User talk:Sleeping is fun

Wikihounding?

I do not know what you understand under wikihounding but reverting unhelpful edits is certainly not wikihounding. Try to accept criticism from others. The Banner talk 22:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism"? Oh please. Going through a person's edit history, reverting edits which follow the MOS, and blindly calling them "unhelpful" is not criticism, it's harassment. —Wash whites separately (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have some mighty long toes. Get over it. The Banner talk 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And often what you claim as "overlinking", leaves items with no links at all. Like René Redzepi, where you removed the only link to Denmark. The Banner talk 07:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you even bothered to read the WP:OVERLINKING page, you would know that major countries and nationalities are not linked unless they explain something important about the subject. Very seldom does the article for an entire country impart anything crucially relevant to the particular person. That was a hilarious attempt at a comeback up there, by the way. —Wash whites separately (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can tone down a bit. No personal attacks please. And as the WP:Overlinking claims: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. You use it as a law written in stone instead of looking at it with common sense. (Yes, I have seen that you removed multiple instances of the United States in an article. I can agree with that. But just 1 link constitutes no overlinking.) The Banner talk 08:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never used personal attacks...? You're the one who told me to "get over it" when I called you out for stalking my edits and making unconstructive reverts. I am using common sense—if you want to know more about the individual, link to the city or town they are from, not the entire country. —Wash whites separately (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started about wikihounding and harrassing, remember. The Banner talk 16:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing you of doing things you actually were doing is not a personal attack. When confronted with accusations of harassment, you told me to "get over it", so you knew fully well what you were doing, and now you're playing innocent. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, nice try to blame me for your own behaviour. Unfortunately, I do not buy that. The Banner talk 17:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour? What exactly did I do wrong? You stalked my edits and actively harassed me, I called you out on it, you told me to "get over it", then you tried playing innocent, and now you're pretending to be the victim. Ahahahaha. —Wash whites separately (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take offence of your highly aggressive behaviour and personal attacks. This is not the way to engage in meaningful discussion or cooperation. The Banner talk 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior isn't even remotely aggressive, and I haven't made a single personal attack against you. Again, you are trying to lie and play the victim because you know fully well that you engaged in harassment; I see right through your tactics. If you really cared about meaningful cooperation, then you wouldn't have harassed me in the first place. —Wash whites separately (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And more personal attacks... The Banner talk 08:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And more lying... —Wash whites separately (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your own behaviour and please revert the nonsense on Margaret Sanger. It would have been nice when you had looked into the history of the section "Race" to see how often that part was already removed. In effect, a bit further in that section you can read the contrary to what you have restored: Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[90] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[91] The Banner talk 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be honest this time and realize that the statements about Aboriginals are her own published words. How is that "nonsense"? —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read the sources... The Banner talk 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Take your own advice... —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if you had really done that you would have seen that Sanger was citing others and that it was only a passing mention. The Banner talk 15:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, those are still her own published words. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are well past the point where either of you is likely to say, "Sorry. My mistake. You were right." or "How can we work this out?" I suppose you just aren't done talking at each other yet. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been actively harassing and attacking me for quite some time now (offenses for which he has already been blocked twice). I am only defending myself. —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you feel the other is being disruptive, you are clearly wasting your time discussing it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about bringing him to AN/I as I am sick of his personal attacks and false accusations. The Banner talk 19:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only false accusations here are your constant lies about me making personal attacks. And now you've just made a threat against me. Go ahead and do it. The proof will show that you are in the wrong. :) —Wash whites separately (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest no to try that, Sir. You came up with accusations of wikihounding, stalking, harassing, lies etc. The Banner talk 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. You made the threat, so here we go. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip "Phil" Chess

Re this edit, my concern was not whether bold or normal parentheses should be used, it was whether the name "Phil" needed to be mentioned in the opening sentence at all. The article is titled Phil Chess. His full name, which should be spelled out in the first sentence, was Philip Chess. "Phil" is simply a conventional and obvious shortening of Philip, not a nickname. "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." My understanding was that, in such cases where it is absolutely obvious what his full name was, including any shortened form in the lead was unnecessary. Where is the guidance that supports your position that it is necessary to include it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That line you are referencing is talking about stage names, not nicknames; it's referring to cases such as an article being titled "David Bowie" but beginning with "David Robert Jones". That line is not talking about nicknames at all. Per WP:QUOTENAME: "If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial". Anything used in lieu of the given name is a nickname. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar question: Max Reger. Max is not a nickname nor a stagename, but a frequent abbreviation of Maximilian, see Max und Moritz, Max Beckschäfer. Max Ernst. Bavarians often get 2 to 6 given names which nobody will ever use. Going to move the birth name further down, just to explain why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bill" Clinton

