Jump to content

User talk:Display name 99: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| algo=old(90d)
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=User talk:Display name 99/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=User talk:Display name 99/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=5
| counter=6
| maxarchivesize=75K
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 30: Line 30:
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->


==Hello==
==Andrew Jackson revisited==
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are '''''<u>required to</u>''''' by Wikipedia '''''<u>policy</u>'''''. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please '''''clearly indicate <u>in the edit summary</u> what policy''''' you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.{{parabr}}Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.{{parabr}}Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.{{parabr}}Thanks. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.
:If this is how you're going to edit when you return from "semi-retirement"-- removing new, relevant, well-sourced material from articles on the flimsiest of excuses -- I suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia, and for you, not to do so. Your behavior on [[James Longstreet]] mirror that om [[Andrew Jackson]] which got you banned from that page. My advice would be to stop such disruptive editing practices and re-think your editing philosophy before you bet banned from another article. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)


== Introduction to contentious topics ==
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Balkans or Eastern Europe''', a topic designated as '''[[WP:AC/CT|contentious]]'''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.


A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">

<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
*adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
*comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
*follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
*comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
*refrain from gaming the system.

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks' noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 15:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{U|TylerBurden}}, I have not recently edited any such articles aside from voting in an RfC on a subject related to Ukraine. Also, I have close to 30,000 edits and am well aware of these policies. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::A talk page relating to the invasion of Ukraine is indeed related to this topic, this is a standard notice, so no worries. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 06:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The notice says nothing that does not apply to any other article, and is posted at the talk page of someone with almost 30,000 edits. It is therefore a complete waste of time. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 15:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how many edits you have, you had not previously recieved a notice for this topic, now you have and evidently you indicate that you understand it. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2024|2024 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>


</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1124425184 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->

== Participation at FAR of Andrew Jackson ==
{{ping|El C|Girth Summit}}, {{@FAR}} per [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Display_name_99&oldid=1113083092#Indefinite_partial_block_from_Andrew_Jackson,_Talk:Andrew_Jackson this partial block], is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FAndrew_Jackson%2Farchive1&diff=1133491545&oldid=1133354418 this participation acceptable]? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:I know that you didn't ask me, but my only restriction is that I am blocked from the Andrew Jackson article and its associated talk page. Nobody ever said anything about me being under some kind of Andrew Jackson topic ban. If there were limitations that applied beyond the pages for which I was blocked, I would think that these should have been communicated to me. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 02:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|SandyGeorgia}} Hmm. DN99 is correct that a partial block is not the same as a TBan, so I don't see the act of participation as a policy violation in and of itself. ''However'', I think that the nature of the participation is skirting very close to being a [[WP:NPA]] violation. Comments like this:{{tq|I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors...}} are not acceptable. It's a rhetorical device as old as the hills: I remember my Latin teacher drawing my attention to similar stuff in Cicero's prosecution of Verres, where he included aspersions that he couldn't prove by saying something like "The court need not consider the question of...". DN99 has been here long enough to know that discussions about content should focus on the content, and not on the authors' motivations, and he cannot get around that by saying he is not questioning their motives (while making it very clear that he does indeed doubt them). I think that DN99 ought to remove those comments, and if he will not the FAR coordinators would be well within their remit to redact them as off-topic and needlessly inflammatory. If DN99 continues to make comments about contributors in areas where he should be focusing on content, it will likely end with his partial block being converted to a site-wide one.
:FWIW, I'll also observe that I find the meat of DN99's argument to be weak. He thinks the current version of the article is giving too much weight to some aspects of the subject, and not enough to others; a reasonable position to take perhaps, but he backs it up with nothing more than 'it was better before'. Striking the right balance about a subject like this is obviously difficult, since we all have our own biases and interests that might influence what we think are the more important aspects to cover in more detail and what we can safely skim over. Arguments of this nature should be grounded in the relative weight that recent high-quality scholarship gives the relevant issues, and should not be influenced by expressions of personal opinion, however forcefully expressed. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 12:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
::I saw him on my talk page, so I decided to see if any updates were present. You summed it up perfectly and honestly, the best he should do is try to be wary of contributor and article intentions, I guess? No userbase is perfect... and as much as I regret assuming things about him, I'd rather wait until some consensus is reached. [[User:WannurSyafiqah74|WannurSyafiqah74]] ([[User talk:WannurSyafiqah74|talk]]) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I regret thinking this was some social media website, so I just try to be chill and help out instead of being immature, and I think that's where he needs to improve.
:::I also believe [[WP:HELP]] may be of use. [[User:WannurSyafiqah74|WannurSyafiqah74]] ([[User talk:WannurSyafiqah74|talk]]) 11:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

::::{{U|WannurSyafiqah74}}, I don't think that Girth Summit is going to reply that you make a month and a half after they last posted something here. The fact that you think otherwise is more than a little ridiculous.

