach to race relations in that era was also quite inspirational - it was always about the music to them.
These days I have found some modern, younger guitar players who took that style and made it feel fresh, like J.D. Simo, Marcus King (The Marcus King Band), and Joe Bonamassa. I play the piano, but not as well as the guitar. I've never recorded anything, only playing with friends for fun and personal enjoyment. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Joe Bonamassa, Derrek Trucks, Dusty Hill, and Billy Gibons doing a tribute to Fredie King. [9] O3000 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I really like Bonamassa and the Trucks Band. Great music. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

May be of interest to you[edit]

Given your comment here (which has been at the back of my mind)[10], you might find it of interest that Mueller did actually criticize Barr's summary[11], and fact-checkers/RS have described Barr's summary as deceptive/"false"[12][13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, thanks for sharing, I do find that interesting. I find it interesting because everybody sees something in there that they want to see. "Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials." That Politifact piece you linked seems to be a piece entirely based on the author's opinion of what the word "fully" means. The Trump administration never applied executive privilege, and the ONLY thing that didn't agree to was Trump testifying in person, which of course Trump was perfectly within his rights to not agree to. This whole thing is ridiculous. Barr's testimony yesterday revealed what he and his staff were thinking. The Democrats had their chance, with some very capable Senators on that committee, to uncover any of Barr's misdeeds, but there was simply nothing there. If you think Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report, no problem, you can read almost the entire Mueller report yourself. No evidence of collusion or coordination, and no charges on Obstruction. Graham was right to bring up the Clinton team actions in response to her investigations - an IT staffer asking redditors how to selectively edit email histories, destroying information with Bleachbit, and beating up telephones with hammers. Can you imagine if the Trump campaign did that? It's long past time for this all to be over. I don't really care anymore about how these articles look, and I don't really plan to participate in this topic again. Anyways, thanks again for sharing, and good luck editing those articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
We are dealing with a new kind of news media, Mr Ernie - don'cha miss the good ole days when there was far more emphasis placed on accuracy and integrity than sensationalism and retractions? Things are about to get busy, but don't hold your breath for much coverage. It's best to just sit and wait, and avoid the hostile or a better term may be "highly defensive" environment that dominates the AP2 topic area. It's sad when one kind of conspiracy theory takes precedence over another that was proven/is being proven to no longer be a theory. Ha! And WP articles are not supposed to show a partisan slant. When researching RS that are being cited in our articles, I came across this interesting article. smh Atsme Talk 📧 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG talk 21:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG, thanks for the notification. I'm not sure I have much to add there. There's a fundamental disagreement about the scope of the article. I think the better approach may be to hold a comprehensive RFC on what the scope should be - every interaction between Trump and Russia or strictly those interactions that took place starting at some point, perhaps when Trump announced his candidacy. Anyways, thanks for trying to find common ground. I'm not at a place where I will be able to participate effectively in Wikipedia at the moment. I'm also quite frustrated with the Trump articles, and am trying to avoid them. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg I finally got to reading the entire block discussion on my talk page (before that I was responding to Doc James' emails). Thank you Mr Ernie for your support and kind words. They are really appreciated. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delicious, thank you! I'm glad you were unblocked quickly, and was sorry to see you have to go through that. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    You're welcome, Mr Ernie. It was unpleasant, I wish no editor to go through this (I'm seeing you called for some indefs). I see you've been active on Fram's meta page. Thus, I want to share with you evidence I found. I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement on the Signpost case request. I am sharing this because I will be stepping away from Wikipedia, and may not be further involved in the ArbCom case. starship.paint (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


You need to look up the word 'threat' in a dictionary. My mission for years has been to get RfA cleaned up and free of nonsense and drama. I am politely asking you not to take my comments out of context, and to remain civil. What I can't abide are disingenuous comments even if some believe that baiting admins is fair sport. As you are already aware, I do not do blocks for incivility - be content that I as an admin as do not have a sensitive trigger finger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson[edit]

Please see talk if you would like to comment about the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)