I can't believe that once more "Bill" has been added to the article on Clinton. I'm not going to get in a big argument over this, because I've tried before and gotten nowhere. But do you really think this in any way improves the article? Do you really think readers would be left scratching their heads as to why he's called Bill if "Bill" wasn't there in quotes? The worst thing is that you haven't even justified yourself properly, you've just linked a load of pompous claptrap that claims to be policy. Zacwill (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was this incoherent mess supposed to be an attempt at a constructive conversation? How is policy taken from the Wikipedia Manual of Style not proper justification? Yes, of course it improves the article, because it's good to be clear on an encyclopedia. Crazy, I know. —Wash whites separately (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity to the point of treating readers like idiots? Maybe you'd be more at home on simple.wikipedia.org. Zacwill (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another clumsy attempt at an insult, from a guy who froths at the mouth because the Manual of Style disagrees with him, hahaha. If you're getting this offended over a nickname in quotes, then you ought to follow your own advice and head to a simpler site so that your precious feelings won't get hurt again. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm offended by people who care more about following poorly-conceived rules than creating a good encyclopedia. Zacwill (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those poorly-conceived rules are common sense. Maybe that's why you don't follow them. —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ... umm ... about your user name ...

Is it meant as an ironic form of dark humour? Or is it serious? Most users I have encountered with accidentally problematic or potentially problematic user names (myself included) have an explanation on their user page so as to avoid misunderstandings, and even in my case it doesn't seem to work -- I've had the note there for less than half a year and already been accused of being a Nazi once, whereas the previous rate was once every year or two. I think unless you actually believe in the good old days some kind of note on yours would be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I didn't even think of it that way. It's not a racial thing at all. I'm actually quite conscious of the systemic racism that occurs against people of color, and I try to contribute to those types of articles whenever I can. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit -- it didn't even occur to me that it was a laundry reference, until after I read your response and tried to figure out how it could not be a racial thing. Anyway, now that that's cleared up, I no longer think you should add a note in case anyone else interprets it racially (I'm just a bit paranoid, it seems), but you might consider doing it for the humour factor. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paranoid: the username is clearly a racist attack under the guise of a laundry reference. Anyone who's "quite conscious" of racism would steer away from such a moniker. Reported. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:8D0A:29F4:4869:7D8A (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do you think it's "a racist attack"? An attack against whom? Have you ever even cleaned your own laundry before? —Wash whites separately (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:8D0A:29F4:4869:7D8A: Sure, our friend User:Wash whites separately could really be African and despises white people and thinks they should not share the same tub, but that is unlikely. Do you get my point? You can make a possibly valid claim that the username is disruptive because many may see it as racist and complain, but that is different from a claim that the user is racist making an attack. Let's WP:AGF here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Someone who actually cares about the issue would not be playing around with a username that has obvious racist undertones. Two people have now called him/her out on it. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:8D0A:29F4:4869:7D8A (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I never "called" anyone "out" on anything. The thought that it had nothing to do with race just didn't occur to me because for me the racial signification comes first to mind. I guess this was because for most of my adult life I've been reading laundry instructions in Japanese and the pun doesn't work in Japanese whereas most of what I know about world history I read in English. AGF says that if there's a 66.6% chance that something is not meant to cause offense, we are meant to assume that it is not meant to cause offense. Of the three possible interpretations -- (1) it is about laundry, (2) it is about race and is meant to be ironic, (3) it is a sincere expression of racial hatred -- only the last is unacceptable, IMO. I really don't think a name change is necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nah" is not really AGF. I care greatly about the issue and could have created such a username without thinking it through. Had I thought it through, I would have chosen User:Miss Click because it is way better. :)

Wash whites separately, a case could be made that you didn't quite consider the implication of such a username. I'd like to make such a case: Wash whites separately, I do not think you thought it through. :)

So, where to go from here? Wash whites separately registered 5 years 3 months (6/28/2011 18:21) ago and has 18,608 edits. How many complained during all that time? How active was he during those years? Is the race issue, right now, so hot that his username is drawing complaints and hence becoming a problem? Would Wash whites separately consider changing it out of compassion, sensitivity, and consideration to those really getting hammered by racism in the world today? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Two people have now called [me] out on it," one of whom recanted his accusation, the other one being you. So, it's literally just you who thinks it is racist. You have already been asked to explain your rationale as to why you think it's racist, and the best you can come up with is "nah". You'd think that someone who claims to be victimized would be able to articulate why they feel so... —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think my first interaction with WWS was through seeing their helpful edits on my watchlist this summer. I have appreciated their work in areas involving people of color; I first came to know of WWS through their small and helpful edits on the biographies of Asian Americans. I subsequently came to their talk page to both send thanks and encourage more edit summary usage (these summaries need not be long, maybe just a "reduce overlinking" canned summary or something similar). I confess that I was rubbed the wrong way (insert clothes-washing pun here) when I initially read Wash Whites Separately's username. I myself identify as non-white. Given today's dominant discourse, I didn't come to the laundry conclusion until a few weeks after that. That being said, I assumed good faith as well. Now that the name has been taken to issue, I think there are two options:

