User talk:Computer40/Archive 2

You say "...I understand that I have made a mistake..." and "...understand that I was blocked for disrupting others from editing..." If you cannot understand that you were blocked for so, so much more than "a mistake", then WP:CIR may apply here.

Trying to sell a return package with "...I have made helpful contributions" and "I will give myself" is not the way. Blocking admins want you to say exactly why you were blocked.

But frankly, I am not interested in that. I want to see the hours of wasted resources recovered. Here is probably the only way things might happen:

• 1. You agree to make a couple of thousand, constructive edits.
• 2. Zero reverts, ever, period.
• 3. You never undo, add to, or otherwise modify anything by any of the editors you have had any dealing with. Work on different infoboxes, paragraphs, sections, or articles. Keep distance.

I watch. We all watch. What will get you blocked indefinitely is: Any breach of 1, 2, or 3 above, or a single edit to any page other than an article including your talk page. If someone posts at your talk, do not touch it. Leave it. If you see blatant vandalism, leave it.

Plenty at AN/I didn't want this deal and preferred indef block. So, there is a very good chance that someone will post here objecting to this offer. If that happens, this offer may be off the table. If you try to bargain and set other conditions, I will take this offer off the table, permanently. If you say that you "absolutely, definitely understand and agree", then maybe, maybe, maybe the blocking admin will give you a chance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fair, but I think an interact ban with some people on top of that would be good as well (which is even more strict). I absolutely, definitely understand and agree. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: since you are the one who is proposing them this deal, then please unblock them yourself. Thank you. Mona778 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Have unblocked subject to certain restrictions listed above. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Can you take a look at this revert which doesn't make any sense. The queue is completely different today than how it was before the 2015-2016 refurbishment. Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not an expert on amusement rides and don't have anything useful to add to that content discussion. Per the above, it's also one of the articles you should stay away from. If you're keen on editing but unsure of where to start, you could try either the "random article" tab on the left; or WP:Requested articles; or the great lists that get generated from User:SuggestBot/Requests. But please leave the "Incredible Hulk roller coaster" article alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you know any admins that are familiar with amusement rides? Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, a condition o the unblock is that you stay away from the articles you have previously edited. That includes the Incredible Hulk (roller coaster) article which you last edited on August 19. Please don't go shopping for others to enter this content dispute for you - just leave it alone and go edit something else. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant there. When you said "stay away", I thought that was solely applied to editing. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that you are finally unblocked, you must thank Anna and Euryalus for it. And for god's sake stay out of trouble because you don't get another chance. There won't be no next time. Good luck! Mona778 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems as if you are aggravating me...Everything is fine, let's just keep it at that. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

One of the conditions of your unblock was that you NOT edit User talk pages, your own being specifically included. But yet you are writing here, and growling at an editor that is wishing you well (directly above). This does not bode well for you, and as Mona told you, you won't be getting another chance. John from Idegon (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that. Is there a way that the whole user talk page can be shut down so no one can post on it? I just don't want people posting wrong info or stuff, in which I can't reply to. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind I saw it, this will be my final post here. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Euryalus and Anna Frodesiak: I have two related questions. First, whose unblock conditions control here, Euryalus's in the unblock box or Anna's proposed conditions to which Hawkeye75 agreed? Second, and more specifically, Euralyus's unblock conditions do not include Anna's restriction about Talk pages. Assuming it applies, as Hawkeye75 believes, how is anyone supposed to ask Hawkeye75 a question? It's a sort of interaction ban with everyone. I don't think that makes sense generally and, as an administrator, I have real trouble with it. Thanks for clarifying and my apologies for not bringing this up earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Bbb23 and Euryalus. I didn't expect such a quick unblock before further discussion and input from observers. I just got in after a long day and am dead tired and just saw all of this. Please forgive me, but I must sleep and read and respond tomorrow. I'm sure we can fix/clarify things. On the upside, I checked 75's contribs and see constructive edits, which I'm happy about. If things go pear-shaped while I'm offline, please feel free to act as you see fit. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) My unblock specifically does not include a talkpage ban for the reason you outline, and I don't support one being imposed. (b) Strictly, the other conditions (0RR and staying away from previous disputes) are voluntary (as I noted in the box). Absent either DS or a community consensus there is no mechanism for involuntary application. Therefore, Hawkeye75 can withdraw their willingness to abide by these at any time, though breaking them is likely to lead to a resumption of the block. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 and Anna Frodesiak. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect to (b), in my view, if he violates the restrictions, he may be reblocked without community involvement. As for (a), are you saying he can edit any Talk page, including other user Talk pages and article Talk pages? I don't think that's a good idea based on some of the edits he's made to Talk pages. At the same time, I'm not very happy with such a broad restriction, i.e., no Talk pages except his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree re (b), was just flagging the authority, or lack of it, under which these restrictions apply. On (a), indeed there is nothing in the unblock conditions that stop them editing any talkpage, other than those associated with the articles they've previously edited or the talkpages of any Noticeboard. However, disruptive behaviour should lead to a reblock in short order. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Euryalus and Bbb23 and I've read up to date and had a think.

