User talk:Spafky

Welcome!

Hello, Spafky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a user at their talk page

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Ss112, you may be blocked from editing. Don't do this. If a user wishes to remove material from their own talk page, they may do so. You, under no circumstances, revert them to demand an answer. Ss112 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help.--Spafky (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chechens

Yo -- reverted you. The current wording of the section about Wahhabism is the result of some compromise -- some think it should be in the article, but if you have just that, it gives the impression taht most Chechens are "Wahhabis" or in any way like Kadyrov (I'm sure you know how he is...), so the compromise is to point out first, with an WP:RS saying so, that they aren't representative. If you have new sources to add that is of course welcome, but be aware that consensus on issues like that can be fragile and it isn't helpful to disrupt it at times. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk)

I did not know that. Where was this discussed? --Spafky (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I don't remember, kind of a lot of slow reverting, years back. With people who are no longer around. We can discuss now if you'd like. What is the issue you have with it? --Calthinus (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you feel the need to mention that not all Chechens are islamic fundamentalists while all the information afterwards confirms the fact that Chechnya is a very traditionalist muslim region? The fact that not all Chechens are very religious muslims is common sense, but most of them are, in fact, most of Chechen society is; as confirmed by the bit of text after that sentence. That's just confusing, to me at least, and I assumed it would seem so for most other people. --Spafky (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well thing is Chechens are not monolithic, so you can't say that multiple million people are one thing, especially since, like most European Muslims, Chechens have internal divisions on this issue. Some context might be helpful. Some Chechens are atheist (to be fair they're often private about it due to stigma, but there are plenty of Chechen atheists from Soviet times onward). Some Chechens are Christian due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups. One Chechen intellectual once (I don't know if he still does) advocated "becoming like the Finns" and converting to Protestantism (this is also wildly fringe, of course). Then of course you have Salafists and Kadyrov, who happen to be more powerful. Chechen culture is very conservative this is true, but many of the mores predate Islam (see adat) and don't have much to do with it (i.e. the infamous bridenapping? Nothing in Islam to support that).

Kadyrov has forced veiling on the women -- traditionally, Chechen women would didn't interpret hijab to mean veiling in the Arabian way, and had their own version that doesn't look much like it and doesn't cover as much (often involving just long sleeves and a bandana on the head) -- but because of hte totalitarian nature of his rule, its hard to generalize the views of the populace. Despite the difficulty in reporting hte situation due to Kadyrov's authoritarian rule, the NYTimes has noted there are in fact protests against this forced veiling in Chechen society [[1]]. Of course there are also regional differences -- lowland Chechens have different and more typically European views than highlanders. At the same time, yes, there are absolutely plenty of Chechens who are traditionalist (the majority) and "fundamentalist" (debatable).

Personally I think it is important to give readers a nuanced but representative view whenever possible, but not take up tons of space doing so -- so we pick out the most commented on trend (that is fundamentalism) with a cited disclaimer that says that not all Chechens are fundamentalists-- just like not all Texans are, and not even all Saudi Arabians are. You say most of Chechen society is (Muslim fundamentalist); as confirmed by the bit of text after that sentence -- I'm not sure I see how it "confirms" that.--Calthinus (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Malmö

Hello. I have reverted your edits, since per WP:INFOBOXFLAG we do not use flags in infoboxes in articles. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this rule? Why was it decided? --Spafky (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the link already provided, the point of this rule is that "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" and "Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used".

However, @Thomas.W:, WP:INFOBOXFLAG says "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes" (my emphasis). Isn't the flag of the first-level administrative subdivision one of the things that Spafky was adding? MPS1992 (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm CaradhrasAiguo. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Ukrainians that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. don't you have anything better to do? is not a welcome thing to say. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for this . Glad to see some common sense can still be found. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;) --Spafky (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community, to a considerable extent, consists of seemingly lonely dudes with an ego overinflated to near explosion who act like they're experts in fields of which they know jack shit.

Like, come on, anyone somewhat familiar with the Balkans won't define Ante Pavelić as a Yugoslav, even the most fervent Yugonostalgics who pray to pictures of Druže Tito or Kralja Petra.