Explicitly explain username on userpage, disclaiming any racist intention
Change username

Other options, at this point, would not adequately address the issue at hand; in fact, they would come off as insensitive. There is legitimate worry that the name could offend, and indeed, it already has (this thread is an example). I think it is misleading, WWS, to say that "it's literally just you [2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:8D0A:29F4:4869:7D8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)] who thinks it is racist". Sure, in a world of pure logic where intentions and meaning are explicit and one-dimensional, that would be the case. I think it's safe to assume that humans don't operate in this simple paradigm. Though, I must add, @2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:8D0A:29F4:4869:7D8A:, your usage of "him/her" refuses to acknowledge those who do not fall within the gender binary. Airplaneman ✈ 02:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still perplexed as to which group my username is offending. Is it offensive to whites? Is it offensive to non-whites? Everyone please feel welcome to offer your interpretations of the username. —Wash whites separately (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, it would be more likely to offend non-whites. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that though you claim to be "conscious of the systemic racism that occurs against people of color," not explicitly explaining your username will leave open the possibility of darker interpretations. Such is the nature of Wikipedia's system of textual communication—there isn't much baseline nuance. This parallels our requests that you use edit summaries. It's simply clearer if you affirm your intention rather than leave it to others to deduce your motivations by sifting through what's missing. Airplaneman ✈ 03:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think black people are much more likely to be offended by the possible racial interpretation than are whites. In theory, there is nothing intrinsically demeaning to or elevating of any individual racial group by the whole "separate and equal" nonsense, but the history makes it a bit simpler. Yes, I am sure there are anti-white racists who despise white people and think they should be washed separately, but they have not to the best of my knowledge ever gained political power and established an elaborate legal system under which whites did have to shower separately from blacks in communal bathing areas such as swimming pools, and the black wash areas actually were far superior to the white ones. (I'm not that familiar with the history, but I imagine that under Jim Crow "white swimming pools" and "black swimming pools" were a thing. Water fountains certainly, as well as bus seats, but not buses themselves.) But that's assuming anyone is really bothered by it at all even after it being explained. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Airplaneman. WWS, I would understand if you see the username change as a bit of pain. The userpage (and even usertalk) idea wouldn't put you out too much, would it? And think of the upside: it would show sensitivity, prevent future complaints, and put this whole thing to rest. Small cost - big benefit. With all this fuss over it now, it is de facto disruptive. Would you please be a dear and do the notice (unless there is gathering consensus to insist on a name change)? I'd suggest a nice pic of laundry with a caption saying something or other to explain. Would that be okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will change my username. Thanks for the input everyone. The last thing I want to do is offend people of color, especially since the English Wikipedia is naturally a white-centered space. In keeping with the laundry theme, how is "Wash whites soapily"? —Wash whites separately (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so nice about all of this. Soapily, eh? Hmmmmmm. I'm not crazy about it. It has no zing. What else have you got? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of good laundry-related ideas at Laundry symbol. My favourites are:

And if you really want "wash" in there, you could avoid "whites" with:

Or go in a different direction with:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(My new favourite is User:Static Cling! or User:Cling static, cling!

) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions! My name was originally inspired by my penchant for wearing white t-shirts and having to wash them separately from my other clothes. I kinda want to keep that part of the name just for sentimental purposes, but I'm trying to think of how to include "whites" without sounding funny. —Wash whites separately (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope they inspire you! :) White, white, how to include white or white T-shirt. Hmmmm. User:Whitey Shirt? I don't know. Maybe people would find that racist for some reason. Anyhow, I'm sure you'll find something nice. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided instead to dedicate my new username to my childhood underwear, User:Tighty whities hahaha. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, User:Tighty whities, pretty good! I like it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk)

I was told that a username about underwear may be inappropriate, so I went with User:Sleeping is fun in dedication to my awful sleep schedule. —Wash whites separately (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't see how Tighty whities could be inappropriate, but maybe I'm out of touch. And if it came to WP:UAA as a new username, I doubt any admin would see it as unacceptable. Anyhow, I'm delighted to see this settled with Sleeping is fun. No zing, but no trouble either.

