Your edit summary at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates: "replaced link repaired broken link": This does not appear to be a factual report of your action. If, indeed, I am wrong about you, your 10+year history here, and your ill intentions, can you then explain, please? AukusRuckus ( talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
stray ref" but the removal of a statement. This seems to be a new tactic: Usually, if you do not wish something to be in an article, you try stating that it is "repetitive" or "overbearing" or your version says "essentially the same" thing; all of which rarely, if ever, turns out to be correct. Others point this out to you too, but you never reply ... Why is that, I wonder? AukusRuckus ( talk) 07:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You interrupted my message here. Hold one a moment. Now federal law as remote as it is does allow death penalty I noted it as a remote possibility on top of other penalties that you found acceptable, (fines, floggings, deportation, and 1-15 years in jail. Now 1-15 years federal laws do not trump Emirate laws so I listed 1 year minimum. As for combine statements, it's not to do anything other than combine them for keeping the information in one area and I see no harm in combining statements that seem similar to make one conhisive point. I'm replying now. I was trying to type a second ago but you adding a second statement made it so I got an edit that said you have to refresh to the newest version of the page to type. Anyway I'm here let's talk. Cheemsforever ( talk) 07:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It was a stray because the statement was already noted in the combined statement where I said the three sources all feel like it can be interpreted this way and don't note enforcements that they know of. Then the rest went into a partial statement that got cut off that was leftover from the edit. It ended halfway through the sentence. You are looking too deeply in it and taking too much personal offense at my edit. I have no bad intentions. I just made the information clear and took it from multiple paragraphs that are repetitive to a statement that combines all sources and what they say. Cheemsforever ( talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no ill will here friend. That's all i have to say. Cheemsforever ( talk) 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You have the gall to speak of gaslighting? Do you know what that term means? You gas lit me the entire time on Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates/Archive 2#Removing sourced sections without edit summaries:
Rehash of old events: apologies
|
---|
In, fact, you said what you've said here, that I was taking your aspersions too personally. And I've noticed you saying that to other editors also.
You hadn't though. Perhaps you cannot follow a talk page, but I can. No such retraction was ever made. That is a bald fact which could have been easily proved. Now that is what gaslighting is. (And why I believe you have a low opinion of the intelligence of others.) Then, when I made a half-arsed joke at my own expense you took offence and deleted it! In contravention of policy! FFS! |
Just yesterday, you told me in an ES "no need to be a smartass
".
Still, you say your intentions are good! And, apparently, only you may take offence at the comments of others, which you are quick to do. I am being open here, and probably not doing myself any favours on WP, but I'm in just enough of a raw state to not particularly give a damn, just at the moment. I may wake up in the morning with the WP-posting equivalent of a hangover and regret this. Sobeit.
Why were you upset about the page protection request?: You edited against consensus. The poor editors on Criminalization should have been the upset ones. And then you took it out on me: We both know my accusations aren't "false", or whatever else you called them.
Finally, to be clear, my offer was to reinstall your existing hat properly (it's malfunctioning, as it's not formatted in the right way), or alternatively, remove my comment about the anti-LGBT groups online. Nothing else here that worries me but I understand that your mileage may vary. That is your right. (My asides "wierd" or whatever as they may be, are to illustrate that I'm a real life person, with feelings, which you are happy to trash. At least I do not say on article talk pages things like "She was kind of gross and had IBS", ffs! What kind of talk is that?) AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to fix the formatting, if you give your permission, because otherwise my reply posts are not below your posts to which they are responding. AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
About your hatting adjustment: You need to fix this immediately. It gives a misleading view on what was said. I'm happy to remove my post or restore the whole thing within properly formatted hatting – but not this, as it misrepresents the posts. AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to realize you give off a condescending tone with everything you have written.")
