 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your host, To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using
Template:Anonblock.
 Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can
subscribe to a
web feed of this page in either
RSS or
Atom format. |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Recent changes patrol
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (172.250.237.36) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}} before the question on this page.
Again, welcome! Train of Knowledge ( Talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
- HELLO Train of Knowledge ( Talk) I have been reverted again after editing a talk page. I am not able to go to the editor's talk page for clarification. Thanks in advance, for any help in either clarification or otherwise. Keep up the good work! 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- An article talk page is used to discuss specific improvements to the page. NOTFORUM allows discussions that appear to not be directed at an improvement of the page to be deleted. Your discourse on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks was not in the form of a proposal to improve the page, so it was deleted.
- I don't know why you are unable to go to the editor's page to ask for clarification. That editor's page
User talk:El C is not protected and you appear to have mastered the skills needed to add a section to a talk page. I recommend, however, that you learn a bit more about talk page protocol and how to respond to other editors without starting a new section every time. Perhaps
WP:THREAD will help you.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 07:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello,
user:jmcgnh here is the screenshot of what happens when I attempt to "talk" to
user:El C:
https://i.postimg.cc/0Q7sNmFD/2020-07-19-1351-53-Screenshot.png
Thanks so very much for your feedback and your wonderful help. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 21:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.
The fallback is to write a message to El C on your own talk page including a
{{ ping|El C}}template. It's possible that won't work, either, but I know of nothing else other than to wait for the semi-protection on El C's talk page to expire.One more thing, NOTFORUM applies to both articles and discussion pages and while it is hard to discern exactly what in the policies and rules allows it, it is very common to simply remove such material.
I see that you say you intended this to be a suggestion for a new section of the article, but when I read it I had to agree with the action to remove it: it was not phrased as a suggested addition, it contained no references, and appeared mostly to be a personal essay related to, but not directly addressing, the topics being discussed on the talk page.
There's nothing to keep you from making another edit proposal to the article, but the material you propose should adhere to the normal standards for article content, including references to published, reliable sources. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello user:jmcgnh, thanks for your feedback. I see what you are saying. I went through the history of the talk page, and in the "new section" that I composed, unless one reads the last sentence (which actually some other editors did) you would easily mistake my edit for pontification - which is wrong. I was not pontificating. Luckily, although user:El C mistakenly thinks that I was pontificating, three or four other editors DID read the last sentence, which was; Should there or shouldn't there be a section on tactical errors in police procedures made during the arrest of the suspect? and simply began a new section, in which the topic that I raised is now being discussed. This just shows that due to my inexperience, I SHOULD have put that sentence in the beginning, so that a casual reader such as user:El C would not mistake my edit as pontification and fitting the category of WP:NOTFORUM. This is great. Thanks for clearing things up. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 03:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.
- Hello,
user:jmcgnh here is the screenshot of what happens when I attempt to "talk" to
user:El C:
- בסייעתא דשמיא, my suggestion would be to keep proposals brief. Let your sources speak for themselves. Hope this helps! בברכה, El_C 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:El C thanks!! I'm glad to get to you finally. It was noticed by a few other editors, and it's already being discussed. Sorry I formatted it so terribly that you could not read it in the way it was intended. Thanks for deleting it before anyone else made the same mistake you did!! Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, בס״ד. I appreciate the kind words.
El_C 16:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, בס״ד. I appreciate the kind words.
