m →January 2018: grammar |
→January 2018: yes |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
::::: To me, a POV warrior isn't just someone who pushes a particular POV. We all have them. No, they try to keep opposing POV out. That's wrong. They should learn to write for the opposition, and seek to help inclusion of all notable POV. That's how I work. I just want to create and improve things, but some people just do all they can to hinder. It really makes one feel hopeless when they get away with it, and in this case are rewarded. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::: To me, a POV warrior isn't just someone who pushes a particular POV. We all have them. No, they try to keep opposing POV out. That's wrong. They should learn to write for the opposition, and seek to help inclusion of all notable POV. That's how I work. I just want to create and improve things, but some people just do all they can to hinder. It really makes one feel hopeless when they get away with it, and in this case are rewarded. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::Look, I know you want to help the site... it's just that the discussions can get thrown off (and even people like yourself's intentions can get mirepresented once tempers start to flare). How about this... you promise to abide by the civility restriction, and simply in the future report to me or the admins at [[WP:AE]] if you think someone is trying to violate [[WP:NPOV]] in the topic area, etc... and I'll remove the block immediately? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
::::::Look, I know you want to help the site... it's just that the discussions can get thrown off (and even people like yourself's intentions can get mirepresented once tempers start to flare). How about this... you promise to abide by the civility restriction, and simply in the future report to me or the admins at [[WP:AE]] if you think someone is trying to violate [[WP:NPOV]] in the topic area, etc... and I'll remove the block immediately? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::: I'd really appreciate that. I'll definitely be careful. I just want to improve things. The article is growing and needs more balance in some areas. I'll contact you if I feel the need for advice, and that ''does'' happen. Thanks again. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== A Link to a talk page which may provide a giggle. == |
== A Link to a talk page which may provide a giggle. == |
Revision as of 08:52, 30 January 2018
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
ToolBox, Traffic stats, Watchlists, Source bin, T&T, Hamsterpoop, Templates, Interaction, Dossier contents, OWL, Yadkard, {{uw-3rr}}
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Offered for your grokking
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I respect you and your candor. Due to article talk page restrictions, my position is grossly misinterpreted by all there. Given your last (hatted) offering there, allow me to offer: What I’m stumped by is why much of the Left-Liberal-Progressive camp is carrying water for the MIC. Humanengr (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thx very much for that discursive exposition and as part of that, your personal foreign survey; and also for your article talk page comment re Himes. There are some issues I could pursue in isolation here on the former, but think they can all be addressed under the neolib-neocon framing, so I’ll elaborate that a bit more. (We’re of the same age cohort, as I had guessed, and share some perspective; you certainly have more in-depth personal experience with those foreign systems.)
In effect, neolibs promote wealth concentration (and exogenize costs) and neocons support that by appropriating foreign resources, all with palatable rubrics like ‘invisible hand’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’. Does that make sense? (I’m trying to stay focused on my last question: “Which domestic constituencies …?”; so I might need to say a bit more. I’m not meaning to make you ‘guess’, as you said above, but think things generally work better in concise bytes. :) ) Humanengr (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I think I can safely add this re your “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it”: Concentration of wealth or, more properly, concentration of access to power — is an avenue as you appropriately noted that is unavailable to the rest of us. The problem is without that access, movements grounded in terms of “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it” are doomed. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, and thx for your identification as “solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah”. I can speak to each of those in the context of the neolib-neocon framing as well. I also appreciate the clarity of your exposition and found myself highlighting key terms in each of your sentences that can be similarly addressed in terms of that framing, But for now, I want to stay focused on the question: Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Or in more elaborate form, what does anyone who has any ostensibly leftist proclivities think they have, are, or will accomplish with this that has not been, is not, and will not be self-defeating to their professed interests, domestically or internationally? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I didn’t mean to stump you. On another point, to clarify, does “conservative Constitutionalist” mean you approve the Citizens United decision? Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I see them as mixed signals from a fluctuating relationship, and as a reflection of the secret relationship between Trump and Putin, and it's intersection with the public, national, relationship between the two countries, and the two of them "keeping up appearances" as the leaders of somewhat unfriendly countries. Their secret relationship is complex due to many alleged factors in the Trump-Russia relationship going back over at least eight years. I have a long list, but due to BLP concerns won't list them here, though they are all from RS. There are alleged illegal deals made, agreements not fulfilled, crimes covered up, and embarrassment over the conspiracy becoming public. Putin's support for Trump has therefore waxed and waned, including nearly trying to get Trump to drop out of the presidential race. The existence of unfulfilled agreements and public embarrassments creates tension in the relationship. We're seeing that. Publicly they both have to play the game and not get embarrassed in front of their own people. The whole thing makes one sick of politics. It's often dirty business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
Why do people try to hide Breitbart's right-wing status?
I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it?
There is a long distance from center to Nazis and KKK. Very few right-wingers go that far. They are are just a bit more extreme right-wing than Breitbart, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad.
No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:
- "It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing.
"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Emphasis added.)
BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- From the regular disputes at Jared Taylor, my impression is that the extreme right pushes very hard against being labeled for what they are. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- They sure don't hold back from labeling the left and liberals as "left-wing", which they are. I'm proud of the label. It puts me in good company with JFK, MLK, etc.
- I suspect we're dealing with people who don't really understand the historic French origins of the left-right labels, and where they are really placed on that spectrum. They think that it's desirable to be neutral and center, and therefore, seeing themselves as ideal persons, identify themselves as such, when they are actually on the fringes of the left-wing or right-wing.
- Many of them know that being fringe and extreme is not good, and that the public looks down on such people, and don't see themselves that way, even though they are. Everyone naturally wants to see themselves as good, balanced, and intelligent. Well, people of that type tend to stay fairly close to either side of center, and tend to avoid getting too extreme. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
A question about copyright violation (link to the dossier)
Hi, BullRangifer. I see that you deleted a link to the Trump-Russia dossier that was in the "External links" section of the Trump–Russia dossier article. You explained "We can use it as an internal source with secondary sources, but WP:COPYVIOEL forbids its use as an External link due to copyright issues. WE)"
BullRangifer, I had read your comment in Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_1#The_document where you said:
"I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)"
So, you later changed your mind? Mksword (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. It is still NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source, but I had forgotten about the rules for External links, which forbid linking to such sites. We apparently don't want to support sites which violate copyright.
- We can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL, and even then with care because it's the primary source. We can even quote the dossier in smaller bits under fair use, especially if we do it while quoting a secondary source which is quoting it. We can also paraphrase carefully. Right now we use the actual link only once, right in the lead. There are abundant secondary sources which have the same content and we can link to their articles. Most of them have the content in small bits covered by "fair use".
- There are also BLP issues, so when using names we must be using secondary RS which use the names, and sometimes attributing the source. Denials of allegations should also be included, and that the allegations are just that, it should be repeated often. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer: You say that we can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL. I don't know what you mean by "not as an EL". Mksword (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- EL=External link: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[3] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
- We don't actually know if BuzzFeed is violating copyright by having the dossier hosted, but we're being extra careful. Neither Fusion GPS, Orbis, or Steele have made any copyright claim or sued BuzzFeed for copyright infringement. Not even a hint in that direction. Regardless, myriad RS do quote passages from the dossier, and we can then quote it when we are citing them as secondary sources. That's my understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer: You say that we can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL. I don't know what you mean by "not as an EL". Mksword (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. Are you going to place your draft into main space? To me it looks fine, either as a section of main page on the subject or as an independent page. Speaking about linking, there are two things here, if I understand correctly. (a) On can make links to sites like YouTube, but it is important to make sure that specific link you used did not lead to YouTube record that was a copyright violation. (b) links "to generally avoid" can be used in certain cases, i.e. if they help to improve a page, but there are no better links available. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I hope to use it as a replacement for the current Contents section. I have brought over pretty much everything there, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, then attribution is unnecessary. If you see anything that could be problematic, please let me know on the talk page there. I won't dump it into the article without have others check it out. My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think merging this to main page would be fine. Also, this is good point that certain claims should not be included if they were not mentioned in secondary RS. Otherwise, they might be regarded as WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or more likely OR. We are allowed to use a primary source within limits, but normally it must be because secondary/tertiary sources have commented on it. Then we can use both the secondary and the primary source. What we are not allowed to do is cherry pick whatever we want from primary sources, if it has been ignored by secondary ones. That's OR. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, agree - as described in policy. And that is obviously important, I agree. In historical context, I am thinking about the case of Urho Kekkonen - see here, but he was obviously an entirely different person, and according to some historians he was actually the one who used his KGB contacts to advantage of Finland. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, feel free to comment and provide suggestions for improvement there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's been a long time since I've visited Finland. What's that about? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- That was a Finnish president who was officially listed by KGB as their agent and actually met his KGB curators. He put phrases in his speeches which were sent to him from the Soviet Politbureau, and he was actually sending back to the Soviet Union people who tried to escape to Finland. But he did it (according to some historian) to advantage of Finland which was dependent from the SU in many aspects. Sorry, this is not something we can discuss in detail here. 141.213.168.110 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, agree - as described in policy. And that is obviously important, I agree. In historical context, I am thinking about the case of Urho Kekkonen - see here, but he was obviously an entirely different person, and according to some historians he was actually the one who used his KGB contacts to advantage of Finland. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Or more likely OR. We are allowed to use a primary source within limits, but normally it must be because secondary/tertiary sources have commented on it. Then we can use both the secondary and the primary source. What we are not allowed to do is cherry pick whatever we want from primary sources, if it has been ignored by secondary ones. That's OR. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think merging this to main page would be fine. Also, this is good point that certain claims should not be included if they were not mentioned in secondary RS. Otherwise, they might be regarded as WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Trump–Russia dossier allegations for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump–Russia dossier allegations 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/Trump–Russia dossier allegations 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. Atsme📞📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, BR! Just a thought: I hope you have kept a copy of the allegations article someplace where you can work on it. Partly because it needs a lot more work; the information is very incomplete with most of the items missing their subsections of commentary. But mostly so that your hard work will not be lost if the AfD results in delete. Because if that happens we are going to want to put most of the information into the main article. Maybe gradually, maybe as a whole, maybe under s hide/show button, but we need to include this kind of detail in some format. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've thought of that. Right now the "keeps" lead the pack by far, and some of the "deletes" use totally spurious arguments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it was me I'd keep a copy somewhere anyhow. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it was me I'd keep a copy somewhere anyhow. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've thought of that. Right now the "keeps" lead the pack by far, and some of the "deletes" use totally spurious arguments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Courteous reminder of Civility restrictions
The AfD for Trump–Russia dossier allegations is subject to DS which includes a Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This was a PA - it was uncivil and unwarranted. Please mind your manners. Atsme📞📧 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll refactor it to sum up the necessary details. Do keep in mind that you have been attacking me for some time. Karma? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that your emphasis on these Trump-related subjects is constantly negative, rather than actual editing to improve and add content. That's going to create a negative atmosphere which irritates people, and it makes you the focus of their attention. That's not good for you or anyone.
- I suspect you can create good content. Why not do that? POV warriors rarely find peace here. Been there and done that.
- You may not have noticed, but some editors have made some very specific criticisms of both articles, and I have sought to accept their criticisms and actually fix the problems. I respond well to constructive criticism that is specific. That can be fixed.
- Vague and broad personal attacks with policy flag waving, as you have done, is unhelpful. It can't be fixed. There is no specific target. Be specific, and in a collaborative way. We're supposed to be on the same side here.
- You might even like what I've written about the editorial negotiating table: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content#Editorial neutrality. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- BR, if you're going to accuse me of PA, please provide the diffs. I strongly advise you to stop doing what you're doing - I have no agenda - perhaps you should review my user page. I didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday, and I do know PAGs quite well. It is very unbecoming of you to behave combatively constantly casting aspersions against me - it is not conducive to a collegial environment. Again, provide the diffs that support your egregious claims about me. Atsme📞📧 02:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
- @BR (about your comment - the diff). (a) people frequently change an opinion during an AfD - that's OK, (b) you can't claim that an AfD was made in a bad faith if a number of other people voted "delete" or "merge", (c) even if no one supported a nominator X on AfD, he/she still could be acting in a good faith - that happens; (d) everyone has a POV, but you must be able to communicate with people who disagree with you, unless this is really an obvious an misbehavior on their part (if the latter - this needs to be reported to administrative noticeboards, but I do not see it here). My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal message for MVBW |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- 1 week seems like a long block for this comment [3] - especially since your block log has only one 12 hour block from 2006 (!) - this is a DS block so maybe if you appeal at AE it could be shortened? It has already been 24 hours, hasn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- A seemingly forgotten part of our blocking process (applicable to every form of block, whether DS related or not): This user has the power to always state how they understand they committed violations of the DS system by violating WP:UNCIVIL, and could discuss with the blocking administrator (in this case, me) whether a reduction is possible. So far however, this user has made no attempt to do that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphim System and Coffee, I considered appealing for a shorter block, for timed served, with my staying away from Atsme and the AfD as a condition, something I had already intended to do, but I have seen the process at AE and I'd rather wait. I'll just take the punishment. If I'm seen as more dangerous to Wikipedia than persistent vandals, then so be it. A week is a long time.