First, I think our ducks were not lined up before the unblock. The "offer" obviously differs from the unblock conditions. I agree with Bbb23 that using and not using talk pages are both a problem. We have to pick. I'd pick no access, period. Here's my reasoning:

Can use talk pages: We've all been around for years and we've all seen 75's pattern. We know the likelihood of an indef soon is very, very high.

Cannot use talk pages: The problem is "...how is anyone supposed to ask Hawkeye75 a question..." The answer is, they can, but he cannot answer. We answer for him. We stand between him and others. Only mainspace edits with 0RR and avoiding old foes is the only way he will remain unblocked and contributing good edits. And that is the ultimate objective.

Conclusion: Wikipedia comes first, not convention nor 75's rights. Looking at the hours/keystrokes wasted at this talk and AN/I and then seeing 75 blocked in the next few days must be avoided. This pragmatic, unconventional, and new approach of zero talk access is a small, albeit odd price to pay if it clears the path to 2,000 mainspaces edits. This is acceptable to 75, to me, and I hope to others. I also hope approaches that have this sort of objective are adopted in other cases. Too many times I have seen such an editor come, cost the project hours, and then get indeffed. There has to be a better way, and I think this is worth trying. And, we may get lucky. Over the next month or so, 75 might get hooked on Wikipedia and be transformed when he is released from this bond. I suggest we make it clear to 75 that no talk access is the way to go. Responding to talk posts on his behalf (and if there are any, it may be an indication that he is not editing uncontroversially), would be dealt with if and when they happen and we can see how it goes. I await your feedback and will, of course, defer to your judgement. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should allow him access to his own Talk page and no other Talk pages. If he can't use his own Talk page without screwing up, this is a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus and Bbb23 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Optimism. After a rocky start, Hawkeye75 seems now to be making productive edits to a range of pages. He edits under specific voluntary restrictions outlined in the unblock box, and there are plenty of watchers if there is some new disruption. Instead of adding more restrictions, how about we just leave it as it stands and let the current productive editing continue? Or to put that another way, as the unblocking admin I don't think additional restrictions are necessary at this time, especially given the previous disruption has not (yet) reoccurred. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, your approach seems to be ROPE with HOPE, something I have little confidence in, in this case. I'd much prefer keeping ROPE out of reach. But okay. I'll leave it to you and others to decide if it is to be own talk or any talk.