- You're very welcome User:El_C, and just wanted to say - not related to this topic - I actually met a descendant of the actual El Cid in a class at a community college once. She was a student, and she and her family were very aware of their ancestry. Quite an experience for me to have met her. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The C actually stands for Commandante — but that is interesting nonetheless. בברכה, El_C 16:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
...see WP:FORUM. That is why your edit on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks was undone. Drmies ( talk) 01:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much for your prompt response. I looked there. I am confused because I am under the impression that refers to articles. My edit was on the TALK page not the actual article. Does this mean that talk pages are also being reverted periodically for lack of editing standards? Keep up the good work. בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again user:Drmies for your short answer regarding my suggestion for a new section to the Killing of Rayshard Brooks article, which was made in the (talk) section. It appears that the topic's been taken up by a few other editors. Is this pertinent? Thanks for your prompt and alacritous feedback! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 20:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
—valereee ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello
—valereee. I clicked on the link, but I have no idea what this entails. Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting. I hope to hear more from you in the future, and I know you are only trying to help me learn about Wikipedia. I am a relatively inexperienced editor. Still I apologize but it just confused me!! Is this for one of those Barnstar things? I didn't do anything that great. I participated in a few of those consensus things on a few of those talk pages. It almost looks like you might want to punish me for something instead, but I'm sure that is not your point, because I'm not "edit warring" and not "personally attacking" other editors. If you have time, perhaps you would like me to know more about why you are doing this. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- This means you've edited in an article covered by discretionary sanctions, which means if you break the rules, even out of ignorance, you're liable to be treated as if you'd done it intentionally. In order to make sure editors realize they are editing in DS articles, we post this message to their user talk.
- You keep talking about how inexperienced you are, so I'll tell you again very directly: a contentious article under discretionary sanctions is not a good place to learn how to edit Wikipedia. —valereee ( talk) 10:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
—valereee EDIT: Which article - just to have this "in writing" so I know where we stand? Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Almost every article you've edited in the past two weeks. Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd, Killing of Rayshard Brooks, George Floyd protests, and Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone are all under DS. Also any article about a living person, even if it's not under DS, is something you shouldn't mess with. You added a 'Controversial Events' section to Roland G. Fryer Jr., I'd highly recommend you not do things like that until you've done a lot more reading of policy, as it could easily be considered a libelous WP:BLP violation and nothing will get you blocked faster. —valereee ( talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
—valereee EDIT: Which article - just to have this "in writing" so I know where we stand? Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi —valereee! Thank you so very much! The only one of those I edited was Roland G. Fryer Jr., and the content under that new heading was already in the article. I'm sorry, but, as you might see in my comments, almost every edit I made has at the end of the comment - "This is Wikipedia. Please revert or revise as seen fit." So, I hope that makes it clear, I am not "edit warring" and I am not "attacking" anyone or anything of the sort. In the other articles you mentioned, half of them I've participated in discussions in the "talk" pages, but not edited them, and the content of my edits have been along the lines of many of what other editors have also stated. Hope this makes it easy for you to see my perspective? I don't know why you're doing this since what I'm doing is not much different from what is already there on those talk pages. Please specify what you mean, or just redact my comments that were not in line with the WP:BP rule (I'm going to click on that pretty soon!). I know you've done that redacting thing to one of my other talk entries! You remember, this one: /info/en/?search=Talk:George_Floyd#Should_there_be_a_separate_section_for_George_Floyd's_legal_troubles? and you're now participating in my question in the "Teahouse" as well on that topic. I cannot edit any articles that are locked anyway, since I am an "IP USER." Thanks so very much for all your help. Please feel free to continue to involve yourself in the talk pages, that is what Wikipedia is all about! This is really great, thanks so very, very much for helping me to learn about Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 15:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Please reconsider your use of time and the impact it has on other editors. You appear to be making edits to some articles, but also an inordinate amount of time on Talk pages of articles, Talk pages of editors, and at Teahouse. The primary focus of editors is to improve articles. Lengthy pleas to help you understand editors' intent, Wikipedia guidelines, etc., divert people from what is needed. Please read Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. David notMD ( talk) 10:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- To reinforce the other editor's advice, you write (repeatedly) "I am a relatively inexperienced editor." Accepting that as true, please stay away from contentious articles, and learn by observation rather than pleading for editor after editor after editor to explain stuff to you.