- I have survived one ArbCom and came out vindicated, but the process was one of the worst experiences of my life, and I nearly lost my life and sanity. In my case, there was no justice there, no rules, personal attacks and false charges were the rule, not the exception, and there was no possibility of mounting a decent defense, as one could do in a real court of law. One of the ArbCom members even showed evidence he hadn't done due diligence, and made injurious pronouncements that were contrary to facts. I was being attacked there by enemies in real life, people who knew me, and who came here to make life miserable for me. One had lost in a court decision, and the judge had used my exact line of reasoning, and even some of my wordings, to throw out the case. They were mad.
- During that ArbCom kangaroo court, I was paralyzed, often trying to figure a way to ensure that my wife could somehow get my life insurance. My salvation then was the strong defense mounted by others. My persecutors were community banned, the strongest punishment possible here. Since then, death threats and other unpleasantries followed for a short time, and we were forced to leave our jobs and sell our business, liquidate everything, and move to escape the hounding. Anonymity and a quiet life have been the name of the game since then. We lost over $200,000 and have huge debts now. Lesson? Don't criticize the chiropractic profession too much. They threatened the lives of my children! (Fortunately in the last few years I have had peace in that regard, and also here in my editing....until Atsme.)
- That ArbCom triggered something new to me. I had never experienced serious depression before, but then I sank into a deep depression for several years and lost my desire to edit as much, which was a loss, because I love to learn and to help here. Having to move, live anonymously, and experience poverty and uncertainty didn't help.
- I never want to subject myself to any such process again. It's not worth it. Justice does not exist here. BLP protections do not apply to editors. I mean that literally. They actually don't. So, I'll just wait this one out and try to get over it. AfDs should not be places where deletionists and POV warriors can run riot and use their NotAForum rantings, accompanied by masses of wikilinked policies they throw about and are misusing, to eliminate content they don't like. Atsme doesn't even get specific and attempt to fix things, unlike Politrukki, who has made specific suggestions to fixable things, and which I have immediately done several times during this process.
- No, an attempt to undermine our article creation process is succeeding, by ignoring the fact that the qualifications for the creation of this article are fulfilled, and then using the AfD as a soapbox. That's what's happening here. A cabal of 3-4 Trump loyalists, who get their ideas from Limbaugh, Fox, and such like, are fighting to keep anything negative about Trump out of Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced. A WP:G10 didn't work ("G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"), so she then tried this AfD, even changing her mind underways. I pointed that out and got blocked. That's not right.
- To me, a POV warrior isn't just someone who pushes a particular POV. We all have them. No, they try to keep opposing POV out. That's wrong. They should learn to write for the opposition, and seek to help inclusion of all notable POV. That's how I work. I just want to create and improve things, but some people just do all they can to hinder. It really makes one feel hopeless when they get away with it, and in this case are rewarded. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I know you want to help the site... it's just that the discussions can get thrown off (and even people like yourself's intentions can get mirepresented once tempers start to flare). How about this... you promise to abide by the civility restriction, and simply in the future report to me or the admins at WP:AE if you think someone is trying to violate WP:NPOV in the topic area, etc... and I'll remove the block immediately? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd really appreciate that. I'll definitely be careful. I just want to improve things. The article is growing and needs more balance in some areas. I'll contact you if I feel the need for advice, and that does happen. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I know you want to help the site... it's just that the discussions can get thrown off (and even people like yourself's intentions can get mirepresented once tempers start to flare). How about this... you promise to abide by the civility restriction, and simply in the future report to me or the admins at WP:AE if you think someone is trying to violate WP:NPOV in the topic area, etc... and I'll remove the block immediately? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- A seemingly forgotten part of our blocking process (applicable to every form of block, whether DS related or not): This user has the power to always state how they understand they committed violations of the DS system by violating WP:UNCIVIL, and could discuss with the blocking administrator (in this case, me) whether a reduction is possible. So far however, this user has made no attempt to do that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1 week seems like a long block for this comment [3] - especially since your block log has only one 12 hour block from 2006 (!) - this is a DS block so maybe if you appeal at AE it could be shortened? It has already been 24 hours, hasn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A Link to a talk page which may provide a giggle.
I thought you might like this -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)