User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Non-admin clerking at WP:UAA

Hi Mr rnddude - thanks for all the hard work you've been doing at WP:UAA. I would just like to remind you that although you've been correct with the majority of your clerking, there may be times where you are unable to check if an editor has indeed made any edits. For example, Fhuncljfujcndlhufjcdlxdcohufdkxdciofhcx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not appear to have made any contributions but there are non-public vandalistic entries in their edit filter log -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Samtar, in these cases what do? Ah, I see, check both edit and filter logs. Makes sense, will go through them all to double check. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, checking the filter logs can help - for the above example the filters they triggered were private, so only edit filter managers or admins can view them. In these cases I'm not sure what you can do, other than mark that they've yet to edit. I beleive admins check the filter logs before deciding what to do anyway -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Samtar, I'm not so sure they are private in this case. I can see 9 separate additions in their edit filter log over a three minute period on the 16th September. I just didn't think to check EF logs till you pointed it out. Ah well, I'll check them anyway and if I do end up hitting an EF log that is not public, well, I'll just have to live with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pings

Thanks

I saw what you did here. Just so you know, that wouldn't work either. From Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events

Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.

I fell for that a few times myself, that's how I know... It's fussy, to avoid re-pinging when a post is edited - if you look at the diff, although you erased your signature and put in a fresh set of four tildes, it sees the resultant overall change as just an edit to the date/time etc. -not a new signature, and fails. Very confusing, when you think you've done enough, and made worse because you get no feedback - although I understand a change is coming where you will be able to opt-in to feedback for successful/unsuccessful pings: [1] [2] -- Begoon 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well...Begoon that is news to me. So most practically, If I sign, ping, and then something goes wrong with the ping I have to make a subcomment, then do the pinging and signing again? and here I was thinking I had a brilliant solution to a simple problem. Ah well, I'll just live with multiple additional comments and sigs as necessary. Thanks for telling me this. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that's right. You could delete the old sig, save with no sig, edit, sign again, but that's messy, and 2 edits (and still might not always meet the "new line" criterion), so yeah, for safety I think a totally new "commenting again to fix ping" post is the way to go - and easier to understand. -- Begoon 14:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, so be it. Till it's fixed that'll just have to do. Thanks for the info. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I too came across that thing when I stumbled across the problem, I really hate it because you need to add a subcomment unnecessarily just to ping so what I do is -

{{ping|Mr rnddude}} Pinging! ~~~~

VarunFEB2003 09:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that this is now available in preferences, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo:

• Failed mention - notify me when I did not send out a mention to someone
• Successful mention - notify me when I sent out a mention to someone

Not sure when it appeared, but may be helpful... -- Begoon 06:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Begoon, I just updated my preferences to do this for both instances. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caracalla

The article Caracalla you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caracalla for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I hate the be the bearer of bad tidings, especially after Macrinus (which I will be getting back to this weekend, I promise), but another new and inexperienced editor opened and passed this nomination in a matter of minutes, and I had to reverse the passage. (No idea why the bot thinks this also was Emir of Wikipedia, but it wasn't.) At any rate, I'm going to keep my eye on this one, which was one of two passed in only 16 minutes, to make sure it doesn't get prematurely approved. You might want to take a look at the nomination page, because I noted a handful of issues in my reversal message. Needless to say, I want to avoid GAR if at all possible on this one; I just wish you were getting more experienced reviewers to take on your GANs! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I certainly wasn't expecting to see that my nomination had passed without a long line of criticisms. So, it does not surprise me to find you here fixing it. Much obliged, and thanks. I don't expect any of my GA nominations to be quick-passes because I honestly don't expect any nominations to be perfect including my own. Thanks for noting down issues on the review talk page. I'll be taking a look at them. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Factually wrong; so here's the correction

