User talk:VonWoland

Paul O'Neill[edit]

Just curious where you got your information for your recent edit to the Paul O'Neill article... —akghetto (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suskind talks about O'Niell graduating from Anchorage High in his book. It is common knowlage that Anchorage High is now called West Anchorage High. --VonWoland 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cookbooks[edit]

Actually, moving the recipie over to cookbooks has been on my "to do" list for a while. You saved me the trouble. — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make it just after posting the recipie, but actually cooking it is still on my to-do list as well. — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle Times[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on the Tuttle Times article. In that case, I change my mind! Keep! ;-) Although the Tuttle Times website seems to have fallen over from the interest, unless of course it was hacked by those CentOS boys. -- Blorg 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, good one. What a tosser. Defends threatening to call the FBI because it got CentOS to help him fix the problem quicker. I can't belive he wouldn't just apologise for the "misunderstanding." I still think it should go though, unless it gains more traction; so far we have only the Register, Slashdot and the Tuttle Times. -- Blorg 19:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Joke[edit]

You dont have to look for replacement in this case: the one about politburo burial is basically on the same topic, atleast in two aspects. `'mikka (t) 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving[edit]

When moving pages, make sure to use the move tag at the top of pages to preserve the page history, instead of just starting a new article and copying the content. —M e ts501^talk 19:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. If you have a problem, please contact an administrator or use the move request page. I just fixed your cut-and-paste move of Dmitri Ustinov (it is possible, but you need to be an admin to do it). Kusma (討論) 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. There was some wierdness with the redirect page, so it would not let me move it using the "move" tag. But you are right, Kusma, I should have contacted an adminitrator, but it seemed like such a minor change that I did not want to bother anyone. --VonWoland 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Russia[edit]

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Portal:Russia, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! abakharev 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schwebel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Schwebel.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan ^talk 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MarieMcDonald.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:MarieMcDonald.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Lookin HOT[edit]

Please see my reply to your comments on User talk:NawlinWiki#Ladies Lookin HOT -- Chzz ► 08:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest[edit]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saul Alinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, VonWoland. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, VonWoland. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, VonWoland. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:VonWoland reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Inejiro Asanuma; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calton | Talk 00:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I know you are, but what am I?" using a template wasn't the most clever move, considering that the only edit-warrior here is you -- especially as you've now crossed the 4 revert bright line.

When you get back from your eventual block, the talk page awaits. Try to bring coherent content-based arguments. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Hi Jesse: Glancing over your page, you don't seem like the type to promote a white supremacist agenda, but in this day and age, who knows?

An evidence-free accusation that an editor is a white supremacist, even in a pseudo-clever passive-aggressive way, is a personal attack and insult that isn't tolerated around here. I suggest you not go down that road if you don't want an eventual indefinite block. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Inejiro Asanuma[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have no idea why you've started to edit with a sockpuppet, nor what your doing with edits such as [1] but the use of multiple accounts to edit war is not permitted and will not be tolerated. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. You may follow instructions here on how to appeal this block. Nick (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VonWoland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea who created the account that made the edit, but it certainly not me. Since that account seems to have been made deliberately to edit my talk page and make it seem like I was using a sock puppet, it seems like the intent was targeted harassment to get an editor to block me. Seems to have worked. The trolls who were inserting content glorifying nationalist political violence into the web page I was editing were boasting that they could get me permablocked, and I guess they know how to get the administrators to do their bidding. Woland (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If that is so, then I'm afraid it's unfortunate for you. All we have to go on is the available data: you edit-warred, you were blocked for edit warring, a few hours later a new account showed up and continued the same edit war. In the interests of thoroughness I ran a CU check; the results were inconclusive; it's not possible to draw an obvious connection from a technical perspective, but neither is it possible to rule a connection out. That leaves us with the behavioural evidence only, and without anything else to go on, we have to conclude that you were operating the other account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VonWoland, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VonWoland, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]