But lets go back at the good old Balkanoid discussions about whether a person is of this or that nationality (cough cough Nikola Tesla), shall we : Is it better to define the Poglavnik as a Croat or as a Croatian? I personally think Croat is more fitting given the fact that he was born and raised in Bosnia, and that the state he created put enormous emphasis on the concept of "Hrvatstvo", if you see what I mean with that. Would a discussion on the talk page be necessary or not? They are really chaotically organized, on the English Wikipedia at least, so I would rather avoid that if possible. Unless there is a lot of chit-chat around this again, of course. --Spafky (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watson

That's a defensible POV but that exact change has been requested and rejected on Talk before, so it does need discussion first. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of covid deaths

List of deaths due to COVID-19 has been proposed again for deletion. Your opinion on the matter could be useful --Pesqara (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hakuin's death poem

Hi Spafky. Could you please provide the full source for Hakuin's death poem? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got it from the Jisei article, where it is referenced. I'm not too familiar with the syntax of MediaWiki references, so I'll leave it up to you to fix (if you can do it) --Spafky (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Drubich

Hi. Please see WP:BLPREMOVE. Please DO NOT add categories to articles that are not sourced in the body of the article. Continuing to (re)add poorly sourced content, esp. to BLPs, could lead to you being blocked. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources on the Russian article. Her surname is typically worn by Jews, it stems from Drohobych in Ukraine. I cited one of the sources in my edit summary, even google translated just for you, since I'm not sure if you know Russian. Yet you love to spend your time reverting me time after time. Why don't you do it yourself? All the tools are at your disposal, your 1 000 000+ edits tell me it won't be a displeasure for you. Spafky (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP is not a WP:RS (see WP:CIRC. And neither is a Google translation - you need to find a source that clearly states she is Jewish. "Why don't you do it yourself?" - well, no. The WP:BURDEN lies with you to do it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:GOOGLETRANSLATIONOFASOURCE You clearly haven't WP:LOOKEDATIT. Me, I am not gonna waste my time on this; I've got other things to do. It's up to you to decide whether the article has no trace of her Jewishness, or whether it does. WP:CHOOSEWISELY. Spafky (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Nevzorov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian fascism. 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) 09:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

The first paragraph of User:Spafky was ableist by saying people who create userboxes you don't like are autistic and looking for attention (the UwU bit) so I have removed it under WP:POLEMIC which says: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)." However, I'm sure you didn't mean to be ableist and didnt realise how hurtful the para read, and I believe you'll take this constructive criticism on board. Stephanie921 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) I strongly suggest you remove that wording before this escalates and involves admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Don't ever threaten another user, implied or otherwise, as you did here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will eat both you and Stephanie with tomato sauce.

More seriously, what I do on my userpage is my own business. It's outside the Wikipedia space, whatever guidelines exist are, in practice, vague recommendations. This WP:POLEMIC thing I've been referred to talks about "excessive information unrelated to Wikipedia". Fair enough, but I wonder why all these userboxes about liking gay porn and having diaper fetishes aren't removed in that case... Spafky (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe they should be removed bring them to WP:MFD. A user page attacking other editors and referring to "autists" is clearly beyond acceptable use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Spafky. Thank you. PhantomTech[talk] 13:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Physical threats get zero tolerance. Don't care if you were joking. I'm open to accepting an unblock predicated on a sincere apology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if the tomato sauce one was a joke the first one obviously wasn't @User:Tamzin Stephanie921 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

@Stephanie921 How am I going to find you? And why would I suddenly joke after a serious threat?

Judging from this incoherent reasoning you must be pretty young and/or sensitive. If a little joke on a Wikipedia talk page of all places caused you emotional distress, then I'd like to tell you it was absolutely not my intent to hurt you.

I can safely conclude that folks on here have no sense of humor, or at least do not share mine. I'll certainly take that into account in the future.

And to my dear @Tamzin: In 4+ years on Wikipedia I haven't caused trouble to anybody besides on one sunny day, more than a thousand nights after joining my user page not being appreciated by a few folks and making a joke about eating people with tomato sauce. For this reason I believe an indefinite block is ridiculously excessive. Unless you want the head of a single unknown editor as an example for others, which will be completely useless as I'll get forgotten even quicker than you will.