Hawkeye75, the message is crystal clear: Be absolutely wonderfully pleasant and polite and nice no matter what. Err on the side of way, way too nice. Stay safe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also suggest that those he has had issues with avoid posting at this talk unless absolutely necessary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a sunny optimist, perhaps. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus. Of all the ists, optim is my favourite. Real is not bad either. Pessim is dreadful. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the NHL 11 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only did you violate your 0RR restriction with this edit, you've also arguably broken condition (b) of your unblock with your edits there as well as at Disney's Paradise Pier Hotel. You've been doing very well so far. Please don't revert again, or you may be blocked from editing again. Per your request that I not edit your talk page, consider this message a warning as required by various noticeboards' process. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also at Twilight Zone Tower of Terror. Please review the conditions of the unblock, which include staying completely away from the articles you previously edited. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That is right. What you've done are clear breaches and you should be indefinitely blocked. You are up to 620 edits and otherwise doing well. Consider this your last warning. Stay away from pages edited by those you've had issues with and zero reverts. Think of the outcome you wish for yourself. Tomorrow you are kicked off Wikipedia. Tomorrow you remain a Wikipedia editor. You are in complete control of your own future. That is the power you have. Be smart. Use that power to make the right moves in life. Only idiots screw themselves over. You are not an idiot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if I can use article talk pages. Sorry, for using this talk page but you get no where in life without asking. And the Wikipedia live chat said to ask here. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, except those linked to the articles you edited prior to the block. Other than that, there is nothing in the unblock conditions that prevent you from using article talkpages or your own talkpage provided you do so within policy (for example WP:TALK). -- Euryalus (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I didn't even see that I was allowed to post here. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye I agree that source should not be there, I only put it back as when you edited it before it gave a broken link error. Due to everything that has happened I did not want you to get into an issue over it. I recommend going to talk page to have it removed though and I will be happy to support you on it as I agree with your reason for removal. I did not fully remove either to fix issue as without consensus to remove it, it will stir up issues. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but NHL 11 is a 7 year old game, I don't think anyone visits the talk page anymore. It should just be removed. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't suggest it without a consensus of some kind but you do what you feel you need to do. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello :) I was just responding to your message about why I removed the CBS All Access season from the list of Big Brother seasons found here. The reason I removed them is CBS is referring to the 2017 and 2018 summer editions as the nineteenth and twentieth seasons respectively for broadcast on CBS Television Network also that section is for seasons that are part of the traditional aka broadcast edition. Where CBS is counting the digital edition separately from the broadcast edition (i.e. the upcoming fall season is considered "Season 1" of the digital edition) it has its own separate section with its own table here. I just want to say thank you for discussing the edit I made with me by reaching out instead of reverting it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Using the article talk page, do not attempt to convert your opponents. Instead, aim at converting their audience. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(These edit may be old, but are still relevant to discussion). About a week ago, I made a couple edits and 2 (#1 and #2) of them got removed for "not using an edit summary". I'm not sure why I didn't use it at the time (which is besides the point), but pretty much all of my edits come with an edit summary. Than today, I found Wash whites separately, who has only used the edit summary 6 times in his past 500 edits. The editor was already warned by an admin, but nothing has changed since, he still never uses edit summaries. I'm trying to figure out why his edits aren't reverted and mine were at the time. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because you're upset about your edits being reverted doesn't mean you should try to drag other editors down with you. Remember, we're all in this together. I will try my best to include edit summaries for edits that are not minor edits. Thanks. Wash whites separately (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, this kind of "why me" whining is inappropriate and not a good way for you to spend your time. Just focus on your own conduct, not other editors' conduct. Using an edit summary is always a good idea, but many editors don't use them consistently. That doesn't mean you should take them to task for it simply because one or more of your edits were reverted. It would be unusual to revert an idea solely because there's no edit summary, but if the edit is problematic otherwise and unexplained, it might very well be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a bunch of points to make, so considering everyone is watching here, I'll post here:

Just in case, pinging @WarMachineWildThing, NeilN, MorbidEntree, James Allison, Euryalus, Mona778, and John from Idegon:

