Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 11 August 2018

Hi, welcome to my talk page! I'm only human and I make plenty of errors -- if you are here to complain about a tag, a warning, a deletion, or something I've said, please assume good faith. If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help. This user has Asperger's. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. Being rude will get you nowhere. If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it and over it, but I don't like game players Pet peeve: Editors who spend more time reverting others than actually writing content and/or finding sources to support content written by others. Instead of deleting/reverting content out with a dismissive "Unsourced", have you tried to find a source first? If the answer is 'no', it should be pointed out that such behavior is disruptive because it tears down rather than builds up. We are supposed to build an encyclopedia, not rip it to shreds. Deletionism vs. inclusionism. I used to be a deletionist, but no more (with the exception of culling undue weight). I also used to be an edit warrior. All of the aforementioned behavior goes hand-in-hand with edit warring, and actually is edit warring/bullying, even if the 3RR bright line hasn't been crossed. Chronic edit warriors (both individually operating or tag-teamers) are engaging in assholery as it benefits nothing but their own egos and personal need for a sense of power. Being a chronic asshole in Misplaced Pages is antithetical to building an encyclopedia and does nothing but disrupt. No doubt such "editors" are also assholes in social media and other forms of internet communication. Bottom line, it's a way to get attention through bullying and only emphasizes their own insecurities - which brings me to the policy of WP:NOTTHERAPY. How many "editors" are using Misplaced Pages as therapy? Probably more than one realizes at first glance. Don't be an edit warrior. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"There's a trend I'm noticing more and more every day in print and televised media, social media, and Misplaced Pages: Americans who hate President Donald Trump more than they love the United States of America. They aren't a majority but they are loud and they are being enabled by the press and the internet. And that, frankly, is incredibly dangerous and frightening." -- Me

The Facts stood in front of a crowd of Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers and said: "Hey, I'm The Facts, did you want me?"
The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers replied, "We only want the part of you that supports our opinion!"
The Facts replied naively, "Ha-ha, you can't just take a part of me, silly!"
After having a bite taken out of it by The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers, The Facts sadly and with tears dejectedly said, "But...they could. And did."
True story. Just look at the politically-based articles in Misplaced Pages and their related talk pages for evidence.

"Jesus fucking christ, you people can bring this to ANI if you want, but I'm a fucking liberal who hates Trump and I agree with motherfucking Breitbart right now that you fuckers are bending over backwards to push you POV into this article instead of making even the slightest good faith effort to be an encyclopedia." -- written by a woke, honest Wikipedian

"Trust no one here or anywhere on the internet unless they are a personal friend or family member. People love to screw with others online, usually because they have empty, meaningless lives and want to take their personal misery out on others from their computer keyboards." -- Me

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

Some Wikilove for you

	White Russian
	Did you know that the White Russian is not really Russian. Merely accused of being Russian. Kinda like you! – Lionel 10:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll be sure to drink it. Since it isn't likely to make me Russian. Never did like their winter hats lol. Thanks, Lionelt for the laugh! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• OMG - seriously...that's what I had during Happy Hour at my house yesterday!!! Shhhhh...🤐 16:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

With a side of borscht and caviar while wearing your ushanka, right? :-D -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wears it better...? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for all your efforts at Liberty University and other articles, remaining civil and ensuring that content is encyclopedic and NPOV. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Marquis de Faux. I try my best to accomplish all those things. Your thanks are appreciated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Commonsgate diffs

Ritchie333, I don't know if you saw my response to you at ND's talk page or his response to that and then my comments following, as there has been a deletion at the page since. What I see is someone who's not threatening to leave or close to being indeffed but someone who's being allowed to verbally abuse another editor and suggest physical violence is warranted against that editor because they take a different viewpoint about a drawing. A drawing of a car on a rocket, no less. He issued threats against editors when this whole thing started, issued more since, issued another in a diff here, has been nothing but disruptive here and at Commons, but then says, "I defy you to produce any diffs featuring threats and disruptive behavior." I'm not angry or even upset that you compared my past situations to his, but I'd appreciate it if you'd think again if you truly believe he and I wiki-behavior-wise are at all comparable. We aren't. The latest in the exchange between he and I are below. I've had my moments, but nothing compared to what this guy has done (and is continuing to do).

