User talk:Display name 99

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)

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Notification

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.

Andrew Jackson revisited

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

Participation at FAR of Andrew Jackson

@El C and Girth Summit:, @FAR coordinators: per this partial block, is this participation acceptable? 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. Display name 99 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@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: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. Girth Summit _(blether) 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. 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. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Display name 99 (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 WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Display name 99 (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 Freoh posted, thank you. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, yes, that was quite obvious. Consider doing that next time before opening your mouth. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, before I'll stay inactive, I just assumed talking it out would be the case like I was using a social media site. ah well. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, once again, your message is completely incomprehensible. What does "before I'll stay inactive" mean? If you aren't inactive now, then you can't stay inactive. How can you "talk something out" without understanding what that something is? You keep mentioning social media in comparison to Wikipedia but never explain what that has to do with anything. You said that you would never post here again (not the first time) but once again couldn't help yourself from coming back here and saying something else. You're totally inconsistent and your statements mean nothing. A fundamental part of your problem is that you often completely fail to communicate in a way that makes any bit of sense. In addition to trying harder not to sound arrogant and sanctimonious, I strongly suggest that you proofread your messages and improve your English skills if you want to edit here. Now I'm not sure that advice on how to edit Wikipedia from someone who has been blocked as many times as I have means a lot, so do as you like with it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's long. English isn't my first language, so I'll have to explain it in summary:

1. Hey, it's only fair to criticize myself. Just stay chill, okay?
2. Before I'll be inactive. I used "stay" instead of "be", sorry.
3. My replies sometimes do sound incomprehensible, sorry about that. I used to talk about your behavior before I decided to admit I'll be quiet about it (as Freoh warned you about some of the messages you've sent. Not all, some)
4. Fine. Honestly, as long as you also acknowledge your flaws, that's fine.

That's all. I'll leave for real, just don't expect me to reply after this. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, no, it's not long. It's a normal sized paragraph. Your first point doesn't answer what I said. Your constant comparisons to social media are weird because they are completely unexplained. Likewise, you did not address my main concern: how you can lecture and pontificate to me on my behavior without even knowing what my behavior was that led to the block. As far as you not posting here anymore, I'll believe it when I see it. Display name 99 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please keep discussions civil and do not make personal attacks like you made against WannurSyafiqah74. It seems you have been warned about this many times already.      — Freoh 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, but thank you. That's a reason I'm not contributing here anymore, unless something important, related or otherwise happened. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Knock it off

Hi - I'm just coming back from a few days away from the project, and noticed this comment on 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 uncivil comments 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

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.

Disruptive editors and renegade administrators are the problem, not me. Display name 99 (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. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2023 (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. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you here, 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello 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. 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 Girth Summit _(blether) 23:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Calhoun (immigrant)

Hi. I was considering Patrick Calhoun (immigrant) for deletion as I couldn't find many sources on him, until I read what was said about him at John C. Calhoun#Early life. Seeing as you wrote a lot of John C. Calhoun and likely have access to the sources that talk about Patrick, I was wondering if you would be able to add some better descriptors of Patrick in the article (such as farmer, politician etc. whatever the sources say)? Or do you think there would be grounds for AfD here? I think someone who was elected to political office is of sufficient notability. Willbb234 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234, I am semi-retired from editing Wikipedia, and all that I am really doing now is making minor edits to articles that I have already done extensive work on to ensure that they remain in good condition. I am not undertaking any major projects. From a brief glance, I don't see much of a reason to keep that article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

Sad to see you step away, best wishes for you do elsewhere. You left a legacy here, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)