My final statement: I absolutely did not even think that my joke could be interpreted as a genuine threat, and I genuinely am sorry if it did. Where I'm from this type of joking is quite common, even via text.

If you already plan to make an example of me, my writing here would be like arguing with a Stalinist court; but I tell you that that such abuse of power will cause more harm to Wikipedia and its reputation than my user page ever has, despite me being a modest small fish. Spafky (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that posting a userbox about yourself having a diaper fetish harms the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia more than the criticism thereof or a joke about eating you with tomato sauce.

Decline reason:

I like jokes. Jokes are funny and make me laugh. This is not a joke. It is not remotely funny. The fact you cannot admit that you made a threat of harm means there is no way I am going to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's not about making an example of you. It is about not allowing people to edit this website when they have physically threatened others. A former administrator was recently banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for similar remarks. If your attitude is "I didn't cause any trouble other than the time I threatened someone", you're not getting the point.
If you're sincere about getting unblocked, I'd suggest taking this down, taking a few days to think this over, and then resubmitting with, again, a sincere apology. (Saying the words "genuninely am sorry" does not on its own make something a sincere apology, and I think you know that.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tamzin: I feel puzzled. What should I do then, if this is not enough? Record a video of myself on my knees crying? I honestly have no idea of what you expect me to do now.
  All I want to tell you is that I genuinely want to continue contributing to Wikipedia as I've done since January 2018, as I've done on other projects like the English and Russian Wikiquote, and I'll abstain from using my edgy humor in the future. Again, what more can I do? --Spafky (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Tamzin, I know you are online. i was reading the article Expulsion of the Moriscos and wanted to add a link to Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, 1st Duke of Lerma, and remembered that I was blocked. I'd like this issue to be solved now; if you don't like my unblock request then tell me whatever I need to do for it to be "genuine" because I am clueless Spafky (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If you don't know how to write a sincere apology for having threatened someone, that's not something I can fix for you, and may suggest that the difference between you and this editing environment is simply irreconcilable. I've already suggested that you rescind this request and take some time to think, and that's the extent of my input here. Another admin will be along to review the request when they're able to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright then. What's the date of my second trial? Spafky (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Unblock requests are responded to based on administrator availability. Usually a first request will receive a response within a day, but there's no guarantee, and some wait considerably longer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Will other admins see this one or do I have to submit a new appeal? Spafky (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Other admins will see this one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I, signed, Spafky, sincerely apologize to the Wikipedia community for making a threat of harm towards Stephanie921 and will abstain from doing so in the future. I look forward to continuing to contribute to the English Wikipedia as I've done in the past 4 years – previous to this unfortunate spazz – on various projects including the English and Russian Wikiquote. Spafky (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your conduct below shows you don't really understand the gravity of your actions. I'm telling you this seriously, take a week-long break from Wikipedia. Calm down. Take a deep breath, and make another unblock request where you prove to everyone how you realise this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

Remember, there's no maximum amount of unblock requests as long as you do it in good faith. While I personally won't respond to another of your requests, if after your return you really understand that what you did is wrong, sincerely apologise for it, and are ready to be a civil, positive contributor to Wikipedia, then I recommend the reviewing administrator to consider very much whether you mean what you write and proceed from there. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I as the victim of ur threat personally don't accept ur apology because it has an ableist slur ("previous to this unfortunate [Slur]"), especially considering my original problem was you being ableist in your userpage, which has since been reverted again under WP:POLEMIC. I have had epilepsy before and therefore find it personally insulting, too. Furthermore, even though I hope I'm wrong here, "as I've done in the past 4 years" feels like you are shifting the focus away from what you did wrong and onto how well you've contributed before, especially considering you said this exact same thing after you were initially blocked Stephanie921 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh it's colloquial speech, I didn't even know the word came from that. (English is not my native language)

Fine, I apologize for using the word 'spazz' too. Good? Spafky (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess as a quirky aut, I need to recuse. So I won't decline this. I'll just discourage other admins from accepting. (I also have essential tremors that make just typing a challenge, so I guess I'm a spazz too.) I do not think you understand just how offensive your behavior is. It's just not a big deal to you, and you are just saying what you think will get you unblocked. You don't get it. As emotional colorblindness is a trait of autism, you might consider looking into the mirror. As to the threat of harm, I don't think you can or should be unblocked. Passing such a threat off as a joke? Really? Are you really that emotionally colorblind? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, in my language insults like "I fuck your dead mother in the grave" or "I fuck your unborn child" are commonplace. We used them when we were like 11 years old. So i guess there might be some cultural barrier thing going on...