::::You're an inconsequential editor with hardly any contributions here. You aggressively inserted yourself into a dispute which did not concern you and began to relentlessly hound and lecture me in a pretentious and self-righteous tone, misrepresenting my words and actions and not making any references to the actual reasons for the dispute that led to my block because it was clear that you were too lazy to actually look into that. The fact that you think that I, or anyone else, actually cares what you have to say stuns me. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't lazy, I know it's a ridiculously late reply, considering I only use this site if I feel like it.
:::::but me? Pretentious? When you keep calling me things as I attempt to point out how your behavior isn't really suitable for a site like this???? lol okay [[User:WannurSyafiqah74|WannurSyafiqah74]] ([[User talk:WannurSyafiqah74|talk]]) 04:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{U|WannurSyafiqah74}}, what behavior? Again, you never addressed the allegations against me which led to my block, so I don't know what conduct you're referring to. You just chimed in later with numerous vague and sanctimonious posts to lecture and degrade me. Do you even know the origin of what happened here? Probably not. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::... look, I didn't look into context. I'm not responding to this ever again cause I now know stuff like this isn't worth my time. Anyway, please refer to what [[User:Freoh|Freoh]] posted, thank you. [[User:WannurSyafiqah74|WannurSyafiqah74]] ([[User talk:WannurSyafiqah74|talk]]) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

== No personal attacks ==

Please keep discussions [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and do not make [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] like {{diff2|1143661268|you made}} against {{u|WannurSyafiqah74}}. It seems you have been warned about this many times already. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&mdash;&hairsp;<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

==Short descriptions==
Hello, and thanks for the discussion at Adams. An aspect of this is that short descriptions are a relatively new thing, and they have no guideline or policy. The page being quoted as a guideline is a supplemental information page that actually has nothing that it's supplementing (at least that I could find or am aware of). The short descriptor had also been added and then reverted at the Washington, Jefferson, and Madison pages, so either a "decision" at Adams should hold for all of them, or a time-consuming but possibly interesting RfC can be held for the four pages. In any case, thanks for your attention to the topic. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:I also see you were very active on the Andrew Jackson page, thank you for that. The {{tl|Andrew Jackson}} navbox is relatively new, can you take a look at it and see if anything is missing, out of place, or any other suggestions, thanks. I enjoyed your opening statement about the site, yes, many present-day pages and even older pages tend greatly towards non-neutrality but there is little to do about them if they are well-guarded by a group of editors. I tend to keep away from these and hopefully time and journalism will correct their approach. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you {{U|Randy Kryn}}. I observed the same problem on the Ulysses S. Grant article. The short description there mentions only his presidency even though he, uniquely among American presidents, was more notable for what he did before he became president than for his time holding that office. That doesn't make sense to me. I agree; if the description is changed at the Adams article, then these other articles should be opened up for change.

::I did keep tight watch over the Jackson page, as I did over several other pages, but amid a content dispute that erupted at Jackson last year, that sort of guardianship that I exercised was instead labelled "ownership," and so I was blocked from the page. I don't think that I will ever be very active here again. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 15:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I'd thought of Grant, as well as Eisenhower, but couldn't think of how to word them. It's hard to try to keep a major page such as Jackson on track, so not surprising you tried and were blocked - congratulations on your work on it. That's why I asked if you'd check the Jackson navbox from September, 2022 {{tl|Andrew Jackson}}, as it might benefit from your knowledge of the topic. I hope you stick around, maybe edit one or some of the American founders pages, which will be coming up on their 250th anniversary dates this year (Boston Tea Party kicks those off in December) and for years afterwards. Hopefully the 250th anniversary of the U.S. will be fully celebrated across the nation. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
::::That is appreciated. Thank you. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

