Misplaced Pages

User talk:SashiRolls: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:53, 5 June 2019 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots670,468 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:20, 8 December 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(741 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
] For those who like to rummage, the been is ].
==Warning==
It's one thing to subject myself to it —I can take it. But a veiled threat to that you will "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and '''recurring actors''' to help the press get a handle on what is going on" — that will not be tolerated. I warned you already against battleground behaviour. There will not be a third warning. If you have concerns about editing in the GMO area, use resources like ] or ] to report issues. I have no sympathy for Monsanto, ''et al.'' (or the company formerly know as) of all entities, but you can either make threats or be an editor on Misplaced Pages — you can't do both. ] 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


== ] updates ==
:Offering to help make a coherent list out of a scattershot filing cabinet () is not a threat. ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
::Bolded for emphasis. ] 00:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
:::and? ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
::::''And?'' Really? ] 00:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::I asked first. :) ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::Look, this is not inspiring confidence. ] 00:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, it isn't. ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 -->

::::::::This battleground mentality is what I'm talking about. ] 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC){{od}]
It's late El C. I object to being forced to speak wiki instead of natural language. I don't like having rhetorical ] diagnoses thrown at me. That's what, for me, doesn't inspire confidence. Can we just speak English? It is not "having a battleground mentality" to offer to help in organizing the data in all those messy archives, to shed a little light on a very thorny problem. . Ishmael Reed said so. But writin' isn't always fightin'.~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 01:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

:This is not open to debate. You will not be making veiled threats about listing "recurring actors" to the press again, or you will be sanctioned. Plain and simple. ] 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

::Yes, you made that clear. And if you reread the conversation above I have not done so. I will keep my mouth shut. Would you be willing to fix the lack of a 1RR warning on the TPs so that new editors are warned... (cf. your link above)? ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{Done}}. ] 02:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

== Tulsi: victim of the same "gotcha journalism" that got Trump elected ==

Not sure if you would be privy to this piece in your neck of the woods, so thought i'd pass it along: '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks Petrarachan! I hadn't seen this article; it's good to see that in some corners of the MSM these Daily Beast / NBC hit pieces are being noticed. Gotta' run, but just wanted to say thanks! ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

== EW ==

I have been very patient with your, shall we say, "aggressive" edits on ], but you are way over 3RR. More troubling, your editing reflects that you have very strong opinions about this subject that I believe is damaging a neutral POV.

I request that you self-revert unless you prefer to take your chances at the appropriate notice board. - ]] 🖋 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

:That content was never in the article before you added it in the previous edit. I don't know how I could have reverted it five times? Please explain below. Or be a bully... as you wish. No way will I put that nonsense in the article under my name. ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
::I didn't say you removed the ''same'' content five times. I said you made five reverts. You removed material that I added, five times. You also at ] (your fist revert was , a few hours ago). I suggest that you self-revert you second revert there as well.- ]] 🖋 22:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I suggest you stop POV-pushing exclusively negative information onto Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. Your "you just violated 1RR" diff is obviously not a revert. I ''added'' the other side of the story and fixed blatantly POV prose. Please stop this transparent gaming of DS.~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Also, if you wish to call that first removal a revert {{small|(which is not unreasonable despite the fact that it was not added today)}}, then you were at '''''' (the day you added what I removed today). ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

::::To be clear, you removed {{tq|", largely via the same propaganda sources that ]"}} and two sources. That's a partial (and substantial) revert. Two of the three sources specifically highlight Russian propaganda, which you effectively now scrubbed from two articles.

::::If you don't wish to self-revert, I intend to raise these issues at ], as I believe your edit warring and ] conduct is harmful.- ]] 🖋 23:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't think that accusing someone of being a Russia propaganda candidate is an exceptional BLP claim requiring exceptional sourcing? This is why I removed a duplicate ref (The Independent) reporting on the NBC news story while suggesting she was in David Duke's corner and removed a ref that did not support the exceptional claim. This, while adding two articles directly responding to the article calling it a hit piece. You will need to explain your '''eight reverts on 19 May''' and why I am not taking you to AE for that crystal clear violation where there are no possible BLP protection reasons involved. If I were retired / home all day, perhaps I would consider doing so, but I am not. Please stay off my talk page. ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 06:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

==Discussion at ]==
You are invited to join the discussion at ]. - ]] 🖋 22:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->

==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
{{Ivmbox
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
|imagesize=50px
|1=The following sanction now applies to you:

{{Talkquote|1=You are subject to the sanction listed at ] for a period of 1 year.}}

You have been sanctioned because of the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks listed .

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.&nbsp;Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
}}

Please read the sanction carefully and make sure you understand it, including the section below titled #Instructions for reporting violations, so you know what to do when somebody notifies you that you have violated it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

:This is quite funny. Somebody lies and the person they lie about has their speech fettered. An anonymous pair (the Snoox) smear the reputation of a living person, and the one who makes clear what they are doing has their speech fettered. I will begin to think you might be decent when you place the same notice on Snooganssnoogans talk page. For the moment, you seem as corrupt as those you are aiding and abetting. 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
::Honestly I don't care much what you think about me, and if you call them Snoox again after being asked not to multiple times I'll block your account. Follow the sanction. It's what you should be doing anyway, and people will take you more seriously when you're not disrupting talk pages by constantly lashing out at your colleagues. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 13:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

:::It's not what I think that matters. It's what is obvious that matters and that is that the GMO crew & the DNC crew are well protected. Please stay off of my talk page.🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 17:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ironic that the mister who started the AE thread was concerned about personal attacks and not staying calm in the American Politics 1932- area has himself used words like in it. --] (]) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

==MrX games 1RR again==
{{talkback|Awilley|Enforcement request|ts=12:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)}}
:So by correcting the errors you introduced into the article with your two reverts, you have sought to get me into trouble. When are you going to get bored with this childish gaming? Will someone have the intelligence to block you, or will you be allowed to continue to pester people? I do believe I told you to stay off of my TP...🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 17:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
:: personal attack. Where you accuse MrX of being dishonest and childish for (correctly) saying that you violated 1RR. This doesn't have anything to do with the "no personal comments" sanction above. are ''always'' against Misplaced Pages policy, and the extra sanction is most definitely not a free pass to make personal attacks against other users on my talk page and then demand that I jump through hoops to ask you to remove them. At some point you need to realize that if you aren't willing to work collaboratively with your fellow editors you will be asked to leave permanently. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
Please don't assume bad faith. I did not call MrX dishonest because he accused me of making a mistake concerning the wiki-rulez, I called MrX dishonest because he said that Taibbi's article does not talk about smear. It does. Demonstrably. As the quotes on the page show. I did call MrX childish for playing a childish game: first revert someone's edit, then when reverted add a tag saying that my contribution was "made up". MrX says "smear" was "not in the source cited" when in fact, , plain as the nose on your face (twice). The strategy of tattling on honest people who have been entrapped by dishonest edits is what is childish. I checked the rulez and realized that this was an effective strategy to get people blocked, so I reverted to follow the rulez being gamed. I'll write elsewhere where people are respectful.🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for June 5==

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;).

(].) --] (]) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:20, 8 December 2024

For those who like to rummage, the been is here.

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)