Well, all is wrapped up. Thank you for disengaging from the IP. No need for endless debate, right? Thanks for being so nice about the whole thing. And thanks for starting to use edit summaries. That means a lot. Oh, and I did happen to peek at your blocklog and a few talk posts here and there. Please do your best to be friendly and non-combative, and please never get blocked again. You're a good egg and I want to see you here as a complete net positive for years and years.

My best wishes, and happy editing! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so kind throughout this process, Anna. I really appreciate it. Hopefully having a name with no zing can help me stay low-key and out of trouble. :P —Sleeping is fun (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. :) And there's nothing wrong with low-key. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -@Anna Frodesiak, Airplaneman, and Hijiri88: Just to remind us all that WWS was previously named User:Exploding Toenails, as per this and this, so has actually only been using this current handle for three months rather than five years. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Thanks for letting us know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really well done, people ... apparently because this nonsense, after they changed their username they were blocked indefinitely for "abusing multiple accounts". This place is so pathological. 2600:8802:5913:1700:40DB:FA20:E26B:C331 (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked, I feel that "Wash Whites Separately" carries the implication that white people should be afforded superior showering facilities, while everyone else (myself included) gets the second-rate areas.
"your usage of 'him/her' refuses to acknowledge those who do not fall within the gender binary"
Seriously? Rejection of the "gender binary" is a concept. That people have visibly different skin colours, with many going through hell because they have the "wrong" one, is cold, brutal reality. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:DDC5:5EE2:8A27:89EA (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one intelligent agrees that it carries that implication. 2600:8802:5913:1700:40DB:FA20:E26B:C331 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop unlinking pages

Why are you removing wikilinks from all these pagers. It is not an improvement. Rmhermen (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an improvement. Per WP:OVERLINKING: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. A 2015 study of log data found that 'in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely', and that 'simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention.'" —Wash whites separately (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Price / regional titles

Greetings. Per this, I realise it's slightly crude that both terms link to the same article, but they're there for a reason, and I have yet to see a WP guideline stating that pipe links to identical destinations aren't allowed. The English and British titles both come under the British Boxing Board of Control, hence the links to that article. If a reader fails to understand why the destination is the same, then that cannot be helped unless you have a better idea on how to handle it. It certainly cannot be considered overlinking—neither England nor Britain are being linked to in this case. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be worded differently, because it seems odd that the two words are so close to each other and link to the exact same article. —Wash whites separately (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Edit summaries please! If you don't, I will be forced to bomb your userpage with a sea of smileys. Do not go there. Such a vast amount of yellow may damage your corneas! Here's a taste to show you that I'm serious:

Edit summaries please!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Also, see WP:FIES.

Airplaneman ✈ 01:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Hi Sleeping, I accept your points at Bob Perelman about birthplace and overlinking. I still question nationality. American is a commonly understood term, but it seems to me that United States of America is more correct. What is Wikipedia's guidance on this? I don't find it in Template:Infobox person. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hopson, thank you for being understanding. In general usage, nationalities are stated in adjective form, and citizenships are where you write out the country name. But per the template, if the citizenship is the same country as the nationality, then you should only include the nationality. However, I just realized that the template also says the nationality parameter "should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace". So, since Perelman was born in Ohio, we probably shouldn't even use the nationality parameter at all. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous span-tagging of Mark Hall (musician)

Your edits made the article unreadable. If you want to contest material, do it, but don't turn the article into a sea of ping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually the entire article was unsourced. Unsourced claims in an article are supposed have tags next to them. Did you want me to put smiley faces next to them? —Sleeping is fun (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually know what the word disruptive means, and adding {{citation needed span}} to the whole article meets the criteria as it makes the article unreadable and is definitely disruptive.

While your statement that unsourced claims may have tags next to them, it's not a requirement. And to use spanned tags should only be used in rare occasions. You can put smiley faces in your own talk pages (particularly one for every time you fail to use an edit summary), but not in article bodies or templates. If you don't understand why it's disruptive, perhaps you should stop editing and ask at locations like the template itself or at the village pump. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Slovo

Congratulations! You just violated 3RR. Please self-revert or I will report you and you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you violated it first, right? Reporting me would basically be reporting yourself. I look forward to it. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess counting past three isn't one of your strengths. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the irony. You reverted my change 4 times, genius. You can't even condescend properly. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Your recent editing history at The Birth of a Nation (2016 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

--John (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--John (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to evade your block I have reset the two week clock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued block evasion. There is no point in continuing to extend your block if you're going to continue to IP hop to evade it. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sleeping is fun. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]