For your information, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and I, at one point, had issues with each other and we were both blocked as a result of name-calling. We get along fine now and I've even "patrolled" some of the excellent articles he has started in order to build up a collaborative relationship with him. With this in mind, your comment of: "Cass rarely shows civility towards editor's he doesn't like" doesn't ring true. We "didn't like [each other]" when I posted this, so that makes your comment even more factually incorrect. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto I said "rarely" - you've also shown civility to me as well though we disagree. That said, you've also shown incivility to me, Debresser - even though she said and I quote "Okay. I'll drop it" - and Dane all without the last 72 hours. I respect your contributions, but, hate your attitude towards other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Rarely is better than never. In the Debresser incident, you came to my talk page to deliver a shit sandwich, pointedly suggesting I was at fault. What makes you think you have the right to climb into disputes that have nothing to do with you in order to bollock both parties? Cassianto^Talk 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Cass, but, I did not claim you were at fault alone. In fact I placed far more blame on Debresser than on you. My only complaint to you was that you made a bigger deal out of the situation than was necessary and requested that you approach the editor more civilly than telling them to fuck off and call them stupid. What makes you think you have the right to climb into disputes that have nothing to do with you in order to bollock both parties?. What's the old saying Cass? it takes two to tango. I specifically wanted to avoid what's at AN/I right now. I specifically wanted to pull the two of you apart, as quietly as possible, before we end up with a "shit sandwich" on the incidents noticeboard. I did, however, forget that you are more or less somewhat resistant to block requests. Not immune, but, definitely resistant. I think your a valuable contributor and am happy to respect that you don't care about the "community", but, I ask and will continue to ask that you show some respect to other editors even if you don't think they deserve it. Ffs, you've done a lot for readers, I've looked at some of your articles and they are fantastic. You do refuse, for some reason, to do a little for the community by being civil. Though, I think we'd agree that we'll never see eye to eye on this point. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, not sure what you mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Telling me "it takes two to tango". I don't bow down to the lefty-liberalism on this site; I don't go around hugging people when they've done wrong. I tell people they've done wrong and tell them off when they further antagonise me. I appreciate the kind comments about my articles, if I can call them that, but being how I am today is why they are currently in the state that they are, because if I wasn't, they'd all have bloody Infoboxes and factoidial rubbish hidden within them. Cassianto^Talk 19:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Cassianto I was merely referring to the choice to engage or disengage. I ought to have mentioned that you did actually attempt to disengage, though with a parting shot. I tell people they've done wrong - fair enough, so do I. It's your approach that I personally dislike and that others have a problem with. I honestly didn't care when you told me to fuck off, didn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not even against you on the AN/I thread, my beef currently lies with Schrocat. Sorry that you're the topic of the discussion. I actually had a much longer response at the An/I thread that I couldn't copy across and paste when I edit conflicted twice. I said somewhere in that now non-existent post (it was butchered in EC) something along the lines of you not caring about any non-article specific policy (like verifiability and rs) and not caring about the community, that the only reason I can imagine you being here is to write encyclopaedic articles. but being how I am today is why they are currently in the state that they are - yeh, that's exactly why I propose that acting is futile, it provides no benefits to anyone in the long run. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, you do seem to spend a lot of time at the dramah boards; is there any reason why? Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto - Not particularly, I try to help out where I can and had up until your thread managed to avoid any conflicts since the first time I went to your talk page - a few months I think. I moved away from AN/I to UAA at one point but kept an eye tangentially on AN/I in case anything popped up. Yes, I spend far too much time at the drama boards, like, 30% of my total edits is on Wikispace as opposed to 13% on Article space. I make large edits on articles so they accrue quite slowly. I am, rather exhausted right now to be honest. I'm sorry Cass, I was trying to be objective and fair. Somebody with two brain cells clicking together will hopefully close the thread, tell us to go our separate ways, and move on. I will recuse myself from further discussions that are targeted towards you on AN/I. They seem to bring out the worst in me. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Add; If I fail at that, just post a note on my talk page telling me to get the fuck out of your thread. Aight? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I offer you some advice: wind down your activities at the boards. You do have some startling statistics at them which overshadow your contributions in actually improving the encyclopedia. There are some right old numpties who do nothing else other than to lurk there and chirp up at every discussion. I shan't tell you to "get the fuck out of [my] thread" if you go the first time, but I will if you persist. Believe it or not, I'm quite selective who I say fuck off to; Dane2007 being very much one of them. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, yes you may of course offer me advice. Thanks and you're correct about my excessive presence at AN/I - I was myself surprised to find that I edit it more often than most admins... rather unusual for a non-admin to have a stronger presence at an admin noticeboard than other admins. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A sensible admin will steer clear of ANI. It's only the social inept who bother with it frequently. And there are plenty of those, let me tell you. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Cass is right. Every time I've gone onto ANI to get consensus on something or complain that we aren't doing things the right way (and it seems to be happening more since I got the tools) I end up finding the nearest brick wall to bash my head against. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I daresay AN/I is the last place I'd head for to get assistance or consensus. The only time I have started a thread at any of the noticeboards was a single notice at EW due to edit-warring over a CSD tag. I for the most part just brush off uncivil or NPA remarks, though they're quite rarely directed towards me due to my habit of lone-wolf editing of articles. In all fairness, AN/I, RfC's and GA are the only places where I interact with other editors at all - barring of course editor talk pages. For the most part these interactions are cordial, the only exception to this has been a single very heated RfC over whether the Orlando shooting was an Islamist terrorist attack and a couple discussions that boiled over at AN/I. Meh, I'm going to be quieter on the noticeboards right now due to a) busy IRL, b) a GA review I have to tend to and also a GAR that has stalled and finally c) Because it's probably for the best to give AN/I a bit of a break. I'll be ever-present, but, won't jump into any discussion that I don't think I have anything worthwhile to say. Cheers for the post Ritchie333, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Your GA nomination of Gaius Antonius Hybrida

