Hammersbach

Thank you!

I appreciate the comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tudor Rickards. I do nominate many articles for speedy deletion, but always happy to assist other editors when they need help. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Extending a hand from WikiProject Spirits

Hi there, I noticed the small but valuable edit you made to the WikiProject spirits project page and would like to extend an invitation to come and join our Wikiproject!

Joining is simple, just go the the project page and you'll see instructions on how to join.

I hope to see you around the project again!

--Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Hi, please don't remove fact tags because they are old as you did with this edit. Fact tags should only be removed when a proper reliable source is found and cited or if no such source can be found the tag is deleted along with the info. Thanks. Copana2002 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor is incorrect. Fact tags should also be removed when the tag has been orphaned: that is to say that the info that was being held in question was deleted but the editor failed to delete the tag also. That is the reason that I removed the tag and even took the time to state that very thing on the discussion page with this edit prior to removing the tag. In fact, it is also why I removed the tag for a second time. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish Whiskeys

So of all those those, which do you like the best? I rarely stray far from Jameson's or Bushmill's but that's largely for lack of any known alternatives on the liquor store shelf. JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I prefer Redbreast as my favorite tipple, least-wise from a cost vs. quality perspective. It goes for just under $50 for the bottle and is money well spent. If I'm not concerned about putting a dent in my wallet (and I am) I'll opt for Midleton Very Rare which is one of the finest whiskeys I ever had. At $140 a bottle it's a touch overpriced, but not by much.

As for the whiskeys in the picture, well first let me admit to being a bit chagrined about that. Turns out that The Knot is actually an Irish whiskey liquor, not a whiskey, which is why I took down the picture right after I posted it. But of the real whiskeys shown, I would go with the 21 Year Old Single Malt Bushmills. I haven't had the chance to sample either of the two single cask Bushmills, mainly because I just can't bring myself to crack either of them open just yet... Sláinte! Hammersbach (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Utica Club

Not saying that the merge is a bad idea, but I would like to see a discussion first. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hammersbach. Thanks for your interest in this topic. Merges that follow existing guidelines do not need discussions first - see Help:Merging. The guidelines for this particular merge are WP:PRODUCT and WP:Brands. The two references used in the Utica Club article are about the Matt Brewing Company, so that is the most appropriate place to put the information. The merge isn't about deleting the material, it's about putting it in the most appropriate place where it can be most useful to the average reader. Stub articles which are only linked to from a few articles, and which attract few readers or editors, are better served by being merged with the appropriate parent article. If later the information on the sub-topic develops, it can be split out from the parent article in WP:Summary style. Information on the brand Utica Club is more likely to grow and develop when it is contained within a larger parent article which attracts more readers and editors. This merge follows appropriate guidelines and will assist the general reader, and both the parent and sub-articles. Let me know if you have any any further concerns. SilkTork *^YES! 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, and let me thank you for your interest in this topic as well! Let me also thank you for your perfectly marvelous explanation on both the policy and benefits of merging. I do have to confess though that I am a bit confused as to why you feel that this type of explanation is necessary (although after looking at your user page maybe not so much). My only concern with this is that while “merges that follow existing guidelines do not need discussions first”, I find it to be a bit of a, well, courtesy to allow editors who have contributed to the article to have the opportunity to weigh in prior to, rather than after, the merge. Anyway, as I said above, I’m not saying this merge is a bad idea. Hammersbach (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Thanks for the humor [1]. However, could you remove or rewrite it to try de-escalate personal conflicts, and instead help focus the discussions on improving the article? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though I trust you understand what it's like to try and discuss something rationally with someone who has all the logic and conversational skills of 16 year girl who's just been told she can't go to the prom. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely frustrated with Skywriter as well. At what point does Skywriter's annoying behavior, especially the personal comments and inability to keep on topic, become disruptive? --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Another LOL here! I like this tactic of making people's true times known. Cheers! Location (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Prefix or No Prefix

