“ |
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
—Idiom |
” |
I think we might have a misunderstanding, and I wanted to provide you with all the information (with appropriate references) so you can decide whether that affects your thinking at all.
Okay, that's the information! Now you can do whatever you want. Cheers, Benevolent human ( talk) 22:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Firefangledfeathers I have a question about ARBPIA sanctions and wanted to move our discussion here rather than cluttering up the main discussion. Does the 500 edits threshold rule apply to talk page discussion on RfCs that were sent out to the general community to comment on? If that's the case, how does anyone who is unaware that the ARBPIA sanctions even exist avoid this situation? The RfC for Ilhan Omar was posted in the Biographies section for everyone to see. It makes sense that ARBPIA could be applied to editing the main article itself but to restrict those under 500 edits from even participating in the talk discussion seems highly unreasonable. TrueQuantum ( talk) 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was very much not trying to come off as hostile, as I said on the talk page I largely agree with you. But the ARBPIA conflict topic area is one of our most heated and as such there have been additional rules imposed there. Sorry if I was overly brusque. nableezy - 19:10, 14 June 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gold mining, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Regarding another editor. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RGW_by_User:Crowell78_on_Bill_Cosby Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi TrueQuantum, at Talk:Bill Cosby you have mentioned a few times—and argued against—the viewpoint that Cosby's release was based on a mere technicality. There may be people who believe that, but as far as I can tell no editors have mentioned it on the talk page or edited that viewpoint into the article. I mention it because I worry you are arguing against a straw man position; I find this to be detracting from the strength of your arguments, which I generally find to be high-quality (though I might disagree with a couple). I hope this message is helpful, and I won't be upset if you don't feel like responding. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi TrueQuantum, sorry to be popping up so often at your user talk page! I found part of your recent post at Talk:Sex to be uncivil and likely to distract from your other points. Describing recent editors of the article and talk page (including, possibly, me) as activists is (a) not true, (b) not civil, and (c) not appropriately done at the talk page. If you have concerns about an editors conduct, you should post at their user talk page (as I am doing now), and escalate to other conduct dispute venues if needed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked from
Zina Bash and its related talkpage per
this discussion. 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
08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
Hi TrueQuantum, I just wanted to give you some advice about how to deal with ANI and with being blocked.
I believe that from our interactions yesterday you have already gained an idea about the mistakes you made in this case (with regard to the Zina Bash article). My advice is to post a new comment where you strike (add <s> before and </s> after) your previous comment about censorship and about the bullying by others, acknowledge your own mistakes, briefly explain what was wrong and why, and state how you're confident that it will not happen again.
Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 04:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
“ |
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
—Idiom |
” |
I think we might have a misunderstanding, and I wanted to provide you with all the information (with appropriate references) so you can decide whether that affects your thinking at all.
Okay, that's the information! Now you can do whatever you want. Cheers, Benevolent human ( talk) 22:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Firefangledfeathers I have a question about ARBPIA sanctions and wanted to move our discussion here rather than cluttering up the main discussion. Does the 500 edits threshold rule apply to talk page discussion on RfCs that were sent out to the general community to comment on? If that's the case, how does anyone who is unaware that the ARBPIA sanctions even exist avoid this situation? The RfC for Ilhan Omar was posted in the Biographies section for everyone to see. It makes sense that ARBPIA could be applied to editing the main article itself but to restrict those under 500 edits from even participating in the talk discussion seems highly unreasonable. TrueQuantum ( talk) 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was very much not trying to come off as hostile, as I said on the talk page I largely agree with you. But the ARBPIA conflict topic area is one of our most heated and as such there have been additional rules imposed there. Sorry if I was overly brusque. nableezy - 19:10, 14 June 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gold mining, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Regarding another editor. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RGW_by_User:Crowell78_on_Bill_Cosby Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi TrueQuantum, at Talk:Bill Cosby you have mentioned a few times—and argued against—the viewpoint that Cosby's release was based on a mere technicality. There may be people who believe that, but as far as I can tell no editors have mentioned it on the talk page or edited that viewpoint into the article. I mention it because I worry you are arguing against a straw man position; I find this to be detracting from the strength of your arguments, which I generally find to be high-quality (though I might disagree with a couple). I hope this message is helpful, and I won't be upset if you don't feel like responding. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 05:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi TrueQuantum, sorry to be popping up so often at your user talk page! I found part of your recent post at Talk:Sex to be uncivil and likely to distract from your other points. Describing recent editors of the article and talk page (including, possibly, me) as activists is (a) not true, (b) not civil, and (c) not appropriately done at the talk page. If you have concerns about an editors conduct, you should post at their user talk page (as I am doing now), and escalate to other conduct dispute venues if needed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked from
Zina Bash and its related talkpage per
this discussion. 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
08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
Hi TrueQuantum, I just wanted to give you some advice about how to deal with ANI and with being blocked.
I believe that from our interactions yesterday you have already gained an idea about the mistakes you made in this case (with regard to the Zina Bash article). My advice is to post a new comment where you strike (add <s> before and </s> after) your previous comment about censorship and about the bullying by others, acknowledge your own mistakes, briefly explain what was wrong and why, and state how you're confident that it will not happen again.
Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 04:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)