Hi, while looking for an article to review I saw your nomination of this one. I was tempted to perform a review until I saw something that tends to rub me the wrong way -- you relied on an out-of-date resource of questionable reliability, The Biographical Dictionary published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. I'm also puzzled by this choice when a copy of Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft is available up on Wikisource; although dated in parts, this is considered probably the authoritative reference work on the Ancient World. I know it's in German, & while it doesn't appear you are proficient in German, there is an easy way around that. (Actually, a bigger challenge is finding the biographical article you want.) I did a bit of searching to find the article you wanted -- RE: Antoninus 19. Once you have that article, use one of the online translation services to turn it into English -- I have plugins that do this on my work computer's Chrome browser & my home computer's Mozilla -- & it should get you 75-90% of what is in the article. (I once had one of these translation programs break down trying to make sense of an instance of extremely convoluted German syntax, but that is the worst failure I've yet encountered.) This reference is a bit odd in citing, because one expects the number of the column to be used (which is what is indicated, not the page number) when citing the article, but I've even seen works that simply cite it by article name (e.g. "Antoninus 19") & omit the page or column number.

I don't know if you want to undertake this further chore of work on this article, but if you do I'm not only willing to help you with it, I'll happily perform the GA review on the article. And if you don't, I hope you won't mind if I allow another editor perform the review. In either case, good luck with this article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at the Realencyclopaedia link you've given me. You are quite correct that I am not proficient at German. The only reason I used the Biographical Dictionary is that it's the only particularly useful source I could find that isn't more than 2,000 years old. I'll compare the German source you've provided with the Biographical Dictionary and make corrections, additions, etc as necessary. If you intend to do the GA review for the article, feel free to delay it by at least a week. I am currently extremely busy irl and also have another GA review to attend to. I am also aware that large parts of the Realencyclopaedia isn't actually available on Wikisource as nobody has provided or written them up. I've only ever attempted to use the Realencyclopaedia once for an article and the part I was looking for did exist, but, not on Wikisource and not in a useful format (I couldn't copy it or read it so it was more or less useless to me for the likely fictional Nonia Celsa). - Additional - I found the article for Hybrida on Wikisource no problem, what extension or plug-in do you use for the translation of text if you could tell me by any chance. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-Ping due error Llywrch - Mr rnddude (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm not sure which browser you're using. From the three I happen to have available:

*Internet Explorer -- Way at the top of the upper right corner of the application you'll see a gear; next to it is a house (for home page) & a star (I assume to add a page to your bookmarks). Click on that, then on the menu that appears "Manage add-ons"; a popup window ought to appear. On the left you'll see "Add-on Types", & below that "Accelerators"; clicking on that will allow you to select a website to translate with.