There's a more structured and informed than usual discussion taking place regarding the The prefix being added to Ohio State University. As you've participated in the past, I thought I'd inform you in case you'd like to participate. OlYeller^Talktome 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All "The", all the time... Hammersbach (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange talk page

I am not sure if I owe you an apology but if I do then I offer it. As a general rule I do not change what another editor has written on a talk page but on Julian's I did make a change to one of your comments. I believe you meant to write "piggyback" not "piggy-bag" so I changed it. I did this simple for clarity and if this was not your intent then I apologize. Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! That is perfectly all right. Thue | talk 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Recently you left a warning on my page concerning edit warring on the subject named page. I have to confess no little surprise. May I offer that you actually read the entire relevant discussion page section before you engage in such actions? The speed with which you reverted and issued, a mere two minutes, tells me your previous review may have been a bit premature. Hammersbach (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Please don't edit-war. --John (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You’ll forgive me, I know we are supposed to assume good faith but I don’t believe you. Twice I reverted deletions of sourced material from the article with specific requests for explanations on the talk page, and none was provided. I then re-added the information to the lede in a manner in accordance with the discussion on the talk page, a discussion in which neither of the two previous editors chose to participate. It is deleted again and I reinstate with yet another invitation to join the discussion which is ignored. Now, this third different editor deleted not just what I wrote but edits which have been improved and worked upon by other editors per the talk page. This third editor then deletes it a second time, again without comment on the talk page, so I restore it. You then call me out for edit warring claiming a thorough review of the both the talk page and the article history. (Of note, your revert, sans the courtesy of an edit summary or comment on the talk page, was reverted, and then was deleted for a third time by that same third editor.) I’m not looking to pick a fight, but I believe you were a might quick on the trigger there, Tex. Hammersbach (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See just above. --John (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, the funny thing is I did, and before I made my last comment. There are a few things on Wicklypedia that I strive very hard not to do; I don’t trash talk, don’t violate 3RR, don’t engage in POV (deliberately), etc.,… but sometimes it doesn’t mean anything. I tried in my last edit to show you that I really tried to engage other editors and get their involvement. That I wasn’t behaving in an arbitrary manner and was in fact trying to find a consensus. You ignored that. You acknowledged none of the points I made and the edit history. If you have an opinion on how the Julian Assange article should be handled that’s great. But to bring up any concerns you may have on just your own talk page while “warning” me after claiming an extensive review, is bewildering. Why didn’t you bring these issues up on the article’s talk page, and explain your opinion on why the edit violates them? That is what I have been asking for, and asking for that is edit warring? Hammersbach (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus at article talk for the edits you wish to make. I do see you edit-warring. Please don't edit war. --John (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Then block me. Personally, I believe you won't admit you may have been hasty. Your short replies and failure to reply directly speak volumes, nicht wahr? Hammersbach (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC

cease your blanking

You're blanking the discussion on the impact section of the recent Peruvian election. If you do not cease this vandalism I shall be reporting you to the administrators. This is not a threat, simply a necessity. If you feel that an impact section should not be included you may state your opinion, but you may not remove discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

As I have stated quite clearly, your posts are a blatant violation of WP:TPG which states "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." (emphasis mine) The comments you have posted are nothing more than you blogging. If you feel otherwise than I strongly encourage you to act upon your simple “necessity”. In fact, please do contact an admin. Perhaps they can do a better job than I could of explaining to you the policy. In the meantime while you search for a sympathetic admin (I would recommend you try any of the pages dealing with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. There are one or two admins there whose political opinions dovetail neatly with the ones you are espousing), my offer to help you with your English stands. Let's start with one of your previous comments; the correct word is vandal, not vandalizer. Cheers Hammersbach (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't go looking for admins when I need help. Instead I go to the main admin board and they are not sympathetic there.

Part of the thing there is my personal joy. Yeah, I am glad that another country is breaking the chains of slavery away.