David notMD (
talk) 12:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- EDIT: David notMD Please do not "waste" any more time on my Teahouse questions. I hope that another editor can jump in, similar to the way you "jumped in" to my question. Thank you for the interesting link. I'm hopeful that none of this will apply to me, and as far as me being encouraging of others, polite, helpful, and the like, I thought that was how Wikipedia means for us to behave. Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In your edit summary you wrote You almost seem like you are lording over me and this is making me feel kind of uncomfortable? Can you be a little more understanding, if you please? This is Wikipedia! I am trying to be understanding, and I am giving you excellent advice. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lording over' you, but I'm sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable. It's best to communicate directly via talk pages instead of in edit summaries; people often miss them. I almost missed this one. —valereee ( talk) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi
—valereee! I'm glad you read that! Sorry for any misunderstanding! Almost any edit summary I put onto my edits just consists of a few sentences from the edit itself, does that make sense? So if someone clicks on 'History' and sees that comment on my edit, if one clicks to see the actual edit, the contents of that comment is almost 100% likely to be in the edit itself. As you will find, those sentences are in the edit of that same "edit summary" and I'm glad you are able to read it and gain some meaning from it. The expression "lording over" means when an experienced person makes either inexperienced people like myself for example, or even any people, feel as if they're being treated in a pejorative, perfunctory manner. Your manner may not necessarily be pejorative, but it certainly was very much perfunctory, and left me uncomfortably confused. This is mainly due to my lack of experience in Wikipedia. I was told by another editor that I'm making other editors feel uncomfortable by the mere mention that "I'm an inexperienced editor" but I can't help that; 1) I won't become "experienced" overnight; 2) I'm not going to start pretending that I'm more experienced than I am, and by not letting other editors know that I'm inexperienced will certainly impart confusion due to both, my inexperience, and their assumption that I know what I'm talking about. So as much as I'd like to participate in Wikipedia as if I was an experienced, thoughtful, and knowledgeable editor - that's sadly not, as yet, possible. I do use talk pages, as you can see, you're using MY talk page right now!! That's it for now, I'm trying to get through that link you gave me -
WP:BP. Can you give me any clues as to how this topic applies to my situation please? I don't mean in a general sense - I know it applies to you, to me, and to all editors!! I mean in a specific case. Just one example - if you can maybe even several examples. Don't worry about it if you're too busy, or if I'm taking up too much of your precious editing time. I know that Wikipedia - is really time consuming! I spent about four hours in the "sandbox" editing the page on Professor Fryer!! Again, thanks for your help and for your apology! I certainly forgive you now, that you've seen my situation and apologized for it! Don't hesitate to apologize to me, I always forgive anyone who apologizes to me. What I DON'T do is forgive preemptively (I know some people who do). So I definitely forgive you and if you do it again (make me uncomfortable) please apologize again, and I will forgive you again. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 15:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:BLP. Biographies of living persons. We take them very seriously because human being can be hurt by things we write.
WP:BP is blocking policy. Not a bad thing to read if you're going to continue editing in articles under DS, but I hope you won't.
—valereee (
talk) 16:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
—valereee! Thank you so very much, I hope that you too, won't continue to interfere with my inexperienced mistakes without explaining them and that thus, my discomfort at your perfunctory attitude won't be an issue any longer. I will continue to edit things that I'm not locked out of, I hope this won't hurt your feelings or make you feel uncomfortable. I apologize to you for that. I hope you can possibly forgive me for disappointing you, but I'm a free person, and I'm not that smart. In the United States, of course, we believe in freedom of expression, and I'm of the United States. I personally believe in kindness and fairness. So please let me know if I'm either being unkind, or unfair, but I'm going to edit where ever I am allowed to edit. Then you can let me know if I've done something wrong. Forgive me, that's the main way that many people learn. If I listened to you, how would you expect that I'd ever understand when I've made a mistake? This is fundamental. I am of the understanding that Wikipedia is everyone's, not just for "experienced" editors or those that are with the administration. It's open to editors like me, who don't even have a user identity. I think that is unique and takes a lot of courage to maintain. To discourage that, is to discourage one of the major things about Wikipedia that makes it great. Sorry if I'm taking up too much of your precious editing time!! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- בס״ד, in fairness, inexperienced editors should avoid contentious articles until they've mastered the basics. El_C 16:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you continue to edit at contentious articles and their talk pages, I'll continue to respond as I see necessary.
—valereee (
talk) 17:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- —valereee Thank you so very much. That's all I'm asking. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for understanding. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 17:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
—valereee Thank you so very much. I noticed you responded to my new topic on the talk page:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#FAQ_-_A5_is_Too_Ambiguous_Since_it_Does_Not_Reflect_the_Full_Consensus_-_Regarding_Not_Only_the_Photo_-_But_Also_the_Position_of_That_Photo.
