User talk:Sleyece

Archives
User talk:Sleyece/Archive1 User talk:Sleyece/Archive2

January 2017/Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

Your Conduct

 Resolved [1] See Wikipedia:IPs are human too

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston — note this user was blocked for 7 days for edit-warring on Dick Cheney. He immediately began edit-warring again once the block expired. In that first block I suggested not applying a indefinite block. I urge you to consider whether it may be worth it at this point. 31 hours seems rather short and somewhat arbitrary? Did you mean 31 days? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the users reverting their talk page as well and keeping this strange list of "Conduct Friends", I suggest a further block and TPA removal as well. Clearly WP:NOTHERE behavior. -- Dane ^talk 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Katie^talk 23:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sleyece (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17290 was submitted on Jan 07, 2017 23:22:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access

As you were informed in response to your UTRS appeal, in which you have given clear assurance as to your future editing behaviour, I have decided to enable access to your talk page to allow you to appeal here and enable Community input into the appeal. Please post your unblock request here for Community review. You can follow the instructions at WP:GAB. If you use this talk page for any purpose other than an appeal in the terms of the UTRS appeal then I, or another Admin, will immediately indefinitely remove access to your talk page again, and that will most probably be that. Just Chilling (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Dane, CFCF, KrakatoaKatie, Kuru, EdJohnston, and Just Chilling: I wanted to take time and think of a proper response before an appeal. I apologize for causing any disruption, as it was not my intention. I have been editing in the exact opposite way of the conduct of Wikipedia. I thought, leading up to the indefinite block, the "bold" editing means that you change a page and then go to the talk page to explain what you did and why you did it. The fact that users would almost always revert edits or report me only added to my confusion and frustration. Also, I thought I had complete control of my talk page, but I have been studying the techniques to set up a bot for automatic archival, and I will not blank future information. In conclusion, if I am allowed to regain user privileges I will build consensus with other users with the goal of building an accurate and thorough encyclopedia before making any edits or changes to the site. -- Sleyece 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sleyece: I would like some information about what you were doing here? This list has been taken very seriously as some sort of potential declaration against these users and there is no apparent explanation for it yet. What specific policies have you reviewed that will prevent you from participating in the same conduct that you did previously? And how would you respond to Sunshineisles2 who you were involved in an edit war with, declaring your edits "OFFICIAL"? I would need answers to these questions before I can give my further input regarding your block. I do not mean for these questions to seem harsh, my focus is on ensuring your return would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Dane ^talk 04:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: I reviewed these policies

