User talk:BlueSalix

Shouldn't we all be concerned

I hope we can all agree foreign meddling in another country's elections is not a good thing. Shouldn't we all be equally concerned about that, regardless of political party or point-of-view. Next time, the winds may change and they could try to influence the results for the other party. Sagecandor (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree - the U.S. should stop meddling in other countries elections like Iran, Venezuela, etc. That said, I'm not here for cyber-activism, I'm here to edit articles to a NPOV standard and my record removing right-wing hogwash like this [1] is unimpeachable. It's very clear you're not going to be with us much longer before the sock investigations get you, but please keep your doe-eyed crusading platitudes off my Talk page for whatever time you have left. Just think - three months from now when this meme has evaporated and the spotlight turns elsewhere, everything you've added here will be promptly trashed. Fourteen hours a day for a month, all wasted. BlueSalix (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you about all parties meddling in other countries elections including those you mentioned. I didn't mean for my post to come across as doe-eyed crusading platitudes, and I'm sorry if you felt it came across to you that way. I hope and believe that all of our research to Wikipedia remains to some extent or another once we all depart this realm hopefully after a good long happy life. I truly wish you well and I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, BlueSalix. I'd like to be able to collaborate with you in a better more good faith tone in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Sagecandor, I am what you would probably describe as "Anti-American." However, I am not an Anti-America SPA and I always fully embrace NPOV. In short, I am not here as an activist, or to right the wrongs in the world, because that's not what WP is for. It's completely WP:NOTHERE for you to solicit other editors opinions on what you're calling "foreign meddling in another country's elections." Leave your politics at the door and don't try to drum-up support based on your personal moral outrage about current events. I really don't care about current events in America at all, which probably makes me uniquely qualified to edit about them. BlueSalix (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt I was trying to solicit opinions, I was not. I was trying to make a good faith effort to reach out to you. You yourself said "I generally agree - the U.S. should stop meddling in other countries elections like Iran, Venezuela, etc." And I agreed with you about that. I'd like to be able to move forward with you, BlueSalix, and work better together with a better tone for both of us. Sagecandor (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) I appreciate your attempts to professionalize your appearance from your persona's earlier edit history of a few weeks ago by using, what we in the biz call, "coherent bargaining" layered with a dripping level of niceness. And, I think this is probably an effective approach for you to use on those who have not carefully reviewed your prior edits.

(2) I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. For the final time, the intersection or divergence of our political beliefs is irrelevant to WP.

You're not bringing anything to the table here, so at this time I'll have to ask you stop posting to my Talk page indefinitely. BlueSalix (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay will do. Sorry we couldn't work something out. I'll try to be more gracious to you in the future. Have a good day and wishing you and yours health and happiness for the holiday season. Sagecandor (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Give it a rest. I've told you I'm not interested in the "golly, gee whiz!" / First Day at Bible Camp act. And you'll discover (or, more likely, rediscover) there are only a handful of editors here dumb enough to fall for it. BlueSalix (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 United etc.

BlueSalix, please either drop the sarcasm or just step back from the article and the talk page for a while. I didn't see this article or the talk page until earlier today; I only came here because I saw that cool username of yours go by on Recent changes and I had kind of forgotten who you were. But in looking over that page it seems to me that you are running a high risk of getting blocked because of your very adversarial comments, larded with rather demeaning snipes--stuff about bowels of talk pages and get out of jail free cards, and I can probably find more without looking too hard. So please, don't get carried away even more; I saw that Neutrality already warned you and I agree. We don't need more blocks and topic bans and all that. All the best, Drmies (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Drmies. You are an extremely reasonable person of good judgment and your request is more than sufficient to inspire me to step back from the talk page and article. Just a point of explanation, however, that my comment about a "get out of jail free card" was in response to an admin repeatedly attributing fake quotes to me [2] without receiving threats of imminent Wiki-decapitation of the type to which I've been endlessly treated for having the temerity to question the blanking of content and sources like Stanford University and The Hill and The Nation. I think, in that context, it was not a jibe or attack, but a metaphor that provided an accurate and factual description of the situation. Thank you again for your patience and willingness to discuss the situation and thank you for your comment about my username. BlueSalix (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Grant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timothy Winter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothy Winter. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demagogue

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demagogue. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:JonTron

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:JonTron. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Regina Spektor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regina Spektor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tony Blair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Patkanim - Snoqualmie chief.jpg

You or another contributor marked an upload of yours with an unknown author. Whilst the author may well be unknown, it's advised that uploader make a "reasonable effort" to determine if this correct, and that as much information as possible is provided to determine if such efforts have been undertaken.