, , .

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I did see the follow-up, and have lobbed my 2c into the thread on Commons. The point I was trying to make is not that your point was invalid, or that it's recommended practice for Nagualdesign to revert you and tell you go whistle, but rather that you've had difficulties with editors before where you've gone off the rails, yelled at them, and ended up with a silly block. Therefore, you probably aren't the best editor to be "civility police". I have experienced my own frustration with Commons admins (although I just threw my hands up and said "fine, I'll use Flickr / Picasa / Instagram, because they're better - your loss") so to suggest that Nagualdesign was just throwing f-bombs around for no reason whatsoever and urinating on the fourth pillar without justification lacks an understanding of the situation. WP editors are pissed off with Commons admins running a cowboy workshop, Commons admins are fed up of WP editors coming in with next to no edits / understanding and hectoring them. The situation needs a diplomat, who can listen to all points of view, calm people down and suggest amenable ways forward. Charging in on horseback complaining about civility just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 15:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I largely agree with you. Not on all points, but most. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, to briefly revisit this and further explain: What I don't agree with is an editor previously sanctioned/blocked/whatever never being able to credibly comment in the future on issues involving editor behavior similar his own in the past. In other words, you brought up my past blocks/behavior. What I would argue is that, akin to a criminal incarcerated or put on probation for a time as a result of bad choices, such an individual is the perfect person to advise others they see making the same bad choices because they know what it all can lead to. I'm going to bet that you're someone who would support a "reformed" or former law breaker/criminal doing community service by helping out another in such a manner in the real world, would you not? There's really no difference in this situation. And so, it's on that point, that I have to disagree with you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the WP:ATONED argument, however in this case they were specifically a) in the context of you going "a bit off the rails" which is certainly a personality trait that hasn't necessarily gone away (although it's currently not in a state where it's warranting a block) and b) I was trying to talk you down from getting sufficient rope to hang yourself, which is what I feel like I'm doing now. So, the circumstances, although one involves a block and one doesn't, do have similar traits and ideas. Anyway, none of this is really the main point of my discussion which is - disciplining nagualdesign is not your job. That's it. Ritchie333 21:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Except I didn't go off the rails, Ritchie. Maybe that's your perception of it, it's certainly not mine as I know what I was thinking and feeling at the time I was commenting. Here's the skinny: I'm not a pacifist and I'm not going to pretend and act like one when I see something wrong happening that needs to be pointed out, discussed, or dealt with. Does that mean I'm on a vigilante mission or something? Absolutely not. But I will speak up if I feel it's necessary or will (hopefully) effect some positive and productive change. Off the top of my head, I can name numerous editors (including admins) who frequently either go off the rails or are disproportionately impassioned in their commentary. As well blatant attacks against other editors and violations of policy that is swept under the rug or completely ignored. But when Winkelvi points something out ... well, that's just wrong and we must chastise him because he's a former edit warrior or because he used to blatantly go off the rails and attack other editors. <---That's exactly what I see you saying, Ritchie and it's simply not fair or right. Now, I do appreciate everything you've done for me in the past, and I appreciate you trying to help me stay on the straight and narrow now, as well. That said, as far as your rope and talk me down of the ledge analogies... really, I need not be talked down from any ledge because I'm not on one, nor is there any rope involved. All of that was sufficiently dealt with when stated I was putting myself on an unofficial one-way iban on en.wp here and formally stated as much here, was it not? One last thing, since I have placed myself under that iban, I'd appreciate it if you did not mention the user on my talk page with which I have the one-way iban. Doing so pretty much forces me to be in a position where I will have to discuss him, and that's just not cool - agreed? Thanks for your time. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A seafood snap for you!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi Winkelvi. Long time. I hope you are well. Sorry, but I hope you like seafood. This is for violating WP:DONTBITETHECREATORS, which is not a guideline, not a policy, but actually the fourth pillar! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, Anna Frodesiak, for the chuckle. Nice to see you and hope you are well, too :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No bad faith or form intended