. Did I miss any? If so, I will promptly review them. In response to Sunshineisles2 as well as Motsebboh, I'm sorry for labeling my edits as "OFFICIAL" and edit warring. They were obviously not official, as that makes no sense. I was just confused as to why my edits were so instantly reverted, and I was warring as a result. As for the "Conduct friends" portion of my talk page. I had been keeping a list of users who I had been involved in conduct issues with. I had hoped to contact them for advice so as to end my ignorance as a user, but that obviously backfired spectacularly. As stated previously, I now know that is inappropriate use of the User's talk page. If I have left out any information in this appeal, please don't hesitate to inform me. Thank you. -- Sleyece 01:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sleyece and Just Chilling: Given the above explanations and apologies as well as the review of policy, I would personally support an unblock of this editor. They have adequately responded to all of my questions, in great detail and explained what steps they will take to prevent the behavior from recurring. This to me shows a commitment to working collaboratively and accepting feedback that was not present when the block was initially set. A second chance may lead to a productive editor -- so why not give it another go? -- Dane ^talk 03:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF, KrakatoaKatie, Kuru, EdJohnston, and Just Chilling: Were there any other questions regarding this appeal? -- Sleyece 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would personally like to thank all users for considering this appeal. Is it still currently being considered? An update would be greatly appreciated. -- Sleyece 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It is normal to allow a clear week for discussion and I currently plan to close it tomorrow. Just Chilling (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleyece, can you explain the edit warring complaint about your actions at Edith Wilson? She was President Wilson's wife, who helped him when he was ill. You insisted that she be referred to by Wikipedia as the 'de-facto President of the United States'. At the time I thought this was so outlandish that you must have been trolling or intending to provide a response. (Such wording would surely have to come from scholars and be well-supported, which it was not). Can you explain? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: that is an excellent point, and I forgot to mention that I will not make edits without proper citations. I did here Talk:Warren G. Harding, but I did not understand Wikipedia's conduct. Therefore, my edits were inconsistent. I have a much firmer grasp of policies and expectations now. As for Edith Wilson, I edited based on a personal opinion and an overestimation of the remainder of the data on that page. I failed to seek consensus with other editors, which I will do in the future. - Sleyece 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I will seek consensus with other editors in the future - Sleyece 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: Has the discussion on this appeal currently closed? I am eager, hopefully, to have the opportunity to improve as an editor. - Sleyece 17:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that you are anxious for this application to be closed but questions are still being asked and answered. It is important that everyone has the fullest opportunity to discuss their concerns. Having said that, I note that no-one has yet expressed opposition to lifting the block and I hope to be able to close soon. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleyece, can you explain what the "Conduct Friends" section was that you added? Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adotchar: (Stated previously in response to Dane (talk · contribs): "I had been keeping a list of users who I had been involved in conduct issues with. I had hoped to contact them for advice so as to end my ignorance as a user") Of course, there seems to have been a lot of confusion as to my intentions with "Conduct Friends." I thought I had unrestricted control of the user's talk page, and I was trying to keep a convenient list of users/admins that I had been involved with conduct issues with in my short stint on Wikipedia. I had planned to use the list to get advice from other users about how I should conduct myself on Wikipedia, so I could avoid issues in the future. I now understand that the list was itself a violation of Wikipedia's policy, and that behavior will not be repeated if I am allowed to continue as an editor. - Sleyece 01:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are further questions, I will await a consensus from administrators on my potential to be a successful Wikipedia editor in the future. - Sleyece 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wanted you to know that I refactored your hatting of the talk page thread "User: Sleyece; Comments, Concerns, and Feedback". According to Template:Atop editors are not supposed to hat discussions they have been involved in. I retained your hatting comment that a new discussion should be started at the end of that thread. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Shearonink, I understand. I am now aware of that template, and I will employ it in the future.

Miscellaneous; Constructive Corrections

Your signature

Hi. I don't know how you're doing it, but somehow the time/date stamps in your signatures have a nonstandard format that will not be recognized by certain software functions including archive bots. Are you signing using the four tildes as shown at WP:SIGHOW? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Mandruss, I have not been doing that. I have just been using a simple '-' to indicate possession. From now on I will 'Sleyece (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)' to alert the archive bots.

I have been manually filling out my signature, in case you were still wondering.

Looks much better, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:Ct/aware

Hi Sleyece. I saw you mentioned ds/aware in your edit summary and that you have it at the top of this page. Since the end of last year, the proper template is now Template:Ct/aware. More importantly, you need to drop the "tlx" so that you're actually transcluding the template and not just linking to it, and you need to include the topic codes for the contentious topic areas you're familiar with. Some example code would look like ct/aware|blp|ap, wrapped in curly brackets. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I'll fix it.