• Hawkeye, you are making lots of good edits. Well done. Please continue. Also, there is a huge, huge improvement in how you are relating to others.
• I'm seeing in a few non-admins, a bit of pushing toward an inevitable block. There is nothing inevitable here and Hawkeye is showing us that. Please help pull him from that edge instead, or avoid guidance altogether. Remember, Hawkeye is asked to avoid you, so please return the favour if you can and whenever possible.
• Hawkeye, please, keep distance. When in doubt, err on the side of caution.
• Hawkeye, if you have an issue with an editor about edits in an article, start an article talk page post (pinging the editor) rather than posting at the user's talk page. This way avoids the make it personal feel of a talk page post. It also avoids excluding others working on the article from the matter. The way two people in disagreement get things sorted out is to have a third, fourth, etc. helping achieve consensus.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Seen I would also like to say that after explaining how I felt to Hawkeye and how they responded I OPPOSE any block at this time and I encourage Hawkeye to keep moving forward. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: please take a look at . As you can see, I was the only person who supported them at that ANI and opposed the block. So, I don't get what you mean by "Hawkeye is asked to avoid you, so please return the favour if you can and whenever possible."? Mona778 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think she means the editors that I have interacted with before. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I did say "...a few non-admins..." so I'm not naming names. The vast majority have been very supportive and helpful. You, Mona778, are one of them. You have been particularly helpful and encouraging. Thank you for that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish them all the best. Mona778 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is purely my personal opinion, not official WP policy or guideline or even an essay—but speaking strictly personally, I would like to ask you to refrain from edits that do not affect the rendered text, such as this edit that you made to Wikipedia.

Specifics:

• Many editors prefer to use two spaces at the end of sentences to make them visually easier to find in the edit window. And others do it just out of old typewriter habits. For example, the previous sentence has two spaces after it, while this one has just one. You'll notice that they render the same. (Similarly, it is a habit with many to hit the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. And again, there is no effect on the rendered text, so no reason to remove it.)

I'm not reverting these changes and I certainly am not going to bring any "cases" anywhere. But I'm leaving you this note to ask you to consider: While such edits do not affect the text seen by the reader, they do increase editor workload. They complicate the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these non-rendering changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what previous edits have done.

All because of edits that do not improve the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.

I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Jeh (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I do think that the article should be written with consistency, though. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeh makes very good points. There are good reasons not to remove double spaces and no good reasons to remove them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are there no good reasons to remove double spaces  ? They look out of place . Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I already gave several reasons: You increase other editors' workload; you complicate the edit history; etc. These reasons apply not only to removing double spaces but to many other types of edits that don't affect the rendered text. Note that WP:Consistency doesn't say a thing about styles used in wikitext; as multiple editors will have contributed to an article, it is perfectly reasonable that styles within the wikitext may differ. We have more than enough P&G to worry about without concerning ourselves with such minutiae! Finally, if a particular style of using whitespace or newlines or etc. in the wikitext is considered an "optional style", then changing them purely for personal preference is contrary to a past Arbcom ruling. Jeh (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Euryalus et al: Hawkeye75 has made 426 good mainspace edits in total. It has been over a week since the unblock. I have seen a huge change in his edits. There have been a few breaches of the conditions, but all in all, I think he now understands what it takes to remain unblocked and to get reblocked indefinitely. Should we now remove the restrictions and allow him to govern himself? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I must strongly object. IMO, the restrictions are what is ensuring productive editing. Hawkeye supposedly agreed to voluntary 0RR and topic restrictions and then pretty much immediately violated them. As I've said, it is my view that they maintain a confrontational, anti-consensus editing style. Until they demonstrate they can follow their restrictions and better practice consensus-building, the restrictions should remain in place. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. In fact, I think there should be broad consensus to remove restrictions before the, say, 2,000-edit mark, so as far as I'm concerned, your objection takes this proposal off the table. Hawkeye75, please keep heading in the favourable direction I am seeing. No breaches, be nice, and seek consensus. Cheers to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

People who have I've have had issues with in the past, were asked to avoid me, James Allison did not obey this request. You've been stalking my user contributions and you are the only one who is constantly in opposition of me and bringing negativity to my talk page. You are in fact, the only person who makes me want to quit Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And about your point about the 0RR, my unblock had no restrictions on me reverting vandalism. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) PMFJI. Assuming that your 0RR restriction is as described at WP:0RR (and I see nothing to indicate that it isn't), WP:0RR does say that the 3RR exemptions are applicable even to 0RR. And the exemptions do include

"4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."