I was just trying to make peace. I am sorry. Thank you for striking the comment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome, AF. Today's a perfect day for a goat BBQ with grilled trout salad.  :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is, my friend, (except for the goat and trout, of course). Perhaps we all need a bit of R&R. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign

Hi. I just wanted you to know that I NAC-closed the AN/I discussion started by Nagualdesign on the basis of your agreeing to a voluntary one-way interaction ban regarding that editor, and that I have logged the volubtary I-ban here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump baby balloon

Per Misplaced Pages:Move review this is my "attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page" as I am concerned with the manner the requested move at Talk:Donald Trump baby balloon#Requested move 16 July 2018 was closed.

1. Requests should only be closed by uninvolved editors, but you contributed to the discussion, so closing could be seen as a supervote. Misplaced Pages policy states that "No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close an unwithdrawn requested move discussion in which they supported or opposed, and in which the result of discussion is not a unanimous result."
2. Before closing a request, the consensus or lack thereof should be clear after a full listing period (seven days). This request was closed after two days. I understand this was because the nominator was blocked for sockpuppetry, but I do not consider this to be a policy-based reason for early closure.
3. Further, per WP:RMNAC, non-admin closures must be explicitly declared with template {{subst:RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close.
4. In any event, the formal step-by-step closing procedure was not followed properly.

Jamacfarlane, if you want to follow policy to the letter, what's policy on denying disruption by block-evading socks that start RfCs? I !voted and have commented at the RfC, yes. But beyond that, the consensus was clear as well as the fact that the RfC was pretty much invalid to begin with because it was started by a block-evading sock. I suppose an uninvolved editor could close the discussion for the same reasons I did, but what would be the point other than WP:BUREAUCRACY? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: my preference would have been to just leave it for a week, but I see your point. Could you humour me on my minor concerns and switch to using the template shown at here, along with the RMnac template? jamacfarlane (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears GeoffreyT2000 already took care of it with this edit? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit only removed the requested move template so the bot would remove the discussion from the requested moves page. jamacfarlane (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I view this as more of a "procedural close" that doesn't need to follow the formalities. Wink was essentially "cancelling" the discussion, with the support of several editors, rather than assessing consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

I'm notifying all editors involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Modifying or deleting talk page section headings

Hi Winkelvi. You have a bad habit of modifying or deleting section headings for discussions that I've started. I'm certain that you know that doing that is frowned upon. Obviously it's meant to irritate me. Just so you know, the irritation is mild, and I will simply revert any such childish attempts. But you might also want to consider how it reflects on you. To an outside observer, it might look a lot like WP:HARASSMENT.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal about it. Certainly not harassment. Just adding it to the already existing section on the same content, that's all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe you.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. You have no reason not to. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

re: billy the kid edits

I appreciate your feedback on my edits and I understand what you're saying about original research. Here is what I don't understand though: the information on years that events took place came from reliable sources that have been checked, but the math doesn't add up to reflect what's currently on the page regarding his age at the time of those events. So does that mean that sources are conflicted on that information? Not trying to argue, I just want to understand how the information is selected from each source and if certain sources are deemed more factual than others. Tentinquaranteeno (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump baby balloon

Hi Winkelvi, can you please put back the image I re-cropped for this article. My edit summary was not clear but the new version was specifically selected to appear in the DYK for this article in about 16 hours. But also the caption in the article reads The balloon being flown over Parliament Square in London on 13 July 2018. I wasn't trying to highlight parliament square, only make sure it is visible as it is important to the DYK hook and the narrative in the article. Per WP:DYKIMG, the image has to be used in the article to qualify for top billing as a hook image. IMO, it is also better composed visually per Rule of thirds. Pinging the DYK nominator, Gerda Arendt. Thanks! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my response, Coffeeandcrumbs...

(1) This needs to be brought up at the article talk page and turned into a request for comment (whether or not a formal RfC is up to you).

(2) It seems to me that if the article is to be a DYK, then the article needs to be representative of itself as status quo, not manipulated to satisfy your DYK nomination.