You got it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Richard I

Could you please explain this revert? I didn't remove a reference. There was a duplicate citation which I merged into one. It is the citation that had the cite error, which I corrected by changing the unrecognised and incorrect parameter 'work' to the recognised parameter of 'series'. By undoing my edit, you reintroduced the broken citation that you had previously complained about[2][3]. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't understand that you were fixing the cite error; I didn't check at first that's what it was. I didn't expect you to do what I suggested you should do, and then proceed to come to my talk page to warn me of editing violations. I'm a bold editor, and I've never been afraid to revert even admins if they're gaming policy to get their way. It doesn't get me many barnstars, but I can handle myself. It seems like this is just a case of we had a misunderstanding that got out of hand. Thank you for your patience with me, and for coming back to ask for more detail. Celia Homeford, it's no concern of mine, but if you're this concerned about policy, considering all your rights added so far, you should just apply for admin. Other admins seem to hold you in high regard, so I'm sure you'll get it. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidents at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I edited your comments here only because they broke the page. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop by and say that I see you changed the indenting, but I think you did so incorrectly, no offense. Often, where there's an edit conflict ("e/c"), two comments will be at the same indent level--because they're responding to the same original. Woodroar couldn't have been responding to my comment, because that's where the e/c came from. The way you've set it up makes it seem as if it was a neat chronological step-to-step, but it wasn't, quite. Not a big deal, just wanted to offer that thought. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Dumuzid. I reverted the edit, thanks.

Regarding the Donald Trump handshakes talk

I still have not seen any good reason in any of the talk page or deletion discussions for that article. It is clearly NPOV. Also I was not seriously suggesting making a Vladimir Putin and walking article, I was using that to make a point — how ridiculous the whole concept of this article is.

Anyway, just noticed that you closed the discussion and your rationale, and so I just wanted to let you know that my intentions are not malevolent. I am genuinely curious — again, people are saying that this has already been discussed, yet so far no good reason to keep the article has actually been presented, or how the article is not so blatantly NPOV. Just because the mainstream media, which has been demonizing Trump 24/7 for the past eight months, starts going on and on about his handshakes, that does not require Wikipedia to make an article about every single contrived scandal they come up with. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Romanov loyalist, Please do not come to my talk page to levy general complaints. If there is a specific policy you think I may have violated, you can post it here. Also, if you think I deserve a Barnstar, which, from context clues, seems unlikely, you may post that here. Thank you.

Draft Articles

User:Sleyece/Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States

Hello, Sleyece. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @JMHamo:, but a consensus has already been reached on that draft. I don't need it anymore. Sleyece (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:C. Landon Roberson

Hello, Sleyece. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "C. Landon Roberson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.everybodywiki.com/C._Landon_Roberson

Notice & Request

Per your request, I have blocked your account for two weeks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you're repeatedly changing the infobox at Bernie Sanders to list him as a Democrat (diff, diff, diff, diff). I reverted the most recent change just now. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is a discussion about this at the article's talk page. Also, editors have been reverting you and pointing you to the discussion in edit summaries. Also, there is a <!-- comment --> in the code about this that you don't seem to be noticing. So, I thought I'd post at your talk page. Note that this article is under two sets of discretionary sanctions, one for BLP and one for post-1932 American politics; I've posted both notices above. Please don't change the infobox to Democrat until there is consensus on the talk page, but please do join the conversation there. Thank you and happy editing! Leviv ich 02:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Administration