However, Hawkeye75, given the history here (which just FYI I was unaware of when I commented previously on non-rendering edits)... it seems to me that it would be prudent of you to tread lightly. Again, I am not an admin and this is only my suggestion. Jeh (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

James, how would you feel about avoiding him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a brief feud with MorbidEntree and we've both mutually avoided each other and I still respect him as an editor. I don't see why James cannot do the same. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, you say about James: "...been stalking my user contributions...". Please show me where. After Aug 27 where I wrote above "...Hawkeye is asked to avoid you, so please return the favour if you can and whenever possible...", and looking here, I see no occurrences of James coming to an article after you edited it and making changes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you referring to him posting here with his views? If so, I think it is fair that he have his say. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can think of 2 scenarios as of late (probably more). As of now, James Allison has 11,284 edits. When I made this edit, James reverted it a good 5 hours later. He was probably looking through my user's contributions and saw the (-5,969) and HAD to go look at it and revert it (The edit was an attempt at a WP:SPLIT). This is the first time James Allison visited the "BB18 page", and I assume he had no intentions of visiting it, if I had not gone there. Any other editor watch-listing the BB18 page could have reverted it. The second case I have in mind is when I made this edit, where I put "minor self promotion" in the edit summary. A couple hours later, James reported him to the AN. I'm using the word probably, but the chances of these 2 instances (probably more) being coincidences are extremely low. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the first instance you refer to neglects to point out that he reverted himself right afterward. Reverting you was an accident on his part while modifying other content and he put back what you had done. The second instance has nothing to do with you. These two things you point out only indicate that he is observing your contributions. He is not following your around undoing or modifying your work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to hear his comments. He made an edit after my first post on this section, so I assume that he's seen it. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. And please do not look into my contributions. It must remain a secret that I don't really get anything done here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

passing opinion: Productive editing going mostly ok, let's leave things as is for now. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In regard to the comments above, I believe I have followed Anna's request in good faith to the best of my ability. I am open to other editors' input on my participation in discussions such as this one or this one. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Noting that I know nothing at all about theme parks; those two discussions look fine except perhaps for Hawkeye75's somewhat aggressive opening comments in the second one. But that was pre-block - later comments have a more constructive tone. On a fairly cursory review, looks OK to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus. I understand and agree. Let's review at 2,000 edits. At the rate he is going, that should be quite soon. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi HE75, I've added {{div col}} to your user page to get those two awards next to each other - you can change the spacing by changing the colwidth=100px value -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the "div col" page, but it was very odd how it cut off the text. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hawkeye glad to see your still working hard, just a small thing though you need 1000 edits & 3 months of service to display the apprentice badge. Personally don't care but someone could stir up a stink over it. Again glad to see your still editting. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks I added it by mistake. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said no biggie to me, you seem to be doing a good job with your edits and I don't wanna see ya caught up in something that is a simple error, keep up the good work! Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind telling me how you put colour in your signature? I tried doing it in preferences but it doesn't seem to work. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind I got it. All I had to do was check the wiki markup box. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

lol glad you saw the errorChris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me}

Hey, I know we are mutually avoiding each other, but I have this cool template that you can use to display the correct service award on your user page. I got the idea to show this to you when I saw this comment on your user talk page. You can use the {{service awards}} template, with some variables, to show the correct award. Also, if you want an easy way yo update the edits variable, you can make a subpage in your userspace (like User:Hawkeye75/edits) and transclude it into the edits variable. Here's the code that I use if you want to use it as a starting point:

{{service awards|year=2010|month=4|day=1|edits={{User:MorbidEntree/edits}}}}

I hope that this helps out :) --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of style, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

The edit in question is your edit to Dicklyon's comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=737667735&oldid=737667201

Not only did you edit someone else's comment (an action which is proscribed by WP:TPOC, except in some circumstances, none of which apply here), the markup you changed it to was incorrect. When using a "spaced en dash" (an en dash with a space on either side), if you must use nbsp, you would use the nbsp in place of the first space. Not the second.