(3) Some things you may not be aware of in regard to policy on infobox images:

"It is common for an article's...infobox to carry a representative image...The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there....Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works...". (MOS:LEADIMAGE)

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize and not supplant key facts that appear in the article...". (MOS:INFOBOX)

The image you prefer does not highlight the article subject and you are seeking for the image to highlight Parliament Square. That's not what the article is about. If it were, "Parliament Square" would be in the article title. Surely, you realize that if Parliament Square did not exist the balloon would still exist? Further, the image you prefer doesn't illustrate the topic specifically. More importantly, because the image you prefer is an imbalanced look at the balloon, it looks awkward and amateurish, therefore, it is not suited for the infobox.

It's inappropriate to "force" the article to appear a certain way when what you're manipulating it to be is against policy as well as best practices.

As far as the "rule of thirds"... that's irrelevant in relation to Misplaced Pages's policy on images - nothing in the MOS for images states the rule of thirds is a requirement.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Misplaced Pages reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Misplaced Pages; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Misplaced Pages and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Misplaced Pages's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Misplaced Pages does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

A curiosity

If you do a Misplaced Pages search for "which would then have been reviewed by the House", you'll find the 14 pages of Republican members of the U.S. House that contain the text so-and-so "voted against a resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns, which would then have been reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed session." The source is this article. The resolution passed 229 to 185, with 229 Republicans voting "aye." This content wasn't added to the pages of 229 Republicans, though. The 14 pages it was systematically added to (and perhaps it was added to more but has since been removed from some, I don't know) were are all announced as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee targets not long before the content was added. Many Democratic campaigns on this season of The Election are of course making a point to tie candidates to Trump, who is widely viewed as unpopular. It's a bit funny, though--he may be more popular than many Democratic campaign strategists/Wikipedia editors imagine, since he wasn't supposed to win in the first place. We've all seen how that turned out. Marquardtika (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT

Stop following me around and reverting whatever I do. In the last few days, you've been following me to pages that you've never edited before (but which I happened to edit a few hours or minutes before), only to spuriously revert whatever I've added. It's not only extraordinarily lame and a detriment to the Misplaced Pages project, but constitutes WP:HARASSMENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got it backwards: My edits have been within policy and appropriate. Your reverts of those edits have made no sense, equate WP:IDLI, and have bordered on harassment. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, WV. I am responding to a comment you made at Snoogan’s talk page (since that page is still on my watchlist): I believe you were in error when you said Snoogans has “reached 3RR” at the Dinesh D’Souza page. I see a pair of reversions (remember, a series of reversions counts as one reversion) at 02:00 and 02:05, and an additional reversion at 18:51. That makes two. The article is under DS but not 1RR as far as I can see. I’m responding here since Snoogans has asked you to stay off their talk page, and I assume you will abide by that request. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am in error. Please look closely at the diffs and see that his removal of content - while not a use of "Undo" or Twinkle is still a reversion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A removal is functionally the same as a reversion, they mean the same to me. It doesn't matter if undo or Twinkle is used, the removal is what matters. When I said reversions, I was referring to his removals of content. I listed three removals of content - two of which were in a series, so counted as one, plus another separate removal/reversion, total two. I don't see any other removals of content. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I see three. I guess we see it differently. No surprise there. It's just a continuation of seeing things differently since... yesterday? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"It is the norm to not revert content being challenged/discussed while discussion re: inclusion is still taking place"

No, that's not the norm, Winkelvi. You are mistaken. I've been becoming increasingly worried about your aggressive pursuit of Snooganssnoogans, and now there you are on K.e.coffman's talkpage, making a mistaken claim about the BRD norms, and, when he's not buying, moving rapidly to berating him with WP:JERK, WP:BATTLE, and WP:POKE. You'll have to dial down the aggression. If you continue making the place so unpleasant for others, I will consider a topic ban from American politics, since the subjects you get so fired up about seem to be mainly in that area. Compare also the section above. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