However, that is only a part of my post there. I did not put that into the article. I proposed a little part to be added, and added sources. It is by no means biased like my personal opinion is. Trust me, I know that my personal opinion is not what would go in the encyclopedia. My opinions of the pro-US guys are very low. My comments on talk pages may reflect that. Afterall, it is a tlak page. (LAz17 (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)).

Take it to an admin. Hammersbach (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

UM-OSU

Welcome to the fray. (Thanks.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP & Reliable Sources

I disagree with your interpretation of BLP and its application. The material appears to be well-sourced and properly attributed not only to the publisher but also to the actual author. BLP does not require us to censor information to which others object merely because they disagree or claim is inaccurate without any evidence.

Please revert your edit or add appropriate sources discrediting the allegations in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Hammersbach (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to delete well-sourced information "just because." Since you don't have any sources whatsoever discrediting the reliable source cited in the article and you refuse to even discuss the matter, I'm reverting your edit. When you're ready to discuss this like an adult, please do so. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh yes, let’s discuss this like an adult. So where do we begin? With your edit warring? With your violation of the 3RR? With your baseless accusation that this was deleted “just because”? Look Mr. Adult, two other editors deleted the material with the second writing in their edit summary that the “information has been proven to be slander/libel, facing lawsuit from OSU”. Based on that, IMHO, this appears that we may be dealing with a BLP issue and as such the material should be discussed before it is placed in the article, not while it is in the article. I have no objection to any of the information presented being in the article, but I would like to make sure that we, like my edit summary states, err on the safe side. That’s why I reverted your re-addition with a request to discuss it on the talk page. (By the way, I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that I was referring to the article’s talk page, not mine.) You disagree with this, so much so that other Wikipedia policies can’t be trifled with. Anyway, I have to confess I am a bit puzzled by your insistence on inclusion, an insistence which borders on the aggressive. Hammersbach (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My only insistence was that your assertions be backed up with evidence. Had you provided that evidence this entire discussion wouldn't have been necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I have made no assertions I am a bit baffled by what evidence you feel I owe you. I have simply stated that I believe that a BLP concern has been raised by a different editor and that we should discuss it first on the article’s talk page before re-adding the material. Speaking of which, I would really appreciate it if you kept your comments, and in particular your demands, on the article’s talk page. Have a nice day, just have it over there. Hammersbach (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hammersbach. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth Day Challenge Marathon

I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Earth Day Challenge Marathon in the New Articles list-- It would be great if you could also improve the related article GoodLife Fitness Victoria Marathon. Amy Z (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please provide input on the Michigan-OSU rivalry talk page.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have. The next place I will providing input will be on the Admin noticeboard about your behavior on the Michigan-OSU rivalry page. Hammersbach (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just re-reviewed the Three revert rule thoroughly. I didn't realize that I was prohibited from making any unrelated edits. For whatever that's worth. I'm done on that page indefinitely.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Honor killing in Pakistan a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Honour killing in Pakistan. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Phreebass

If you would like to join the discussion with new editor User talk:Phreebass to help explain this edit. [2], please feel free to join. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion over there and to be honest don't see the need to join in. I think you are doing a fine job. If that editor tries to reinsert his biased edits again I will support you. Cheers, Hammersbach (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question?? ; )

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with adding this? Your edit summaries infer vandalism, but I don't see it.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling it vandalism might have been a bit strong but after this earlier edit [3] followed by this [4], I just would rather not see a back and forth between these two fine institutions. I think it might be better just to keep it off both pages. Hammersbach (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's really going on, but you seem to be on top of it. Cheers. --JOJ ^Hutton 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Thomas Sankara shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Thomas Sankara, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I’m a bit confused here as to why I should have such a stern finger wagged at me for making but a single edit. Mayhap it stems from the good doctor’s concern that I had improperly reverted one of his edits? Hammersbach (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Combative, Name-Calling, Vandalism, whatever

I've deleted your non-constructive, combative text here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_race_theory and have called it "vandalism" for lack of a better word. The question asked is a genuine, well-intentioned question and I do not appreciate your attempt at suppressing a constructive and well-intentioned question. If anyone is the speech-censorting, book-burning, ideologically fixated Nazi, it is you. You can consider this a WARNING (in the wikipedia sense), and if you continue this conduct I will take whatever action is appropriate to make you stop.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Jonny complains about my "attempt at suppressing a constructive and well-intentioned question" and yet it was he who deleted my comment. Maybe he should review the mighty Wik's guidelines on talk pages? Hammersbach (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am certain that they do not allow for people to make a determined effort to call other people "Nazi's". I'll find an Administrator or someone to deal with you.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am an outside observer, but I think Jonny Quick is misusing the Nazi card here. The comment by Hammersbach did not call Jonny Quick a Nazi, but intimated that the theories he was describing had affinities to Nazi beliefs. While this can easily be understood, and perhaps was intended as a sly aspersion, I think it does not equal Jonny Quick's assertion that he was called a Nazi. He was called someone that espouses racial theories that would have more resonance in Nazi literature. There is truth to that.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera

I have seen your efforts in the Ojeda Rios article, I am involved in a dispute about facts in the case of OLR, a Puerto Rican still in jail for charges that include using force to committ robbery. My understanding of the legal terms is that theft may be a non-violent crime, but robbery is a violent crime. The same two authors in the Ojeda Rios article have set up a barrier to any changes to their version of the events, even if it misses the facts. Your opinion in this case may be helpful. Not that I wish to embroil you in more controversy.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera

I put another reply in the Talk section of Oscar Lopez Rivera that details the charges in the conspiracy. It cites the House report on the clemency, which extracts from the court sentencing statements. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

While I edit a lot in Wikipedia, I hoped to stay above the fray. I think I understand the upshot of the problems that were cited. While I hoped mediation would help, now that they failed to join I still do not want to enter into conduct complaints for now with folks opposing my edits. Perhaps I am too high-minded and expect that persistence and well-sourced facts will win out in the end. Also, if I do so, in effect they win, because the issue is about them versus me and not about the truth in these articles. That's what they want. I am going to stick to the facts.

All in all, the article has moved in a less biased direction, though there is still a way to go. As I have said always, the opinions that OLR is a political prisoner and unjustly jailed have a place in the article, but they need to be balanced by facts, and even opposing opinions, and the former can't be presented as axiomatic truth. Finally, there there is the creeping (if not creepy) false details that insinuate into the article; these need to be removed. For example, that OLR is a citizen of Puerto Rico not of the United States. But over time, I have become more confident, that the article is becoming more balanced. It has been very tough, but I am optimistic. Thanks for your work here and elsewhere. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Group of 88

Thanks for your efforts on documenting some of the more prominent members of the Group of 88. I noticed the lack of a mention of the issue in Davidson's article the other day and did some digging, uncovering some very interesting results. They help to explain the reason for most of the problems you've been having, so if you haven't' seen the information already see Talk:Cathy_Davidson. I also saw your recent revert on the Baker article, and while the editor removing the content is clearly wrong in his arguments, there is perhaps a different case to be made that the sourcing could be a little stronger and ideally we should fix this to ensure the material is totally beyond reasonable dispute (perhaps a ref from Johnson's book would fix this?).--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Busy beach buem

Hiya Hammersbach: Is the activity of Mr. Beach Buem documented all in one place? Full list of socks, etc. ?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, I have just been letting you know as I stumble across them. Hammersbach (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Super, I'm keeping a list now... we have also Wikicommons "Category:Sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight" for some of his imaginary friends. Please see User talk:Binksternet for more searching I did this morning. It resulted in finding two more "DH" photos on Wikipedia and a couple more on Commons as well. I sent the current list you pointed me towards to Commons admin Hedwig in Washington for help after prior accusations of hysteria. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Hammersbach. You have new messages at Ellin Beltz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help request

I was wondering if you could give me a hand. There is a "rotlink" tag on the Borinqueneers Congressional Gold Medal which really looks bad. I want ahead and fixed the refs., but I am not sure if that is enough to remove the "tag". Could you check it out and maybe help me with this? I would really appreciate it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. This is really just a question of proper links, I don't anyone really doubts the veracity of the information. Hammersbach (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Peltier

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Peltier&curid=18217&diff=653067617&oldid=652959909

"If it was from different case why even mention it?" It was a sourced claim about a notable aspect of Peltier, and the evidence that it was bullshit rests on OR of primary source court docs, which isn't allowed. You might think the source was shit (I agree) and that this justifies removing it (I don't strongly oppose), but you can't just go yanking shit because it's not true or ArbCom will have you shot at dawn. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Will I at least be offered a blindfold? (So I can turn them down in a manly way) Hammersbach (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. The Wikimedia foundation is perpetually strapped for cash (which is why Jimbo is always begging for for money at the top of the page), and can hardly afford to give free blindfolds to the condemned. The Wikipedia store offers a blindfold which reads "I was condemned to death by ArbCom for policy violations, and all I got was this lousy blindfold (for $12.95)," and if you buy one, they'll offer it to you just before the sentence is executed. You could refuse it, but it would be a bit contrived. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 June

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 We Banjo 3 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela

How are my edits not supported by the references? Socialistguy (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not see that you had added new refs, and so I will revert my last edit. Having said that, I do find your edits to be bias. Indeed, you can't write an edit summary like "Reduced bourgeois bias" and not expect your fellow editors to raise an eyebrow or two. Hammersbach (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello, I'm Likliklik0. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Talk:Censorship in China seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Likliklik0 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

“We are not from the PRC propaganda department. We are just a bunch of new editors created within seconds of each other who are inexplicably interested in Censorship in China.”

— TransversalAngle, 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC) from the Talk:Censorship in China page.

So tell me Likliklik0, Randallmarshall, DeNileMop, SochPulpet, MoppenStaggen, Fadw3d223dew, which one of you is the Puppet Master? It’s one the blocks on the form that I have to fill in... 谢谢 Hammersbach (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese government's censorship policies are widely praised around the world and in China. Denying this fact is futile. SochPulpet isn't a sock puppet. We're different people. It's just that we think that Wiki is being unfair and non-neutral --DeNileMop (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What these socks are trying to do is distract me from the issue at hand, namely their rather clumsy attempts to introduce their POV into the Censorship in China article. This is a very common tactic of the 50 Cent Party (五毛党). It is also one that I think that they will find does not work very well here on the Mighty Wik. Hammersbach (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Transversal Angle does not exist. You're just imagining it. --IloveCHN1984 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not sockpuppets. Stop censoring our dissenting opinions. It's unfair and hypocritical.--TransversalAngle (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Censorship in China 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 article's 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.--MoppenStaggen (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I better go put some boots on so I can shake in them! Hammersbach (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

China SPI

The SPI for Censorship in China is here. Thanks for your help, GAB^Hello! 03:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Socks

Our old buddy Leugen9001 is at it again (see recent spi) so you might want to look out for new accounts making unusual edits on the pages the new sock frequented. I will be doing the same. Best, GAB^Hello! 15:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Hammersbach (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Economy of Venezuela

I was going to make a comment about the same section on the economy of Venezuela article talk page but then I saw your comment. I slimmed it down quite a bit so check it out.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hammersbach. 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)

November 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at New Black Panther Party, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Mailk! How you doing? Fine? Great! Hey, you curiously left the following admonition on my talk page:

Please do not add or change content, as you did at New Black Panther Party, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, had you actually reviewed the history (and I am not saying that your editing was sloppy) you may have noticed that in my edit summary I asked User:Vif12vf not to delete an edit without an explanation. That’s fair isn’t it? So I trust you will forgive me, Administrator Malik, if I am confused why you feel it is ok for Vif12vf to delete an edit without explanation, but it is worthy of an admonition if I restore it and ask why it was deleted? Hammersbach (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hammersbach. 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)

Re:Tony

I am still around my old friend. How about you? How are you doing? Tony the Marine (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hammersbach. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)