Gamergate controversy discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

gender, BLP and American politics

Hi - you've added an AfD template at Mansplaining, but you haven't created a deletion discussion. Perhaps you're doing it manually, something I've never attempted, so I'll give it a few minutes before removing the template; for future reference, it's much easier to nominate articles for deletion using WP:TWINKLE. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see that a deletion discussion has been created, so I've removed the template. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sleyece, I noticed what you just wrote above in response to the notices that Doug Weller left you. I'm not sure which administrative decision you're referring you - Doug didn't make an administrative decision, he just left you some standard notices to bring some matters to your attention - but you need to familiarise yourself with the information at NLT. Please clarify what you are saying above - are you threatening some sort of legal action? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a legal threat or intention to take a legal action, no. I was pointing out that blanket protections of information on a site like this would be a Felony in the U.S., and I hope it is being used cautiously. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I'm not sure what you think is illegal about any of this - you might want to read the Terms of Use, if you haven't already - there's a link to them just above the 'Publish' button, whenever you edit a page. I assure you, there's nothing illegal in the US about the use of discretionary sanctions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is; it violates this for starters; also see Amendment I, and I would argue Amendment IV (since anyone can edit, blanket sanctions could be a private search and seizure). I'm just saying, y'all are playing w/ fire. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, I still don't understand why you think any of them would apply, but that doesn't particularly matter. So long as you are not making legal threats of any kind, and you understand that discretionary sanctions may be applied by any administrator when dealing with editors acting in these subject areas, we're good. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: however, this could be seen as chilling, so I'm taking it to ANI. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, the important thing, Sleyece, is that you don't say this to other editors or anywhere else. At that point I think it would be seen as chilling and thus the equivalent of a legal threat. You're wrong anyway. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:KEEPCOOL -- Sleyece (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug is, in my experience, the epitome of cool - he's like a well-educated Fonze. He's right though - you can think what you like, but going around saying that administrative rulings are not compliant with the law is only going to lead in one direction, one which none of us want to take. Let's all chill on that point. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, I hope you don't mind this intrusion on your talk page. The4lines - would you mind letting me know that the personal attack that justified a 4im warning here? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I do mind. Please see my user page under the "First" heading for more details.

OK, I'll take it elsewhere; I'll just explain to you that on the face of it, I don't see anything in your recent contributions that would justify such a warning, and I was concerned that it might have influenced your decision to take a break. I'll respect your wishes from this point out, unless you ping me and ask me to clarify further. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, this really will be my last note about this - the other user has accepted that their level 4 big red warning was excessive, and should not have been issued. I wish you well with the issues you outlined on your user page. Stay safe. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Strauss–Howe generational theory

I'll spare you the template but I do not understand your incorrect edits on Strauss–Howe generational theory. You inserting incorrect information and edit warring, so please cease immediately.

Please consider this a warning against [edit] warring (see WP:EW for explanations). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted, and I'll drop it for now. I don't appreciate getting slapped with a vandalism template on an article with a multiple issues tag for the record.

Also, I was not edit warring or violating 3RR, so if I was blocked because you were mad I reverted your IP Edit it would be immediately undone by other admins through the ticket system.

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Strauss–Howe generational theory) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, disruptive editing, and removal of sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You had to add an additional source that wasn't there before to "justify" a block, but since it's only on this page, I'll just let you have this W and edit elsewhere. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The other two sources were perfectly fine. I added another one just to drive it home. Your edit summary was incorrect and your edits are disruptive.

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That's total bullshit and you know it, lmao. You're just mad that you initially took my side, then you decided that I'm the "villain" and the IP editor must be protected at all costs. You're being an admin like a comic book writer and it's hilarious. I haven't violated ANY policy. You're just abusing your power.

Go complain on WP:ANI if you want. The info was readily verifiable and you removed it anyway. Before that, you added made-up date ranges that was contradicted by the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Just leave me tf alone! Attitudes like yours are why I quit my Sociology major. It's such a weird and intense response for a three day block on a single article that has a multiple issues tag. I know this pandemic is stressful, and everyone is going through it, but don't take it out on me. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Your recent editing history at Kayleigh McEnany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr Please be aware I was not edit warring. My revert should be checked against Manual of Style before you come on my talk page

No, don't edit war even if you believe you are right. The MOS is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr If I have policy on my side, I don't play nice. I'll revert when I have to. For the record, I didn't "believe" I was right. I WAS right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs)