"You are mistaken." No I'm not. And guess what? Having a different opinion and/or pointing out when someone is violating policy and misquoting/misusing it to their own policy-violating advantage isn't aggressive, it's responsible. "If you continue making the place so unpleasant for others, I will consider a topic ban from American politics" Yes, I supposed that would be a certain type of "solution", wouldn't it and would just put me on the list of those who don't exhibit a certain type of editing bias solution or support of a certain type of editing bias solution. You made it clear early this year you were heading that direction in regard to my ability to continue to edit Misplaced Pages by saying you were "disappointed" in me and were no longer going to support me as an editor. As far as "being fired up"... that's funny. Obviously, you don't know me at all. I rarely get fired up about anything, just insistent that rules/policy be followed correctly and equally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I will also consider a fairly lengthy block as an alternative, because I'm not sure it's a matter of a particular area. I don't care if you're internally "fired up" or not, that's not my business; what I care about is how you address others. Those links on Coffman's talkpage, WP:JERK and so on, are nothing short of scandalous, and I see you have now repeated them. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

"Scandalous" seems more than hyperbolic to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, since WP:POKE goes to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pokémon, that one was fairly harmless. Eccentric, though. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

Voluntary restrictions proposed

Winkelvi, I have a suggestion for improving your interactions with others and making sure they aren't darkening anybody else's enjoyment of editing. Here are some voluntary restrictions for you to think about. I've tried to make them very precise, since I know that's what you prefer. Please consider agreeing informally to the following conditions:

1. Don't post on Snooganssnoogans's talkpage any more unless obliged to by policy or other rules.
2. Don't revert Snooganssnoogans on any article that you have not previously edited.
3. Don't open a discussion of Snooganssnoogans on any board (only yesterday, you opened an SPI, which was promptly closed for insufficient evidence).
4. Don't warn anybody about 3RR. This is because I see from several exchanges you've had with Melanie that you don't understand how to count reverts. There are rules for it, outlined in WP:3RR; it's not a matter of opinion. If you can show to my satisfaction that you've mastered those rules, this condition can be lifted.
5. Don't use warning templates, but only your own words, on the talkpages of any users who have been editing for more than three months. Check their contributions to see.
6. Don't speculate about the motives of other editors, either directly or through sarcasm. Not individually, as here , and not collectively, as here: and . It contravenes WP:AGF.
7. When you're involved in an argument on a talkpage, don't ping editors who have previously agreed with you, as here, and don't use WikiProject Conservatism to canvass for support.

Perhaps 6 is the least precise; please ask if you want me to clarify it in some way, for instance if the examples aren't clear to you. And altogether, if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. These undertakings would be informal, in the sense of not logged anywhere, but you and I would regard them as binding. (I trust you.) Feel free to discuss any of them that you disagree with, here and now, but unless we can come to an agreement, I may end up giving you a formal, logged, sanction of some kind instead. That wouldn't be right now, since I've only just warned you, but in case you continue what I consider your bad habit of aggression and putting other people down. Such a sanction might then be for instance a one-way WP:IBAN with at least one user, or a topic ban. Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC).

This response is acknowledgement I've read what you are proposing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. Please take your time to think about it. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC).

• When Bishonen isn't restricting conservatives with blocks he restricts them in less visible ways. That's preferable of course to avoid an easily traceable pattern which, as it did with his friend Gamaliel, results in the loss of that ability. Food for thought. 95.216.142.196 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, you are not helping the situation. Let Wink speak for themself. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Inquisition gave the Jews two options, convert or be expelled. It's hard to argue the principled position was conversion. But thanks for answering the question: which of the usual suspects are watching behind the scenes? 95.216.142.196 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I had typed out several different things, none of them very nice or probably helpful but now all I can type is that I am appalled but not surprised.--MONGO (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And just like that, another conservative account is indefinitely blocked despite 5 years of edits . Compare to AE and ANI where restricting liberal editors is like pulling teeth. And if it's ever done their restrictions are laughably narrow, weak, or immediately vacated

• SPECIFICO restricted to only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor
• BullRangifer warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions; per AE request
• Vacated in place of a firm warning