I'm not certain if you actually read the entire thing (you asked me to lay out "specific wording"). In any case, I have read what you asked for, and thank you so very much for your request that I set out some wording. What you have asked for I have done and it is in the original topic "verbosity." Keep up the good work, and thanks again for understanding. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 ( talk) 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
—valereee! Thank you so very much, I hope that you too, won't continue to interfere with my inexperienced mistakes without explaining them and that thus, my discomfort at your perfunctory attitude won't be an issue any longer. I will continue to edit things that I'm not locked out of, I hope this won't hurt your feelings or make you feel uncomfortable. I apologize to you for that. I hope you can possibly forgive me for disappointing you, but I'm a free person, and I'm not that smart. In the United States, of course, we believe in freedom of expression, and I'm of the United States. I personally believe in kindness and fairness. So please let me know if I'm either being unkind, or unfair, but I'm going to edit where ever I am allowed to edit. Then you can let me know if I've done something wrong. Forgive me, that's the main way that many people learn. If I listened to you, how would you expect that I'd ever understand when I've made a mistake? This is fundamental. I am of the understanding that Wikipedia is everyone's, not just for "experienced" editors or those that are with the administration. It's open to editors like me, who don't even have a user identity. I think that is unique and takes a lot of courage to maintain. To discourage that, is to discourage one of the major things about Wikipedia that makes it great. Sorry if I'm taking up too much of your precious editing time!! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:BLP. Biographies of living persons. We take them very seriously because human being can be hurt by things we write.
WP:BP is blocking policy. Not a bad thing to read if you're going to continue editing in articles under DS, but I hope you won't.
—valereee (
talk) 16:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 20:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Look, בס״ד, about [i]f you're going to derail this topic, please, refrain
— you are inching your way toward a
topic ban from the topic area. Being especially cordial is simply not enough. Again, maybe it would be best if you were to edit articles which are not contentious for a while, so that you gain experience about the Wikipedia basics there. Your multiple, often lengthy comments are starting to affect the article talk page's stability. Please take note.
El_C 15:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "warning." What does this mean? What do you think I wrote that was so improper? Thanks for the contribution. Perhaps you will also help to revise the FAQ item that we're discussing, as well! I will continue to be cordial, and I will continue to take note of your participation, both here in this talk page and elsewhere. Please don't forget to allay my confusion and my query as to your "warning." Be explicit, if you please. Also, if you have any patience left, that would be appreciated. Keep up the good work. בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 15:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- It means that If you stray from article talk page norms and conventions again, including assumptions of bad faith (regardless if there are cordial sentiments also attached) directed at other participants, you will be no longer be welcome in the topic area.
El_C 15:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so very much! I'm still confused, but I think you're trying to tell me that I'm being mean or unfriendly to other editors. What I said about "derailing a topic" seems to be in your perception a mean thing to say. Is this it? Please clarify. Did that actually hurt anyone's feelings? Thanks again both for your feedback, your forbearance, and please continue to keep up the good work! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- בס״ד, I'm not here to provide a moral analysis. I am here to ensure that you assume good faith in your interactions in addition to ensuring the overall stability of the article talk page. El_C 16:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so very much! I'm still confused, but I think you're trying to tell me that I'm being mean or unfriendly to other editors. What I said about "derailing a topic" seems to be in your perception a mean thing to say. Is this it? Please clarify. Did that actually hurt anyone's feelings? Thanks again both for your feedback, your forbearance, and please continue to keep up the good work! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- It means that If you stray from article talk page norms and conventions again, including assumptions of bad faith (regardless if there are cordial sentiments also attached) directed at other participants, you will be no longer be welcome in the topic area.