And you doubting of my apology is just you. It was really a joke from my part. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but why would I say such a thing if I knew it would lead to all this jazz? I just want to continue editing Wikipedia, how can I not try to get unblocked? You accuse me of emotional colorblindness, but I can tell you it did not lead to particular issues within the last 4 years - nor does it in my personal life. I know it's hard to discern stuff like jokes from behind cold text, as you miss so many parameters that make human interaction so rich... and perhaps I did not take that into account today, and here am I, pretty much walking on the plank.Spafky (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Deepfriedokra TW: Spafky's reply includes justifying jokes about necrophilia and CSA. Stephanie921 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I justifying it? Spafky (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Even if it is in your culture, it is wrong. And saying "there might be some language barrier" says 'you might not understand why these potentially triggering and horrible jokes are funny'. It says you're not actually doing anything wrong and victim-blames the people who criticize you. (I.e. "Sorry you were offended").

2. You shouldn't have talked about such incredibly potentially triggering subjects like these - without a warning - regardless of whether u were justifying it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) @Spafky: Hmm. Might want to consider editing in a language to which you are more culturally attuned. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice and I will consider it. But the English Wikipedia is the richest, and is not used by the Anglosphere only... what must Iraqis say when they stumble upon articles about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, or other Muslims when they see depictions of the Prophet Muhammad...

And while I might not get certain commonplace cultural peculiarities, I still think my English is good enough to contribute... Spafky (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note-- When user talks about their historically good edits, please see their user page prior to a revert in 2018. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These racist and homophobic (and just plain gross) provocations, which are news to me and I suspect to the rest of us as well, will also need to be addressed in any forthcoming appeal. Spafky, maybe try looking inward and reflect, truly reflect, about why it is that you feel compelled to engage in such reprehensible attacks against marginalized persons on the basis of immutable characteristics. That is not normal. Hate speech is rooted in a black void wholly devoid of light. So, regardless of how this turns out, I urge you to do all that you can to expunge that darkness from your psyche. Because it's extremely unhealthy to everyone around you, not least you yourself (whether you're aware of it or not). El_C 18:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable. This has no business being in our community. Yes, our community. A diverse group of people from many places, cultures, creeds and races. Our main purpose is to edit and build an encyclopedia but in doing so we will have interactions and we must trust that the other person in that discussion will, if nothing else, be respectful and act in good faith. There is no good faith in anything that was written in the diff provided by Deepfriedokra and I urge Spafky to do some internal reflection and make some changes in their attitude and the way they see the world around them before trying a new appeal. Everyone has the choice between the light inside them to shine or allow dark clouds to envelop and hide that light. I hope this editor chooses to feed their light and let it shine. But this is shameful and degrading to us all. We can not tolerate this blatant disregard for the wellbeing and collaborative effort of our community. I agree with El C and others that these attacks must be directly addressed in any appeal. --ARose Wolf 19:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Enough already. Apology + Stalinist court? No. Apology + spazz, also no. If your command of English isn't good enough, then avoid speaking like this is 4Chan. Above all else, you've continued to minimize the rather disturbing If you ever edit my page again I'll find you threat (diff). Your multiple apologies are hollow because you continue to intersperse these with provocations (What's the date of my second trial?, etc.). I am revoking your talk page access. Prove that you are serious at WP:UTRS if you wish to see your talk page access restored for the sole purpose of making a genuine unblock request that follows the general ethos of WP:GAB (that means no backhanded apologies). And note that any further provocations there, against neurodirverse persons or whomever, and that avenue will be pulled, as well. El_C 17:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]