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Lightening your view of me would be great, I appreciate the progress that would be on your end. Unfortunately in this edit you asked "Why aren't you ashamed of yourself and your deceptive behaviour?" and then in this edit you said "When will you cease your dishonesty?" Those are both very serious attacks against others. How do I know you wouldn't do things like this? That is what I mean by gaslighting and being condescending. I feel like these snippets alone justify my concerns I feel. I've only called you out after you've said these things in your edit history recently. I have stayed civil with you have I not until I mentioned these harsh things you've said. I would love it if we can both be kinder and more patient with each other. I think I have been despite the challenging circumstances but I'm willing to apologize if this is not the case. Also, I never said that only I can take offense to comments, please don't put words in my mouth I never said this. Cheemsforever ( talk) 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
For context, you were continuous editing and adding to the page and if you do that it can affect someone writing a response because the page wants you to refresh to see the other text and show the new edit someone else does before you can edit anything. That is why I told you to please wait. They did seem insulting and like I was being talked down to, you can downplay it if you wish but that is how I feel about it. If I was rude or abrupt I again apologize. I don't mean to rub any thing in anyone else's face. Of course any behavior that was untoward and condescending or rude or rude on part I apologize for but rubbing that in my face is not helping and is cruel. There is a difference between talking about it and using it to act high and mighty.I don't have to feel inferior to you and you won't make me feel that way intentionally or unintentionally. I feel like I am not being dishonest. Feel free to bring it to my attention if you do feel that way about me let's discuss it. Cheemsforever ( talk) 13:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for
soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at
Banana, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Zefr (
talk)
14:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Your edit summary at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates: "replaced link repaired broken link": This does not appear to be a factual report of your action. If, indeed, I am wrong about you, your 10+year history here, and your ill intentions, can you then explain, please? AukusRuckus ( talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
stray ref" but the removal of a statement. This seems to be a new tactic: Usually, if you do not wish something to be in an article, you try stating that it is "repetitive" or "overbearing" or your version says "essentially the same" thing; all of which rarely, if ever, turns out to be correct. Others point this out to you too, but you never reply ... Why is that, I wonder? AukusRuckus ( talk) 07:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You interrupted my message here. Hold one a moment. Now federal law as remote as it is does allow death penalty I noted it as a remote possibility on top of other penalties that you found acceptable, (fines, floggings, deportation, and 1-15 years in jail. Now 1-15 years federal laws do not trump Emirate laws so I listed 1 year minimum. As for combine statements, it's not to do anything other than combine them for keeping the information in one area and I see no harm in combining statements that seem similar to make one conhisive point. I'm replying now. I was trying to type a second ago but you adding a second statement made it so I got an edit that said you have to refresh to the newest version of the page to type. Anyway I'm here let's talk. Cheemsforever ( talk) 07:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It was a stray because the statement was already noted in the combined statement where I said the three sources all feel like it can be interpreted this way and don't note enforcements that they know of. Then the rest went into a partial statement that got cut off that was leftover from the edit. It ended halfway through the sentence. You are looking too deeply in it and taking too much personal offense at my edit. I have no bad intentions. I just made the information clear and took it from multiple paragraphs that are repetitive to a statement that combines all sources and what they say. Cheemsforever ( talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no ill will here friend. That's all i have to say. Cheemsforever ( talk) 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You have the gall to speak of gaslighting? Do you know what that term means? You gas lit me the entire time on Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates/Archive 2#Removing sourced sections without edit summaries:
Rehash of old events: apologies
|
---|
In, fact, you said what you've said here, that I was taking your aspersions too personally. And I've noticed you saying that to other editors also.
You hadn't though. Perhaps you cannot follow a talk page, but I can. No such retraction was ever made. That is a bald fact which could have been easily proved. Now that is what gaslighting is. (And why I believe you have a low opinion of the intelligence of others.) Then, when I made a half-arsed joke at my own expense you took offence and deleted it! In contravention of policy! FFS! |
Just yesterday, you told me in an ES "no need to be a smartass
".
Still, you say your intentions are good! And, apparently, only you may take offence at the comments of others, which you are quick to do. I am being open here, and probably not doing myself any favours on WP, but I'm in just enough of a raw state to not particularly give a damn, just at the moment. I may wake up in the morning with the WP-posting equivalent of a hangover and regret this. Sobeit.
Why were you upset about the page protection request?: You edited against consensus. The poor editors on Criminalization should have been the upset ones. And then you took it out on me: We both know my accusations aren't "false", or whatever else you called them.
Finally, to be clear, my offer was to reinstall your existing hat properly (it's malfunctioning, as it's not formatted in the right way), or alternatively, remove my comment about the anti-LGBT groups online. Nothing else here that worries me but I understand that your mileage may vary. That is your right. (My asides "wierd" or whatever as they may be, are to illustrate that I'm a real life person, with feelings, which you are happy to trash. At least I do not say on article talk pages things like "She was kind of gross and had IBS", ffs! What kind of talk is that?) AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to fix the formatting, if you give your permission, because otherwise my reply posts are not below your posts to which they are responding. AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
About your hatting adjustment: You need to fix this immediately. It gives a misleading view on what was said. I'm happy to remove my post or restore the whole thing within properly formatted hatting – but not this, as it misrepresents the posts. AukusRuckus ( talk) 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to realize you give off a condescending tone with everything you have written.")
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Lightening your view of me would be great, I appreciate the progress that would be on your end. Unfortunately in this edit you asked "Why aren't you ashamed of yourself and your deceptive behaviour?" and then in this edit you said "When will you cease your dishonesty?" Those are both very serious attacks against others. How do I know you wouldn't do things like this? That is what I mean by gaslighting and being condescending. I feel like these snippets alone justify my concerns I feel. I've only called you out after you've said these things in your edit history recently. I have stayed civil with you have I not until I mentioned these harsh things you've said. I would love it if we can both be kinder and more patient with each other. I think I have been despite the challenging circumstances but I'm willing to apologize if this is not the case. Also, I never said that only I can take offense to comments, please don't put words in my mouth I never said this. Cheemsforever ( talk) 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
For context, you were continuous editing and adding to the page and if you do that it can affect someone writing a response because the page wants you to refresh to see the other text and show the new edit someone else does before you can edit anything. That is why I told you to please wait. They did seem insulting and like I was being talked down to, you can downplay it if you wish but that is how I feel about it. If I was rude or abrupt I again apologize. I don't mean to rub any thing in anyone else's face. Of course any behavior that was untoward and condescending or rude or rude on part I apologize for but rubbing that in my face is not helping and is cruel. There is a difference between talking about it and using it to act high and mighty.I don't have to feel inferior to you and you won't make me feel that way intentionally or unintentionally. I feel like I am not being dishonest. Feel free to bring it to my attention if you do feel that way about me let's discuss it. Cheemsforever ( talk) 13:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for
soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at
Banana, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Zefr (
talk)
14:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.