At this point it's beyond a joke. 95.216.142.196 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yawn. I generally ignore users who log out to avoid accountability for their comments. Log in, own your words like an actual grownup with an actual backbone, and we can talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Were the Federalist Papers were written by spineless juveniles? Why not take it a step further - if you or Bishonen had a backbone you'd post under your real names. Then we could talk. What I dislike most about millennial liberalism is smugness as a cover for ignorance. 95.216.142.196 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my talk page so I won't hat the trolling above, but I would recommend such an action to Winkelvi. Including my comment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Right of course...while I concur with Mandruss's point but not his every word above in that editors if they have a username should always use it, the flip side of that is once again we see editors on this website suggesting that valid arguments be silenced or covered up and delegitimize them by calling their contributions trolling. But yes lets hat this, in fact I suggest archiving this entire talkpage and working on butterfly and basket weaving articles since well, obviously. By doing so you can avoid the ugly event of an admin action of course...since what they want is for you to shut up Winkelvi and go play elsewhere.--MONGO (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Truly a shame to see these conditions proposed as some sort of viable alternative when "the others" violate these all the time routinely and aggressively. To stay in the Colosseum under this cloud would be akin to sending you into the arena without a sword or shield. Only tyrants rule this way and to do so unilaterally not once but several times indicates we have a serious problem.--MONGO (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, I saw this posted on Facebook today and found it a bit timely in its message re: lack of tolerance over opinion and belief differences. I'm not posting it here because I'm saying anyone on this talk page is a dictator, but there does seem to be a cloud of wanting to silence certain views and facts. As a student of American and world history, I'm saddened and frightened by this new trend but also feel a responsibility to civilly speak up about and against it. What the quote says is an interesting observation, especially since it came from two African Americans:

"We all have a difference of opinions & beliefs; that's what makes us all unique. But to silence someone because of their views doesn't make you the Arbitrator of the Truth it makes you the Dictator of Censorship. Welcome to the new Jim Crow days. Same script, different cast." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs)

• #notallafricanamericans Drmies (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh for pete's sake...why did you link to that here? A ranting opinion piece? Really.--MONGO (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I cannot tell you what to do, but me thinks this should not be imposed unilaterally. I prefer a formal discussing in an appropriate venue but I think the powers that be, for better or worse, will align against you. The consolation is that little anyone does here will impact the elections so its mainly a matter of where one stands on BLPs. My perspective is that some really angry people have taken it up to use the website to malign those they oppose politically and myself and you are generally trying to keep things neutral. We may not follow every policy like AGF and whatnot as perfectly as we should but there are no clean hands in this affair. I feel I take the moral high ground since I respect BLP very strictly and believe that the core tenet of that policy which is to "do no harm" should be the fundamental thought that we approach all BLPs...with compassion to provide the truth, to not white wash it nor to revel or bask in any efforts to over emphasize it, good or especially bad. I am convinced that an impartial jury examining diffs would find a dozen or more editors in violation of BLP, but I also question whether an impartial jury exists on this website. I have always mentioned that I supported the FAC on Hillary Clinton even though truthfully I have no affection for that person...knowing that, I do not edit articles about "liberals" as I am sure I would not be able to do so neutrally, yet admins pretending to be neutral call me a POV pusher. I generally see a very similar pattern in your work here, in that you are generally trying to keep articles neutral and balanced. To see yet another person who may not be perfect but is essentially on the correct side of BLP policy being penalized even though this behavior is no worse than the insults and belittlements made against us or at the BLPs talkpages about the subjects, is saddening.--MONGO (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Another one, Nergaal. 50K edits, 11 years on wikipedia. Tossed out like garbage. . 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what led to the blocks but that editor has 17 Featured Articles to their name. Maybe they will take a break and come back later and avoid the areas they find impossible to work on.--MONGO (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not likely. Blocked indefinitely with talk page access revoked. Thomson decided 17 FAs is good evidence of WP:NOTHERE . Thomson's own edits ¡surprisingly! have a consistent political bias. Disgusting. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:Ian.thomson#Indef block of Nergaal. — JFG 22:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Shall we decamp?