*Chrome -- Click on the link at the upper right, above the icon for bookmarks; on that page, click on Advanced settings. Under "Languages" you ought to see a checkbox labelled "Offer to translate pages that aren't in a language you read"; check that box.

*Firefox -- At the menu at the top, click on Tools > Add-ons. If you do a search on the string "translator", you'll be given a list. The addon I use is "Google Translator for Firefox". Once installed, it will add a "T" to the top right that you can use to translate any web page you encounter.

*If you have text you want translated (say a .doc or .pdf file), you can copy-n-paste it into one of the translator programs online. Bing Translate & Google Translator are the two that I've used, & are equally okay: both have their strengths & weaknesses. The chief drawback to either is that they take only so much text at a time, & text copied from a pdf needs to be proof-read before either will provide a usable translation. (The chief problem I encountered was when they translate a proper name into a noun or verb -- so always do a comparison between the original text & the machine output. I don't consider myself especially proficient in learning languages, but I can usually match up the original words in the major European languages with their English counterparts, & validate/correct the output. So I'm assuming you should be able to do so too.)

Hope these work for you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

With regards to another

Drmies thought I should inform you that LaMona retired at least a month ago after a heated dispute on AN/I. She's barred me from her talk page so I'm posting this to my talk page. I notice she hasn't put the "retired" header on her page, I'd recommend she do so but as she isn't here naught will come of it. That's all I have I think. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, it was about a somewhat ancient event anyway, I suppose. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Neal Dow

Hey, Mr rnddude. The article of mine that you reviewed for GA a while back, Neal Dow, is now nominated for FA. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your opinion there about the article and any improvements you think it might need. Thanks very much. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Macrinus GAR

Mr rnddude, I wanted to apologize for not having yet gotten back to Macrinus. I still intend to, and hope to within the next week or so. Aside from being busy IRL (as I see has happened to you just now), I've also the two Iazyges-reviewed GANs to watch, including Caracalla (though it's the other one that's most active at the moment), and another GAR that I'm rechecking after each set of improvements, plus my regular work at DYK. I don't know whether you'll get to Caracalla before I get to Macrinus, but if that happens, I'll need to do a recheck of Caracalla before it can be listed, which might take priority. I'm hoping not to have to take on any additional reviews, since I am (as you can attest!) a slow reviewer. Thanks again for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, not a problem, I'm busy everyday till Friday. I'll try to get to Caracalla over the weekend, but, don't stress about needing to get to Caracalla too fast if I get through the review. I can wait, it's no problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious

battles and reviews

Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as Battle of Antioch (218) and Caracalla, for GA reviewing, for explaining a neat summary, for watching like a hawk over the articles you've written, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt; Thank you very much I appreciate it. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Caracalla 2

I was just looking at this edit to Caracalla. Of course, it was not grammatical before this edit. It would have been if the comma after "emperors" were changed to a semi-colon:

• Caracalla has a reputation that marks him as being among the worst of Roman emperors; this perception of Caracalla survives even into modern works.

In the edit, the sentence was changed to this:

• Caracalla has a reputation that marks him as being among the worst of Roman emperors, this perception of Caracalla surviving even into modern works.

There is something about this sentence, particularly the last version, that doesn't sound right. Coming right after a section heading "Modern portrayal" and the use of present tense in the first part of the sentence ("has"), both of which focus on the present or near-present, there seems little reason to state the second half of the sentence.

If scholars have considered Caracalla as being among the worst of Roman emperors for several centuries, then we ought to change "Caracalla has a reputation" to "Caracalla has had a reputation". I'm not sure "that marks him" is really needed. Just this might be sufficient:

• Caracalla has had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors.

Then the second half of the sentence would make more sense, bringing the reputation from fairly far back in time up to the present ("survives even into modern works").

Also, "this perception of Caracalla" can be shortened. I recommend using "that survives" instead of "surviving":

• Caracalla has had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors, a perception that survives even into modern works.

You might even add the adverb long:

• Caracalla has long had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors, a perception that survives even into modern works.

Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually missed this entirely, thanks for the message Corinne, will fix. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Mr rnddude:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linghost 666 If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 13:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks for the Halloween cheer Linguist111. Hope your Halloween was a fun and eventful night of spooks and scares :) Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for taking the time to explain to him. Let's just hope it's not over his head - he's not even a native speaker. I usually find a link to WP:RFAV does the trick - when I wrote it I specially graded the language level to target his age group which is where most of the duff RfA votes come from. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I looked at your comment and agree it's a good thought to link to the advice page and your own criteria page. Those will be good to give a better more broad guideline on how to approach RfA and also give insight as to what other experienced users (in this case you yourself) look for in admin candidates. I quite like the "What homework?" and "Analogies" sections of the RFA advice page you created. Nice work. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. We all do what we can. You're dong a great job too by singlng out those inappropriate votes and doing something about it. One of the problems we now have with RfA is that in spite of my forewarning, the December 2015 reforms have become the victims of their own success at reaching consensus. We now have on average twice as many voters, which of course now bring us simply twice as many of the old issues that wrecked the process in the first place. We need to get a core of regular, mature voters voting on each RfA. They don't have to have voted on all 350 RfA over the past 8 years as I have, but if they can build a group that not only votes, but discretely monitors the behavour of the other voters , we might make some progress from the huge reform investigation I started at WP:2012 which is still today the larges resource of analysis and round table discussion leading on from Jimbo Wales' statement that 'RfA is a horrible and broken process' . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A true honor

Ladies and Gentleman (Stalkers and Stalkettes), I have some exciting news to deliver to you today. For the first time in my nearly a year here at Wikipedia, my talk page has been the target of vandalism. Some say that to be the target of a vandal is a rite of passage, today I can say that I have completed these rites. A true honor. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We haven't started yet... _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a badge of honor to wear proudly rnddude, though as Fortuna hints at above, it can and will get a lot worse - never take it to heart, and always try to not respond in likeness. In other equally awesome news, tomorrow will mark your first year of having an account here! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Samtar both for the well wishes and for handling the vandalism to my talk page. Yeah, I'll be following the tenets of WP:DENY and just revert and ignore if and when it happens again. Unless of course somebody else gets there first. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you Tivandir2?

If you say "no", I'll take your word for it and go back to trying to figure out who it could possibly be.

Tivandir2 showed up in a thread where you, me and Snow Rise had been the only commenters so far, claimed they had conflicted with me in both that thread and past ANI threads, and referred to both me and Snow Rise in the third person. I don't ever recall "conflicting" with you in the past, and I didn't think that was what was happening in that thread, so I'm honestly slightly inclined to think it was someone else trying to frame you for sockpuppetry.

If you say "yes", then I think you should request that the Tivandir2 account be blocked. It appears like it would fall under WP:VALIDALT if it is you, but having outed itself it no longer serves that purpose and you couldn't use it any more.

Again, note that you retain the right to respond in the negative.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, no I am not the Tivandir2. I'll take a look at this, but, note their claim of conflict. I don't believe I have ever come into conflict with you either. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Laughs

Since you made this edit logged out I can't just send you a simple thanks - you won't receive it. I literally cried from laughing at it. I don't even remember why I went to that page or how I got there. In any case, thanks for the laugh. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought that anyone, even passingly familiar with keemstsr would get the jokes, but it was not well received by the original editor. Thanks for the note. --Adam in MO Talk 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your thoughtful, insightful and intelligent remarks, as ever. Muffled Pocketed 08:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, hope my comments are helpful. I've seen Krishna around the MILHIST project boards and they've contributed at least one FA class list List of destroyers of India to the encyclopaedia - an admirable achievement even for just a list. They have the project in mind and I'm sure that they are doing GA reviews to help the project out. There is nothing wrong in getting a 2nd opinion when a reasonable request is made. I think that's what you've done and I think Krishna might want to recognize that. As always, if anybody needs me feel free to ping for assistance, I'll do what I can. Cheers for the barnstar FIM, and good luck with the GA reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy 1st birthday

	Happy 1st birthday
	Completely forgot to give you one on the 4th! Happy 1st Wikipedia birthday Account creation Your first edit How time flies! Thank you for your contributions and here's to another twelve months -- samtar talk or stalk 10:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Samtar, had a good laugh at my first edit. Looking forward to the next one. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)