Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) →You are banned from my talk page: adjectives |
|||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:::::Yes Neil, I heard you the first time and I acknowledge that you decline my invitation to exercise admin discretion by deleting the obvious violation on your own initiative—rather than making me go to the trouble of nominating it and then enduring further abuse during the deletion "arguments", from other editors who share Bull's views that ''scum like me'' don't belong on Wikipedia. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Yes Neil, I heard you the first time and I acknowledge that you decline my invitation to exercise admin discretion by deleting the obvious violation on your own initiative—rather than making me go to the trouble of nominating it and then enduring further abuse during the deletion "arguments", from other editors who share Bull's views that ''scum like me'' don't belong on Wikipedia. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::"stifle expression of views", please, it is pure fiction that he uses to paper over trying to shut down actual RS discussion while actively pretending that there is some legitimate basis for doing so. He shouts INFOWARS to shut up people who are not talking about infowars. Moreover, he barked the same little speech directly at me on Jimbo talk page. It's targeted and it's dumb. |
::::::"stifle expression of views", please, it is pure fiction that he uses to paper over trying to shut down actual RS discussion while actively pretending that there is some legitimate basis for doing so. He shouts INFOWARS to shut up people who are not talking about infowars. Moreover, he barked the same little speech directly at me on Jimbo talk page. It's targeted and it's dumb. |
||
::::::If you want the deletion to be done under discretionary sanctions then open a request at [[WP:AE]]. There, a deletion does not require a consensus among editors for an admin to act. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{re|BullRangifer}} The pretense that I'm claiming it's about me because I "self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned", rather than because you fucking quoted it at me on Jimbo's talk page, is dumb. It's these continued PAs that explain why I am continuing to respond to you. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 03:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC) |
{{re|BullRangifer}} The pretense that I'm claiming it's about me because I "self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned", rather than because you fucking quoted it at me on Jimbo's talk page, is dumb. It's these continued PAs that explain why I am continuing to respond to you. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 03:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:47, 29 April 2018
Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI....
You've been mentioned . I pinged you at the discussion and now I'm posting here so you'll be aware of what's going on. I think you've helped motivate some positive changes at the article so please be cautious about how you frame your responses because there is a civility restriction on the TP of Trump-Russia dossier. Atsme📞📧 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Question for you...do you understand what I'm saying in this diff? Atsme📞📧 11:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Of course, and I don't see how it could escape them that the whole issue was rendered moot when the GOP guy explicitly said the same thing and thus it was no longer relevant to talk about whether a journalist had been correctly interpreting vague media reports. Meanwhile the way causation actually works IRL, if the warrant would not have issued but for the dossier, or more loosely, if the dossier was a substantial factor in bringing about the warrant, then it was indeed "all based on the dossier". Factchecker_atyourservice 04:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I am merely confirming what has been pointed out by others. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you kidding, is this a joke User:Drmies? My comment was asking another user to STOP talking about other users, which is practically all he does. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding. No, that's not what your comment entailed. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's exactly what my comment entailed. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding. No, that's not what your comment entailed. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
"Nothing burger"
Hi, I saw your comment on another user's Talk page: Has any such editor been active on the talk page in the last 30 days? The answer is "Yes". I recall, for example, that the Trump campaign-Russian lawyer meeting was described on Wiki by several editors as a "nothing burger" last summer, a Donald Trump Jr. / Fox News talking point at that time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Campaign—Russian meeting. Compare with: GNews scan. So not much has changed and such editors continue to edit articles related to Trump. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: not to get hypertechnical, but July 2017 is not within the last 30 days. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are banned from my talk page
Per this edit by me, you are banned from my talk page until you have a change of heart. If you decide to become collaborative, rather than combative and insulting, I may change my mind. Since 2003, you are probably only the fourth editor to have received such a ban. This is a sad day, but I don't have to put up with your aggression and abuse. You don't seem to have learned much from your long block log, and I suspect it's going to get longer soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and if you didn't want me to post to your page after being "banned", you shouldn't have ended with an edit summary containing an insult and an accusation of BATTLE that was nonsensical given prior comments that my response reminded you of.
- Actually @BullRangifer: a good chunk of my block log is stuff like a mistaken sock block, and marginal 3RR violations with bad editors, e.g. one or two POV pushers who were later indef-blocked, and calling a couple people names after they exhibited very bad editing conduct. I don't seem to have any problem people who like to accurately reflect high-quality fact sourcing rather than skew low-quality coverage in order to paint a picture that is not found in high-quality sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both you and BullRangifer need to stay off of each other's talk pages and refrain from commenting on lack of competence or other perceived personal shortcomings elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. That was my notification, and I have no intent to engage further. I have extended olive branches and gotten abuse. I'm finished with them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Olive branches? Hah! @NeilN: may I write a venomous 40 kilobyte essay about bad editors and the bad badness that makes them bad and let Bull know very clearly that the essay refers to him, right on Jimbo Wales's talk page just in case he or anyone else has any doubt? Factchecker_atyourservice 04:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- What part of stay off of BullRangifer's talk page did you not understand? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: wouldn't it be so much more constructive and helpful if you would also order him to delete his personal attacks and not make any more even though it is his personal talk page? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you want the essay gone then take it to WP:MFD. --NeilN talk to me 01:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: I am referring to the fact that he insists on leaving a "parting message" falsely implying I have something wrong with facts or that I dispute something about some Pew Research report (well in line with him falsely claiming I read this or that), also that I have an "obsession" with him, when it's all motivated by his deliberately targeted hostility. I mean hell he writes an essay about me and follows me to Jimbo talk page to slam me, and he calls me obsessed for reacting negatively?
- If you want the essay gone then take it to WP:MFD. --NeilN talk to me 01:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: wouldn't it be so much more constructive and helpful if you would also order him to delete his personal attacks and not make any more even though it is his personal talk page? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- What part of stay off of BullRangifer's talk page did you not understand? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Olive branches? Hah! @NeilN: may I write a venomous 40 kilobyte essay about bad editors and the bad badness that makes them bad and let Bull know very clearly that the essay refers to him, right on Jimbo Wales's talk page just in case he or anyone else has any doubt? Factchecker_atyourservice 04:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. That was my notification, and I have no intent to engage further. I have extended olive branches and gotten abuse. I'm finished with them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both you and BullRangifer need to stay off of each other's talk pages and refrain from commenting on lack of competence or other perceived personal shortcomings elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just do me the solidest personal favor you've ever done anybody on Wikipedia, tell him to delete that last talk page section, and I'll regard you as some kind of magnanimous Wiki god, ok? Factchecker_atyourservice 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker, you seem to be having a hard time understanding Wikipedia policy here.
User:NeilN told you, several times, to stay off of BullRangifer’s talk page. BR also told you, repeatedly, to stay off his talk page. It is expected that Wikipedians will abide by that kind of request, see WP:NOBAN. Furthermore, users have the right to remove material from their talk page, and if they do, it should not be restored, see Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. But you have continued to post on BR’s page, and you have restored things after he deleted them. This is becoming harassment, and if you do it again, there are likely to be consequences. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: I am quite well aware of policy including, generally, that DS means if I cause an ouchey anywhere I may be memoryholed, nonetheless I was calling upon NeilN to exercise some judgment, although frankly it's ridiculous one of you doesn't delete that stupid little essay on your own initiative and scold BullRangifer yourselves. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: leaving aside that I'm getting orders and block threats from you and Bull is getting gentle persuasion with a tone suggesting he's in the right, I might point out to you that "sniping" implies somebody taking a shot at another person from out of nowhere, which is darned close to plain misuse of an English word given that it was in response to both a very long attack essay and a shorter version of that attack essay directed at me on the talk page of the founder of Wikipedia. So if you're looking for a metaphor, look for one that implies retaliation rather than ambush. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Admins cannot unilaterally order someone to remove talk page sections and essays that someone else doesn't like if they're not against policies or guidelines. We can, however, enforce requests to stay off of talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: It is a 40k attack essay directed at me and premised on various moronic fantasies about who I support, what I think, and what I read, which he expressly directed at me (in a summarized form) on Jimbo's talk page. It's also worth pointing out that even if these were actually my views it would be improper for him to attack me for them. Anyway, WP:POLEMIC forbids "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors" so even if it weren't personally directed at me, it's a violation. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Again, WP:MFD. --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes Neil, I heard you the first time and I acknowledge that you decline my invitation to exercise admin discretion by deleting the obvious violation on your own initiative—rather than making me go to the trouble of nominating it and then enduring further abuse during the deletion "arguments", from other editors who share Bull's views that scum like me don't belong on Wikipedia. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- "stifle expression of views", please, it is pure fiction that he uses to paper over trying to shut down actual RS discussion while actively pretending that there is some legitimate basis for doing so. He shouts INFOWARS to shut up people who are not talking about infowars. Moreover, he barked the same little speech directly at me on Jimbo talk page. It's targeted and it's dumb.
- If you want the deletion to be done under discretionary sanctions then open a request at WP:AE. There, a deletion does not require a consensus among editors for an admin to act. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes Neil, I heard you the first time and I acknowledge that you decline my invitation to exercise admin discretion by deleting the obvious violation on your own initiative—rather than making me go to the trouble of nominating it and then enduring further abuse during the deletion "arguments", from other editors who share Bull's views that scum like me don't belong on Wikipedia. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Again, WP:MFD. --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: It is a 40k attack essay directed at me and premised on various moronic fantasies about who I support, what I think, and what I read, which he expressly directed at me (in a summarized form) on Jimbo's talk page. It's also worth pointing out that even if these were actually my views it would be improper for him to attack me for them. Anyway, WP:POLEMIC forbids "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors" so even if it weren't personally directed at me, it's a violation. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Admins cannot unilaterally order someone to remove talk page sections and essays that someone else doesn't like if they're not against policies or guidelines. We can, however, enforce requests to stay off of talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: The pretense that I'm claiming it's about me because I "self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned", rather than because you fucking quoted it at me on Jimbo's talk page, is dumb. It's these continued PAs that explain why I am continuing to respond to you. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)