== Knock it off ==

Hi - I'm just coming back from a few days away from the project, and noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=1145009820&oldid=1144889122 this] comment on {{u|El C}}'s talk. Look, [[WP:ADMINACCT]] sets out that admins are expected to be accountable for their actions, and to respond promptly to civil queries concerning their admin actions. That is not the same as saying that they are expected to put up with <s>uncivil comments</s> downright abuse from disgruntled editor about something they have done. You obviously still think that the block was invalid, despite the fact that your requests for it to be lifted have been declined multiple times, but you remain at liberty to edit in other areas, and to request an unblock from that page if you believe that you have demonstrated that you can do so once more without causing disruption. Be advised, however, that you are on thin ice: further comments of that nature will likely result in your block being converted into a site-wide one. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 16:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:{{U|Girth Summit}}, El C's block summary accuses me of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page." On my talk page, he said that I was guilty of, among other things, edit warring. He cited no specific examples of my behavior at the Andrew Jackson article or talk page, and when I asked him to do so, gave only one example of an uncivil comment on the article talk page. This one example was, I have said several times, grossly insufficient to justify the charge of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page," let alone edit warring. Nevertheless, El C obstinately refused to provide any additional evidence to justify his indefinite page block. Indefinitely blocking an editor from an article-especially one which they edited extensively and brought to featured article status-and refusing to provide examples of the reasons given for the block, is an atrocious abuse. Additionally, he admitted that he did not bother to investigate the allegations that I made against an editor in the ANI thread that led to the block, which makes it impossible for him to fairly judge my comments towards that person. I believe that El C arbitrarily employed his power to punish an editor for whom he has conceived a dislike. Most likely, he refused to justify his rationale for blocking me because he cannot do so. Against so enormous a crime, I consider my remarks towards him fully justified.


==[[Andrew Jackson]] scheduled for TFA==
:I don't feel that my unsuccessful unblock attempts reflect in any significantly bad way upon me. The first administrator to decline my request didn't even bother to elaborate on why he did it, which I regard as a further sign of disrespect. You declined my request for a legitimate reason but one which, in my view, was totally beside the point and which should have been overlooked. And I can't help that nobody even bothered to answer the last one.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as [[WP:TFA|today's featured article]] for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025]], or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at [[Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025]]. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by [[user:JennyOz]], who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]] from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Moo1882 ==
:Disruptive editors and renegade administrators are the problem, not me. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 18:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
::I have not read the above, sorry. There are appropriate ways to make such a complaint (eg an unblock request, or a thread at AN for example), and there are inappropriate ways (eg random snarky shit on the admin's talk). You are still at liberty to do the former. You have been warned what will happen if you repeat the latter. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


{{u|Moo1882}}, who was later banned for being a sockpuppet, modified the first sentence of [[John Adams]] after your modification. I would be OK with reverting his edit, since (1) he made a grammatical error, and (2) edits by sockpuppets are always suspect anyhow, and (3) I was OK with how the sentence stood after your modification. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 02:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{U|Girth Summit}}, you are totally full of shit. I did do those things. I made an ANI thread about another editor, but that led to me being blocked, and nothing happened when I complained about the block there. And as you well know, I filed three unblock requests. The fact that you responded to my post without even reading it demonstrates you to be someone acting in bad faith and with a high level of disrespect. It seems that you are little to no better than El C. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 03:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{U|Bruce leverett}}, another editor has joined and made changes to the opening paragraph as well. I reverted the article back to how it was after my initial change and encouraged that person to go to the talk page if they had anything further to say. We'll see if anything more develops from there. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 14:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, you have already tried those things unsuccessfully. That does not mean that you have license to abuse people on their talk pages. You remain at liberty to have another go at them, and to do a better job of it. Self-reflection, contrition, demonstrating that you can work collaboratively - those are far more likely to work than the righteous indignation and snark that have tried so far.
::::Now, I don't really care what you think of me, and I'm not particularly concerned about you venting at me on your own talk, but you should be aware that your last post contained personal attacks against me of the sort that I would block you for if you directed them at anyone else. You cannot speak to people like that here. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 08:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Display name 99}}, I've just recently met you and don't want to lose you as a fellow editor so quickly. Please calm down about Jackson even though you may be right about a misblock. Combative language usually boomarangs as people then don't even take the main points into consideration but just jump into the combat. I came by to ask if you'd like to go ahead with the short descriptors at Grant and Eisenhower, maybe start a discussion at the Grant talk page? Or maybe just go with "American Civil War general and 18th president" and see if it sticks or is reverted? Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm pleased to see you here, {{u|Randy Kryn}}. I don't believe we've ever interacted, but yours is a name I recognise and respect. I hope that DN99 will be responsive to your good advice, and that your positive example will inspire him to be collegiate in his interactions with others. I also do not want to lose him as a contributor, I just want him recognise that leaving abuse on admins' talk pages - even when you are in dispute with them over their actions - is not OK. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Hello {{u|Girth Summit}}, good to hang out with you too. If you respect me you are mistaken (ha!), but thank you. And right back at you. Display name has done some recent good work at some of the first president's pages, and hopefully knows there's much more than Andrew Jackson to edit. Even Jackson-related pages would be open for him to edit I think. I don't know what happened at Jackson, but is it possible for Display to list changes that he thinks are needed in the Jackson article somewhere (here, there, anywhere) so others can consider them? Thanks. Abusing an admin? Unheard of, he would be the first! Ha. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I have said elsewhere (no reason why you would know this, just reiterating the fact that I have not set out to muzzle this editor) that DN99 is subject to a partial block, not a TBan. As such, he is at liberty to make suggestions about improvements to that page, provided that those suggestions do not transgress his TBan from AmPol. Best [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 23:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:11, 24 November 2024