The relevant policy is WP:NOT3RR. You'll note that being correct is not one of the listed exemptions. See WP:DISCUSS and WP:CIVIL since you seem to have some brushing up to do on those, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I declare myself the winner here. This exchange is over. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And WP:BATTLE. All the best to you and yours. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard I of England. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You're on thin ice. You've been warned multiple times and blocked multiple times. The next block will undoubtedly be infinite and permanent. DrKay (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been on "thin ice" since 2016. I'll be just fine. As to your points to note, I didn't break 3RR; I wasn't in an Edit War. I was correct about that Cite Edit that needed fixing. Why the user couldn't just fix it and had to accuse me of nonsense is beyond me. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see nowhere she has accused you of nonsense, and do not understand your comment about Cite Edit. She did fix the cite error, even though it was nothing to do with any previous edit of hers. So, why you're accusing her of damage to the article is incomprehensible. Your persistent battleground behavior must stop. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to not understand why you came to my talk page in the first place. I'm just editing, and users get mad at me for being correct. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: I wasn't accusing her (I'm assuming based on your pronoun use) of damaging the article. I don't know where you got that from. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi, I'm a bit concerned that your userpage states IT'S IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO NOT POST ON MY USER TALK UNLESS ON AN ADMIN ACCOUNT; 99% CHANCE OF REVERT. Communicating with other editors is nessecary sometimes and this message gives the impression that you won't listen/don't care about what non-admins have to say to you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already edited the message once after an Admin request. I'll make a good faith effort to edit it again. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Can you also try to listen when other people come to you with concerns? It's very dismissive when someone comes to you like this and you ignore them and just revert with "wrong". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to learn and be more patient. Today has been a very tough day. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of the ambiguities of the election and gaps in the charter have just been shifted on me with no recourse. Ferret kicked me out of the Discord, and I was just trying to help. I just don't even want to be a candidate anymore if it's like this. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti's concerns in that diff mainly had to do with Talk:Tiffany Henyard#Ticket 76757 at the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department. They did mention the elections as well, but I'm focusing on the enwiki aspect since that's the most relevant given that we are on enwiki right now. Since you've removed the declaration from your userpage about reverting non-admins, maybe they can try and express their concerns again. Again, I encourage you to listen to people regardless of what the status of their user rights is.

Anyways, in regards to discord, I have WT:DISCORD on my watchlist so I've seen your ban appeal there. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the platform is for, as your desire for campaigning directly contradicts WP:CANVASSING. It appears that ferret is also concerned about general disruptiveness. All that said, I'm not a moderator on that platform (nor wish to be one) and you'd need to convince them to unban you. I'd suggest waiting a period of time that's way longer than a few hours and to try and have a better track record of general collaborativeness on-wiki. Insisting that you know everything and that other people must be wrong generally isn't the best approach. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thank you for the invitation to reiterate my concerns. (By the way, you can use he/him but I prefer just being called Pbritti in writing; thank you very much for deferring to neutral in lieu of presuming.) Sleyece, my primary concern is the behavior that reads as wiki-lawyering, particularly since much of it doesn't seem grounded in a thorough understanding of policies. I would encourage you to re-review the material listed at this page.

Additionally–and please understand that I am saying this to ensure you remain an active editor with the project–I would strongly advise you to not run for U4C. You don't appear to have the experience, expertise, community connections, or temperament for the role and it is entirely likely editors will heavily scrutinize your prior editing history and say some immensely cruel things. It is not worth the emotional energy on your end.