It would be appreciated if you could add additional information to the image concerned, to assist with this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Spicer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Spicer. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of David Dao for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Dao is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dao until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have restored your indefinite block. Having checked the diffs provided by Justeditingtoday, I agree with his interpretation of those diffs, and having checked several page histories that he didn't link, I see confirmation of his claims. Stalking another editor in revenge for the other editor's actions is reprehensible, it's compounded because you misrepresented others' actions as edit-warring despite your own actions, and the whole time your edit war was an attempt to enforce the existence of an article relying on nothing but primary sources. You're welcome to request unblock, of course, but unless you're doing that, I suggest that you make no edits to this talk page: when you've gotten yourself a second indef block, abuse is likely to result in a speedy removal of talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

request for unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have been indefinitely blocked for "stalking" Justeditingtoday. Here is our editor interaction report covering my last six years on Wikipedia: [3]

Background: For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him when he redirected an article I'd authored [4]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages.

I preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and noticed he was eviscerating vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a UQ academic named Paul Harpur). I then proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert of an edit he'd made (here: [5]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he'd initiated against another editor on a directly related discussion to said article (here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp). I was then, immediately, permanently, and forever blocked from Wikipedia for stalking.

Reason for unblock: The standard for WP:HARASSMENT is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." As evidenced, I joined one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can two (2) edits meet the high standard to indefinitely block someone for stalking. This block is particularly shocking as the two (2) edits in question were being done to arrest what, by all appearances, seems to be a very destructive spree of vandalism. BlueSalix (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been indefinitely blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]]. Here is our editor interaction report covering my last six years on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] '''Background:''' For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him when he redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. I preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and noticed he was eviscerating vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic named Paul Harpur). I then proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert of an edit he'd made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he'd initiated against another editor on a directly related discussion to said article (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]). I was then, immediately, permanently, and forever blocked from Wikipedia for stalking. '''Reason for unblock:''' The standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: var(--color-content-added, #006400);" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I ''joined'' '''one (1)''' topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made '''two (2)''' edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can '''two (2)''' edits meet the high standard to indefinitely block someone for stalking. This block is particularly shocking as the two (2) edits in question were being done to arrest what, by all appearances, seems to be a very destructive spree of vandalism. [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix#top|talk]]) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been indefinitely blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]]. Here is our editor interaction report covering my last six years on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] '''Background:''' For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him when he redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. I preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and noticed he was eviscerating vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic named Paul Harpur). I then proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert of an edit he'd made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he'd initiated against another editor on a directly related discussion to said article (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]). I was then, immediately, permanently, and forever blocked from Wikipedia for stalking. '''Reason for unblock:''' The standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: var(--color-content-added, #006400);" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I ''joined'' '''one (1)''' topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made '''two (2)''' edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can '''two (2)''' edits meet the high standard to indefinitely block someone for stalking. This block is particularly shocking as the two (2) edits in question were being done to arrest what, by all appearances, seems to be a very destructive spree of vandalism. [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix#top|talk]]) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been indefinitely blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]]. Here is our editor interaction report covering my last six years on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] '''Background:''' For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him when he redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. I preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and noticed he was eviscerating vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic named Paul Harpur). I then proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert of an edit he'd made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he'd initiated against another editor on a directly related discussion to said article (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]). I was then, immediately, permanently, and forever blocked from Wikipedia for stalking. '''Reason for unblock:''' The standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: var(--color-content-added, #006400);" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I ''joined'' '''one (1)''' topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made '''two (2)''' edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can '''two (2)''' edits meet the high standard to indefinitely block someone for stalking. This block is particularly shocking as the two (2) edits in question were being done to arrest what, by all appearances, seems to be a very destructive spree of vandalism. [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix#top|talk]]) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}