SEMI-RETIRED

Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accessible source of good information available to anyone, and to maintain impartiality by presenting as fact only things which are widely acknowledged as such. Wikipedia is no longer that. Instead, it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology of the Great Reset. Valuable information is scuttered and impartiality abandoned as articles are made to cater specifically to those with short attention spans and philosophies consistent with the New World Order. Editors who protest are punished no matter how competent they are or how much they have contributed to the site, while almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus.

I have done my best to fight against this, but it has proven to be too much for me. I was indefinitely blocked from the site for not doing any more to advocate for conservative positions than many progressive editors advocate for progressive positions without suffering any consequences. More recently, I have been indefinitely blocked from the Andrew Jackson article, an article that I brought to featured article status and helped maintain, without satisfactory reason being given. Meanwhile, other editors who have adopted a battleground mentality on the talk page, made comments that were uncivil and blatant POV-pushing, edited disputed material without consensus, and frequently disrupted discussions were not punished and scarcely even reprimanded, including after I brought specific attention to many of these violations. I have made repeated unblock requests that have not been accepted, while I have been forced to watch as this article, which I have spent countless hours editing, has been wrecked through the removal of valuable content. Wikipedia is a trash heap that has been disgraced by editors who either do not have a clue how to create good content or do not care about doing so.

I have given the matter some thought and prayer, and decided that it is not worth the cost to my time and constitution to keep fighting these battles and trying to save a place that has grown so corrupt and decadent. I have done my duty and can do no more. So long as I am not completely blocked from the site, I will probably still make some gnomish edits from time to time, or revert some silliness here or there on articles that I have edited which have not yet gone the way of Andrew Jackson, but as far as embarking on any more large-scale projects here, I think I’m finished.

For those who intend to continue fighting for a good, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia, I pray that God’s blessings be upon them. With that, I step away. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Notification

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hello

[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how you're going to edit when you return from "semi-retirement"-- removing new, relevant, well-sourced material from articles on the flimsiest of excuses -- I suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia, and for you, not to do so. Your behavior on James Longstreet mirror that om Andrew Jackson which got you banned from that page. My advice would be to stop such disruptive editing practices and re-think your editing philosophy before you bet banned from another article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TylerBurden, I have not recently edited any such articles aside from voting in an RfC on a subject related to Ukraine. Also, I have close to 30,000 edits and am well aware of these policies. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page relating to the invasion of Ukraine is indeed related to this topic, this is a standard notice, so no worries. TylerBurden (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notice says nothing that does not apply to any other article, and is posted at the talk page of someone with almost 30,000 edits. It is therefore a complete waste of time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many edits you have, you had not previously recieved a notice for this topic, now you have and evidently you indicate that you understand it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moo1882

[edit]

Moo1882, who was later banned for being a sockpuppet, modified the first sentence of John Adams after your modification. I would be OK with reverting his edit, since (1) he made a grammatical error, and (2) edits by sockpuppets are always suspect anyhow, and (3) I was OK with how the sentence stood after your modification. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce leverett, another editor has joined and made changes to the opening paragraph as well. I reverted the article back to how it was after my initial change and encouraged that person to go to the talk page if they had anything further to say. We'll see if anything more develops from there. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]