Winkelvi, I don't know if you find the above discussion as distracting as I do. If you like, we can move our own conversation to a subpage in my space where both trolls and well-meaning users will be disinvited, and neither boos nor applause will distract. If you'd like that, I'll set it up. Nobody wants to shut down the audience here, at least I don't; they should feel free to continue talking amongst themselves about my bias and treacherous intentions and so on, and to generally provide footnotes and commentary to our discussion. What do you say, shall we decamp? Note, I'm asking Winkelvi; it's his opinion I want; please wait for him to respond before filling this section too with commentary. Bishonen | talk 03:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

Since your only response to my suggestion has been a comparison with Jim Crow laws, I'm going to assume you reject it. If I'm mistaken, or if you change your mind, please contact me on my page. I'm unwatching this page for now. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

Wink

Pardon me for butting in; and I won’t do it again, at least for a long while. Please consider Bishonen’s generous proposal as an honest attempt to keep an editor that can provide some balance. I rarely agree with you. But, that doesn’t mean you don’t add value and we don’t need editors with different viewpoints. Having watched for quite a time, your current path doesn’t bode well for your future here; and the folks adding inflammatory responses above are not helpful. Just my opinionated thoughts. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Winkelvi. "Wink" was a lousy knock-off soft-drink created in the 1960s. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a child of the 60s. Canada Dry's Wink wasn't awful, although I'm not fond of grapefruit. But, they also made Tom Collins Mix which I adored and they stopped making a decade ago. O3000 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tom Collins mix is always better with liquor but not gin. Hell, even Wink with Tom Collins mix would be better. Use tequila instead of that nasty gin (shudder) and call it a Juan Collins. That's the ticket! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Tom Collins would taste good with Kimchi or thousand year old eggs. Nectar doesn't taste good with gin. Forgive me mother that loved gin. O3000 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a wimpy liquor in my book, but I realize mileage on taste in liquor varies. As does intestinal fortitude and steely forged minds. (here's another wink, but not the drink) ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In my younger days, I preferred the purity of vodka, which in its best form is not compromised by a taste of it's own. But, I more than settle for wine now, with it's intricacy and nuance. Nuance is important in older days -- particularly if you wish to grow older yet. (But then, Steely Dan's Hey Nineteen was about Jose Cuervo.) O3000 (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wine is a beautiful, joyous thing. I don't see it as liquor but a symphony you ponder and enjoy with every taste bud and every swallow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to steal someone else's words to respond: "A bottle of wine contains more philosophy than all the books in the world." —Louis Pasteur O3000 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the truth. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In his 1883 book, The Silverado Squatters, which told the story of his low rent Napa Valley honeymoon, Robert Louis Stevenson commented that "Wine is bottled poetry". 135 years later, his words ring true and winemaking flourishes in the Napa Valley. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alas, there is the West Napa Fault. I prefer the Sonoma County wines further West. But then, there are the fires. O3000 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It actually does make sense...

You see, I was the 🎯and not anyone else - you pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. I've heard that somewhere...funny how certain things stick in one's mind. Hope you're taking some time to enjoy the weekend, Winkelvi. Plumbing issues have been my most recent priority - seems like I've had more than my share of 💩 in my life. Now...where the hell is Karma?? 😂 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme. That plan of attack you mentioned above is #13 in a particular list, isn't it? Yes, I do believe it is. Funny how real life mirrors internet life, isn't it? You've got shit issues, I've got pest issues. Waiting for Orkin to show up anytime now. At my home, that is. Hopefully, the karma bus to the rescue isn't actually this one and isn't driven by a guy named Edgar as seen in this film. Then again, he did seem to know his shitty pests and life does often imitate art! ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

😂😂!!!! 18:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Winkelvi, I see you have tagged five articles created by Snooganssnoogans in the course of two minutes, for notability and one also as "written like an advertisement". None of them anything to do with American politics, all over a year old. One is about a handball player on the Icelandic national team, properly sourced (as are the others, AFAICS). That's fast work. I regard it as harassment, and the next time I see you do something obviously calculated to incommode and harass Snooganssnoogans, I will block you. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC).