User talk:Joseph Prasad

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is Joseph Prasad's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This is my talk page. Leave me messages here.

Note: I do suffer from several mental illnesses and may take time to cool down, for either personal reasons, or if a discussion on here gets heated. If I don't respond to you immediately, it will be for either for this or on Mondays-Fridays, school.

Stop

Seriously—take it to dispute resolution. You will be permabanned if you keep this shit up. I don't want to see that happen. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a true dispute though, ATinySliver. One, he is using original research. Two, he is ignoring the established consensus that no one else besides him has tried to argue in a while. Three, other editors have reverted him on the exact same content. Wouldn't this belong in say, the Incidents noticeboard rather than the Dispute one? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read my last edit to this page before you blanked it: it does not matter. Take it to DRR first, then ANI if necessary, before you get permabanned. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATinySliver, should I now? Looks like he was reported at the edit warring noticeboard. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you still should; it is a continuing dispute that will end with you both blocked. There is exactly one alternative, but answer honestly: would you be able to completely let the whole thing go? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm just going to let it go. ATinySliver. That's what I'm doing right now, and was planning to do anyway. It just causes disruption to the page and I don't need another block. I can go edit somewhere else. Someone else can revert him if needed. In fact, someone else already did. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits today belie any notion that this was what you were "planning to do anyway." Divorce yourself completely—those articles off your watchlinst, that editor's contributions ignored, everything. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "planning to do anyway", I meant before your suggestion to do so. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay—but stick with it. You have shown you can be a productive editor, and WP loses too many to disputes. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, ATinySliver, but it looks like I will be getting blocked soon regardless. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No! Try not. Do! Or do not. There is no try." 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be familiar with the phrase, "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself." This is why we back away from disputes. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ready Steady Go! (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Collins. 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) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph Prasad. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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