The way you had it, should the line be wrapped at that point, the word before the spaced en dash would end the preceding line and then next line would begin with a dash and a space. No, no, no. You want the dash "attached" to the preceding word. So the line would end with the preceding word, then a space, then the dash, and the next word after the dash would begin the next line. You don't want the reader to have to scan to the beginning of the next line to realize that the dash is there!

Practically, of course, for this particular edit it makes no difference. The word preceding the dash was the start of a graf, so the chances are just about zero that the line would be broken at either of those spaces (unless the reader has a screen width of about an inch).

Nevertheless, the point remains: You're not supposed to edit other people's talk page comments; but if there is compelling reason to edit them, get it right.

My previous point remains also: Even if this had been a valid contribution, you would, I think, do well to focus on far more substantive work rather than yet more forms of wikitwiddling, worrying about positions of badges on your user page, putting colored fonts in your signature, etc., etc., etc.

I realize you may be feeling a bit badgered at this point. I only noticed your edit at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of style because I'd noticed someone else's edit to the double-space section and, as usual, I checked the page history to see what else had happened since I'd looked at it last. There is no animosity intended. Notices and explanations like this one are intended to help you improve, that is all. I hope you will accept this in that spirit. Jeh (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about?!? Is everything ok? I removed a damn space (which is legal under WP:TPO) and your posting this big paragraph on my page blasting me. You need to chill out, I just removed a space. Hawkeye75 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. An editor goes to enormous trouble to help you, and you lash out - after doing something on a talk page that was absolutely unnecessary. This kind of behavior is unfortunately part of a pattern, and your inability to break that pattern is not helping you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait I just realized something. Is this a setup to change my username? This was Hawkeye7's edit not mine. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no way that you would treat Hawkeye7 that way, you should treat everyone the same on Wikipedia. Absolutely disgusting. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you like me to post that less than friendly comment on Hawkeye7's page? If you were fair and neutral on Wikipedia, your text would be the same no matter what editor that you were talking to. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's very funny. I can understand why some of us didn't notice that it wasn't you, but why were you defending yourself/not yourself? Your attitude toward Jeh is still deplorable, but the entire thing is now looking a bit farcical. A "setup" by whom?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's very funny? Your laughing at this situation and your an admin? This isn't even funny, I just got accused and harassed for something that I didn't do. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. An editor made an understandable mistake, tried to help you, and you're blowing up as if that editor and the world is out to get you. You really need to grow up and get a grip. The way you look at it it's not funny, but your way of looking at is absurd.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, telling me to grow up really motivates me to make more edits. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Im posting the comment on Hawkeye7's talk page, since it was meant for him. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It was meant for him. You claim that it was just a "mistake". Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't meant for him. It was meant for you because Jeh thought it was you who did it. You're not in the same position as Hawkeye7, and you can't know what Jeh would have done had he noticed his error. So don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works, just cause you have an issue with an editor doesn't mean you get to put a hateful tone in your comment. That is uncivil. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

OH *&*^*!. Mea culpa. Yes, it was Hawkeye7's edit. @Hawkeye75:, I'm sorry. That was my mistake.

But, no, you should absolutely not copy my text onto anyone else's talk page. As Bbb23 says, you don't know what I would have written to Hawkeye7. Worse, it would show up with your username in the edit history, and that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I see ho "hateful tone" in anything Bbb23 has written here, just good advice. And no, removing spaces is not permitted under WP:TPO. It is not in any of the "examples of appropriately editing others' comments", nor parallel to any of them. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright while I accept your apology, but I think you should leave a post on Hawkeye7's talk page about the edit to prove that your intentions were right. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I intend to, but it will have to wait until I'm on a real computer. Jeh (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's great to hear. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

I think I can speak for the community in saying that we have had enough and that you are a net negative to the project. You have had plenty of WP:ROPE and have persisted (increasingly) in your old ways. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are you the one blocking me? It should be a third opinion. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If the reason is not clear to you by now, then I must cite WP:CIR. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you take an extended break. Come back in six months and tell us that you understand the problem and explain how things will be different. If you do that, you have a good chance of being unblocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Lmao, six months is not a break. Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)