Instead, I invite you to find a subject you're passionate about, crack open a couple of books or news stories on it, and flesh out/create an article. Content creation is the most rewarding part of Wikipedia, and one goal I have is to create an article every month and expand a preexisting article by five-fold every other month. If you ever want help finding something to work on, let me know. You've increased your activity on the project lately and we all really want to keep that fire burning as long as we can. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there are some things I don't understand about WP:Battle and WP:Lawyering and their Meta equivalents to the extents any exist. I am probably incapable of understanding them in a normal way that most users can. It can be very useful to have a natural affinity to sift through laws, policies, statutes and the like, but it can be a double edged sword that leads me to misunderstand completely any rules that have ambiguities. That is, I don't understand until the consequences of a misunderstanding surprise me. I understand that you're worried about me in terms of the election, but there's no need. I was the one that demanded to be treated as a co-equal actor based on the Draft Charter. I clearly didn't expect all of the Admins on both Meta and En Wiki to do it at once. What happened w/ ferret hit me particularly hard because I genuinely thought we were working together to improve something and I was making a friend. I'm considering quitting Meta & En altogether, which I thought was the point of creating the U4C, but I don't know. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No one wants you to quit. But you cannot continue to behave the way you have in disputes. When we bring up "battleground mentality", what we mean is treating interactions with other editors (and admins) as a "battle to be won". Above, in one of your many warnings about edit warring, VQuakr was very patiently trying to explain to you what you were doing wrong. Everytime they linked to a policy, you replied with things like If I have policy on my side, I don't play nice. (How could "not playing nice" be in line with running for U4C?), For the record, I didn't "believe" I was right. I WAS right. (You weren't right at all about 3RR), and critically, I declare myself the winner here. This exchange is over.. This is from 2022, but it hasn't ended. You've said comments like this on Meta and English Wikipedia in the past days. You simply can't interact this way and expect to escape warnings and harsh responses from those you are arrogantly bludgeoning. That's not even addressing the fact you have grossly misinterpreted the role of U4C on English Wikipedia in relation to content disputes, or the fact you have falsely "assumed" responsibility for a role you have not yet been selected for.

On Discord, you claimed you knew the server policies (that I wrote, to be clear) better. You then proceeded to misstate two of them, while very confidently declaring "Do you want me to prove you wrong a second time?". That's why you were removed. We aren't interested in having someone argue with us about rules they don't understand. We asked you to stop importing your content disputes and U4C issues, and in response, you argued you had every right to do so... and you don't. We gave you the chance to stop and the result was you continued.

You can clearly be a productive editor but you've got to start listening. You have been extended tremendous amounts of good faith thus far: Avail yourself to it, listen to the advice of experienced editors, and do what we're all here for: Improving the encyclopedia. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take into consideration everything you've said. I'll listen to more experienced editors, and I don't want to quit. There was a suggestion that I should pick a topic I have a deep interest in and get involved in page creation on En WIki, so I'll likely shift towards that from now on. A lot of my editing history is political or current events, and I don't seem to be very well equipped to separate the topics and conduct standards on En Wiki from the political speech that surrounds them outside of the project. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I very much agree with getting out of political topics. I don't edit them myself, it is not worth the stress to me. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Being able to say "this topic is something that adversely impacts my editing behavior so I'll avoid it" is perhaps the most mature thing an editor can say. I look forward to seeing your passion for sharing knowledge and preserving the project expressed in other subject areas! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

One last comment

So, I wanted to let the discussion be, but I noticed your edit summary removing the warning that I issued you. What did you mean by "Reverting 8.1 Because It's the Same Opinions in 8.0"? The warning was not related to the content discussion we were having, it was related to your edit of my comment, which was a violation of WP:TPO. I respect WP:OWNTALK and your right to remove warnings, but I wanted to make sure you understand that it's a separate topic from the above discussion. The warning was not simply "an opinion", as the edit summary implies, but a valid warning for editing someone else's comment. It's fine if you don't want to respond to this discussion, as removal of this comment is considered an acknowledgement. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The boiler plate warning does not apply here. As you said, I'm receiving extra scrutiny as a U4C candidate. I'm not going to revert this new section 9, but the warning itself was not meant to be used to scrutinize candidates for Meta office. I reverted the warning since it was effectively an extension of your opinion that my contribution to a List did not affect it being elevated to featured status, which I already firmly stated disagreement with. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sleyece: The warning is not an opinion, and it's important you recognize and understand that that. WP:TPO clearly lists strike throughs as an example of edits that should not be made to other's comments. Again, entirely your right to remove warnings, but the warning is completely irrelevant and unrelated to your U4C candidacy. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. I removed my other strike above in your comment. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear that the warning was relevant and appropriate so that you did not make this mistake moving forward. Though, just for reference, I was the one who removed the strikethrough. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There were two strikethroughs. You didn't see the other one, I guess. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see now, I did indeed miss the other one when you struck through yesterday. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)