El_C 15:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You have been editing for months. About 90% of your edits are lengthy discourses on Talk pages of high-profile articles (GF, JK), your own Talk page, and Teahouse. I, for one, do not have any patience left. If you are not here to work on the encyclopedia, stop. David notMD ( talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so very much. You are making me uncomfortable. What is the meaning of the "warning" specifically? If there is a problem, just tell me what the problem is, if you please. Obviously you are seemingly perturbed? Am I wrong? Thanks for the feedback, please feel free to answer if it's not going to take too much of your time. If not, I'll happily remain in suspense. You have definitely made me feel both confused and derided. Keep up the good work! בס״ד
172.250.237.36 (
talk) 22:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Honest to god, I'm wondering where the camera is. This fails the Turing test. —valereee ( talk) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1. You persist in trying to discuss the subject matter of the article, expressing your personal speculations, philosophical stands, and opinions, none of which have any place either in our articles or in the talk pages of the articles, since our goal here is to assemble what is said about the subject matter of the article by reliable sources.
- 2. You constantly accuse other editors of not editing in good faith.
- 3. You then make posts that seem to the rest of us to affect an innocence implausible in a person of your apparent literacy and ability to write solid prose, thus causing us to question your good faith. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I view the input of
172.250.237.36, in part, as a challenge to others to act in an
above-board manner and of course I find qualities of this nature to be very much to their credit.
Their posts could be a bit shorter and their section headings could be a bit shorter. I would recommend they compose their posts in a separate window, such as a word processing document. The likelihood of producing a short-enough post for others to peruse is enhanced by editing and re-editing in a separate window before finally cutting-and-pasting into a Wikipedia window for posting to Wikipedia. Bus stop ( talk) 05:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I view the input of
172.250.237.36, in part, as a challenge to others to act in an
above-board manner and of course I find qualities of this nature to be very much to their credit.
- Just for the record, after being warned multiple times by multiple editors that contentious articles under DS are not a good place to learn to edit, this user joined discussions at Jared Kushner. I'm having a hard time characterizing that as anything other than just straight-up refusal to accept well-intentioned guidance. —valereee ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Valereee—are you sure you are not also concerned about their raising questions about a
FAQ? In my opinion you and others have been abusing FAQs. FAQs have a useful purpose. And FAQs also can be misused. When they serve to discourage legitimate discussion, that is a misuse of a FAQ.
Bus stop (
talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bus stop, not even slightly concerned about their raising questions about the FAQs. The user wanted to add to the FAQ 5 answer that the placement of the image in the lead had been settled. I didn't think adding that into the FAQ was appropriate, as that exact question hasn't been dealt with specifically and there's legitimate ongoing concern. I think it's a question bigger than that article and probably needs to be brought up at MOS/IMAGES. No one has raised it there. I answered here because you asked here, but if we're going to continue this we should probably do it at one of our user talks. —valereee ( talk) 15:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Valereee—are you sure you are not also concerned about their raising questions about a
FAQ? In my opinion you and others have been abusing FAQs. FAQs have a useful purpose. And FAQs also can be misused. When they serve to discourage legitimate discussion, that is a misuse of a FAQ.
Bus stop (
talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 72 hours for persistently wasting the time and patience of constructive editors, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource. Compare the
thread you recently opened at ANI. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
tålk 11:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
- The warnings by many editors were advice to change your patterns of editing. You did not. Hence the 72 hour block. Minimally, avoid all articles under DS. And perhaps stop contributing to any Talk pages until you have put in more effort on improving articles. If you resume your tendentious editing practices I suspect you will be indefinitely blocked.
David notMD (
talk) 14:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
David notMD: negative: per
WP:IPBLENGTH,
IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked
; secondly, it's almost certainly a dynamic IP, which would make it an exercise in fruitlessness. All the best! 2A02:C7F:BE17:2D00:197D:B13D:3F78:D5D3 ( talk) 14:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)- Generally true, but in this instance, 172.250.237.36 is registered to
Charter Spectrum and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. Yes, the IP could have more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices. An alternative approach would be to contact Spectrum about abuse of one of it's IP addresses, and let Spectrum be the detective.
David notMD (
talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- David notMD, that's not going to be necessary. If there are further blocks, they will be for fixed durations, even if the intent is to block indefinitely. But hopefully it won't come to that. El_C 17:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Generally true, but in this instance, 172.250.237.36 is registered to
Charter Spectrum and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. Yes, the IP could have more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices. An alternative approach would be to contact Spectrum about abuse of one of it's IP addresses, and let Spectrum be the detective.
David notMD (
talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
David notMD: negative: per
WP:IPBLENGTH,
 | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |