User talk:TVC 15

Welcome!

Hello, TVC 15, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Housing

Ugh. Another admin moved "housing" somewhere else and deleted it, so I was left with a redirect to nowhere. I'll get on fixing this pronto. east.718 at 08:53, January 22, 2008

3RR Warning

~~You just violated WP:3RR on Anderson Cooper. To avoid admin action, please revert your own last edit.~~ Sorry, miscounted. If you revert again, you will violate the WP:3RR. Congratulations, you've officially gotten under my skin. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

policy compliance

I am careful to read and follow as many WP policies as I can find that appear relevant to a particular situation, but I do not claim to know every policy by heart, and some issues are covered by conflicting policy statements. As communities grow in size and sophistication, policies can change continuously and proliferate to exceed the capacity of any one person. Also, not being a mind-reader, I am not usually capable of guessing everything that someone else might consider part of the principle of a particular policy if it is not apparent from the text. (And many policies reflect compromise among different people advocating different principles anyway.) So, if you believe that I have violated a policy, or what you believe to be the principle of a policy, please let me know and I will be happy to address it. We learn partly by making mistakes and getting corrected, and a linked quote can resolve a disagreement very efficiently.

For example, user:benjiboi alerted me to a special policy governing category tags for religion or sexual orientation (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, third paragraph). I have since found a somewhat conflicting policy governing Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. The latter policy page notes, "These discussions occasionally pop up on WP:CFD and tend to be controversial, and wildly varying in their outcome." I suspect a reason for the "wildly varying" outcomes may be that different people are reading different policies. In any event, I make every effort to comply with the policies that I find on my own, and those that are pointed out to me.

In contrast, I experienced a 1-day block for complying with WP:3RR, and am writing here to summarize lessons learned. The policy states, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period...." It is defined similarly on another page[[1]]. However, following the 24 hour limit can still result in a block, as noted on a different policy page: "An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, or repeatedly reverts twice only in a day, may well still be sanctioned, since the principle of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached." (WP:GAMETYPE, example 4.) The incident involved a disagreement in which the other side expressly refused to discuss or debate (for example here [[2]]). The recommended response to such situations is to request page protection. (My thanks to Daniel Case for supplying that link.) Since the episode led me to find these additional statements of policy and principle, I will not repeat the same transgression (or non-transgression), but being human I will inevitably make some other mistake. If you think I have breached a policy somewhere, please assume good faith and that your knowledge of that particular policy exceeds mine. Being human, I cannot hope to make zero mistakes, but I do try never to make the same mistake twice.TVC 15 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:TVC 15

Sorry if seeing the log message startled you. What happened is, another user—not you—created a page at User:TVC 15. On consideration of it, I deemed it inappropriate enough that I deleted it speedily. So, the "vandalism" in question was by that other user, not by you.

Put simply, deleting the page was cleaning up the vandalism created by that other user.

Sorry if that caused any confusion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book Burner

Cut out the personal comments, shipmate. It was a messy and irrelevant paragraph and cutting it out makes the page better. Accusations of being a "book burner" are frankly hysterical. You want to discuss Elijah's religious meaning in the text - go ahead, but the film stuff will be deleted.Daisyabigael (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the paragraph above related to a question - albeit rhetorical - not an accusation. I do not make accusations without evidence. Also, unlike my critic above, I have never called an editor's comments "hysterical." (Though I note the irony of Daisyabigael doing so in the context of decrying personal comments!) The specific context can be found on the discussion page for Moby Dick. Some people seem to think they own WP, and they delete anything they don't want to read, showing no tolerance for the views of others. In my opinion, that is the digital equivalent of burning books.TVC 15 (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deliberately hostile and obtuse. You really cannot aliken someone who removes your irrelevant contribution to someone who burns books. Your paragraph is not lost and as I have said you are welcome to move it to a section where it will be relevant. None of the other character summaries mention film depictions. There is a section on film adaptations - discussion of the diferences would be better there - you put it there if you want. I think discussion of the religious themes is important enough to have iots own section and I would support its inclusion. But, please, why do you think a tangetial discussion of different movie versions is in any way suitable for a charcter summary entry in a page about the novel? As for your spurious (and insulting)claims, it is only YOU that I did not "understand" - for the reasons given above and because your attempt atr justification was utterly confused. That previous editors left you material in place may have been oversight - but you will nbotice that the only third party in this debate so far has supported my position and not yours. I suggest you move your material (after rewriting it) to a suitable section/s. Daisyabigael (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will let the record speak for itself. Long story short, a single paragraph got moved within an article - ok with me. It had been left in its original location by countless editors who made various additions, subtractions, and minor changes to the article and even to the same paragraph. Then, Daisyabigael, who had never written anything for the article or contributed to it in any way, decided to delete the paragraph, claiming not to understand its relevance. As has been noted elsewhere, Daisyabigael seems to enjoy scrapping; one might imagine a minor tempest in search of teapots. Based on how Daisyabigael has insulted others and their work, including even Rowan Atkinson, I seem to have fared quite well.TVC 15 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Enigmaman's RfA

Greetings TVC 15. I hope you don't mind, but I have moved the comment you made to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 to the talkpage here. I did this because it seemed to concern the RfA itself rather than the candidate, and we don't want to distract attention in the discussion from the merits of Enigmaman. Watchers of the discussion, including bureaucrats, will still see the discussion in its new location. Regards, Skomorokh 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does not affect the merits of the RfA candidate. My comment exposed an express "Quid Pro Quo" between two editors affecting the content of the project page, and I thought it worth mentioning in the General Comments section of the page. However, if you think it belongs on the discussion page instead, I have no objection. To make a political analogy, it is like the US Senate nomination of Roland Burris: his merits are not affected by Rod Blagojevich's alleged "Quid Pro Quo" offers involving the nomination.TVC 15 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, glad we can agree, and good luck with resolving the issues surrounding the QPQ. Skomorokh 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TVC, I actually am sincere in my apology for any inconvenience my "investigation" may have caused. I am a man of my word and I hope that you will accept that. In order of what I remember:

1) Regardless of T2D4's "bullying" behaviour, he had a valid concern and I acted upon it. There was no "trading" or anything like that involved, I was doing as I would have done if I'd had seen it on the WP:SSP noticeboard.

2) I have not done anything wrong, sir, and neither have you :-)

3) If you find T2D4's behaviour to be an offense to your person then I suggest that you avoid all contact with him. This is the best route as it prevents any further aggrevation on either side.

4) You are free to file a WP:RfC against me and/or T2D4 if you wish. I will not stop you. All I will say is this: I have always looked out for the good of the project and have always based my decisions on whether it'll aid the project or not.

5) If you require any assistance whatsoever anywhere on Wikipedia, feel free to contact me. Best regards, Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 04:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TVC, an easier and better method might be to post a relatively brief (people don't often like to read large paragraphs) summary, backed by diffs (evidence is a necessity), on WP:ANI. On ANI, a large part of the active community can read over what's been going on and give their opinions (You'll also need to notify Tool that there is discussion if you choose to post on ANI about him). It's quicker and easier than RfC. Remember: Keep it simple, plain, and backed up. Don't show bias either as it can nip you right in the bum if it turns out it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Take care and please don't hesitate to contact me if you require anything else. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and TVC, a couple more points:

1) This diff you showed me is a generic warning. Thousands of these are given out every single day by admins and non-admins alike. It's how Wikipedia deals with problems, e.g. a vandal is given 4 warnings (usually) by a non-admin and then they report the vandal to WP:AIV to be blocked. So don't worry about that :-)

2) Re: Him removing a 3RR warning. See WP:USERPAGE. Somewhere in there it says that users may remove whatever they wish from their talk page; it's basically just another way of showing that they have acknowledged it :-)

3) Perhaps you could try just one more time to edit a completely different article to anything Tool is interested in? You're both completely separate people and you're never going to have all the same interests, so I'm sure there is another topic of interest that you could edit? :-) Perhaps you and I could one day work on an article together? :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and the invitation to work on an article together, which I would like to do. I have also been editing completely different articles. Regarding Tool2Die4:

(1) I agree warnings are common, my reaction was to Tool2Die4's threatening a result beyond what (s)he was authorized to deliver, and as a substitute to WP:CIVIL discussion. Also of course the context of the false accusation of sock puppetry against me, placed not through normal channels but rather as a QPQ as if Tool2Die4 knew it to be false but hoped to get somewhere anyway (or to intimidate me by implying special influence).

(2) Users can of course edit their own Talk pages; Tool2Die4 suggested that would be the basis for my creating an RfC, but I never said that.

(3) Other users have also described Tool2Die4 as bullying, and I think bullies tend to continue until someone stands up to them. I am also skeptical of the user name (both in terms of appropriateness and accuracy). If it were just a single false accusation against me, or one instance of edit warring without discussion, I would let it go, but I think the situation involves wider issues. Nevertheless, I appreciate your comments as to how specific examples may be perceived.

Meanwhile, the AC article may work out happily after all. Tool2Die4 added it to the BLP noticeboard ([3]), where so far all the comments appear to support the version that Tool2Die4 had reverted against. (That version had been supported by at least three of the four editors discussing it, and I have since restored it.)TVC 15 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, TVC, please: Have nothing more to do with Tool. Wikipedia is huge. Stay away from him/her. It's for your own good. Please dude. You're just going to get a bad name and one day you'll run into the wrong person trying to catch Tool out. Fortunately Deskana is a bit more lenient. But, just, come on, man, just back away from it. If Tool is a bad user he/she will get caught out okay? You don't need to try and bring them to their knees yourself. Let's just move on :-) No more WP:DRAMA with Tool, right? :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and already done: I hadn't even mentioned Tool2Die4 since more than 20 edits ago, and had considered the matter resolved. To sum up, the final determinations were as follows:

(1) Tool2Die4's continued conduct drew a final warning for incivility.[4]

(2) Also, it turned out that an "alternative account" belonging to the same user had already been banned indefinitely.[5]

(3) In contrast, I was cleared (again) of Tool2Die4's false accusation, and the suspicion that might otherwise have hurt my reputation was instead formally closed.[6]

So, having done my part to reduce bullying on WP, I moved on to other things. I appreciate sincerely the time and effort of all those who helped in resolving the matter.TVC 15 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Millions

Hi, TVC 15. Regarding our respective edits of 12 January 2009, I made some comments for your attention at Talk:Mega_Millions#advertised_value_vs._real_value and the subsequent topic. This note is just an fyi, in case you're not watching that page. Thanks, --LottsoLuck (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI :) It looks like edits crossing in the ether, probably on both pages; as you were typing this, I was replying on the Talk page.TVC 15 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paroxetine

You have violated 3rr on this article. This is a warning: reverting again will result in your being blocked. Discuss the article on the talk page, do not edit war. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. I will take at least a day off from editing that article, although I disagree with the 3RR count, and have been offering several compromises and discussing on the talk page. I replied on your talk page also.TVC 15 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paroxetine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed warning. Just to be clear, this is the same disagreement already addressed above by seresin, not a separate event, and I have not edited the article since being warned. As noted in reply to seresin, I will take at least a day off from editing the article. Also, I really appreciate your detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you look further up on that page, you will see that I have been using the talk page and trying diligently to work towards wording and content that will gain a consensus.TVC 15 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have been trying to reach consensus on paroxetine and that you are a productive editor. When I left that message, it was to try to stop both yourself and Mwalla and their various sockpuppets from warring. I believe if I remember correctly that I also warned Mwalla or one of their sock puppets as well. They have as you probably know use multiple ip addresses and username sock accounts to bi-pass 3 revert and fool editors and admins. There is currently an ongoing investigation into Mwalla and their sock puppets. If you have any evidence to submit please feel free to do so.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla. Happy editing wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important study

See Benzodiazepine#Pregnancy. Here is the full text and the PMID. It says about one 3rd of people who abruptly discontinue antidepressants of benzodiazepines become acutely suicidal. It is with regards to people discontinuing medications due to fears of teratogenicity. Might be worth referencing this article in the antidepressant articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - done :)TVC 15 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over the line

I find this comment, especially the last sentence, to be highly insulting and incivil. I've started a thread on WP:WQA about your behavior.[7] Skinwalker (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, although the accusation is ironic, coming from you. I also think your indignation is unjustified, but I will discuss the substance on WP:WQA.TVC 15 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today

I apologize for missing part of what USA today's editorial staff was asserting in its 2004 editorial. Please see my follow-up comment at Talk:Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#USA_Today. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we all miss things from time to time - the edits are moving towards accuracy, and the Wiki benefits from complementary observations.TVC 15 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

healthcare reform

I agree with you about that List. If you look at its history, it was also reduced to show only one side, simply by claiming it was only for those 'primarily' about health care reform. You might want to create another List (with whatever name) to include whatever links you might have. A lot of groups are for 'reform', just different kinds of reform and that's not necessarily their only purpose for existence. I would also suggest you submit links you feel are relevant to http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Issues/Health_Care_Reform - synergy works. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig

I have answered at the Earwig talk page. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert you, I moved the information. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 10:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Health care reform debate in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but it is you (Looneymonkey) who are reverting without discussion and bordering on edit war. Each of my edits added new information or sources to the article or attempted to address your criticisms; even my two reverts were accompanied by new sourcing and phrasing to address your objections. Moreover, you have not provided any discussion at all, and have ignored my invitations to discuss in the Talk page (I have created a section and added a paragraph with three external sources); your edit summaries object to one small point as an excuse to revert everything rather than fixing what you object to. You used Twinkle to revert a whole series of edits including one that merely corrected punctuation; such a group revert is designed to remove vandalism, but you misused it to restore even typographical errors and inconsistencies. Please read the WP article on edit war, in particular the definition.TVC 15 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Health care reform debate in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Rather than edit-war, try to get consensus on the talk page before adding this material again. Loonymonkey (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the most ironic 3RR warning I've ever seen. According to Loonymonkey's user page, his/her edit count is "well into the thousands.... The vast majority of these edits are simple reversions.... I don't get involved in edit wars." First of all, do unto others as you would have them do unto you: if you spend most of your time simply reverting others' contributions, don't expect them to show extraordinary patience for your deletions. (I can't call them contributions, since they don't contain any information, they merely delete whole passages because of some minor or spurious objection that could easily be addressed by moving or re-phrasing. Nevertheless, even when I did revert Loonymonkey's deletions, I added more sources and/or re-phrased to meet the proffered objections.) Next, try to assume good faith rather than insulting my integrity. The specific conflict arose regarding a quoted sentence from The New York Times, which Loonymonkey falsely accused me of quoting out of context, grossly misrepresenting, "disingenuous at best" (what a long-winded way of calling someone a liar!), while allegedly "hurling insults" at him/her "and other editors." When I proved Loonymonkey wrong on every point, (s)he deleted the discussion calling it a "petty argument."[8] Well, OK as to petty, since that aptly describes most of Loonymonkey's reverts (the rest were simply misinformed due to not taking the time to read the whole source), and thus probably most of his/her "contribution" to Wikipedia. Another apt word for it would be, "sad." I have occasionally encountered this type of persistent reverter/deleter on Wikipedia; they remind me of the small children that delight in kicking down sandcastles at the beach. Wikipedia is like a shared sandcastle, our work is constantly superceded by the rising tide of new knowledge and events, but contributing generally requires building and shaping, rather than simply reverting/deleting.TVC 15 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Obama administration health care proposal

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Obama administration health care proposal. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama administration health care proposal (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TVC 15. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

removed here from Talk:Health care reform debate in the United States

You're kind of veering into talk page forum territory here. Let's try to keep the discussion centered on actual changes to the article. That means no soapboxing and no personal attacks. Also, I didn't delete any article, the community did. Rather than fantasize that I control some massive conspiracy to delete articles you like, maybe you should consider that you might have actually been wrong and all those other people were right. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss that article was on its Talk page, but alas you never did, and now it's gone. By your own admission (or boast), you are practiced at the art of deletion, with thousands of "simple reversions" and deletions of others' contributions. In the specific example of that article, you first reduced it to a straw man (by a series of deletions), then nominated it for deletion during a time when most people (including me) are away or catching up from holiday travel and don't have time for Wikipedia. Did you notify the editors who had contributed to the article that you had nominated it for deletion? No. I didn't find out what you had done until too late. As for "all those other people," I assume you mean "both" of them.TVC 15 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this talkpage is not a forum for discussing anything but specific changes to this article, and certainly not a forum for repeating your (bordering on stalking) personal attacks against me. If you think that basing your arguments on attacking another editor is an effective way to persuade the wikipedia community, you're going to find nothing but disappointment. Just cool it and move on. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine with me to move the three paragraphs above to my Talk page. You wrote two of them, so please let me know if you object. As for "stalking," please look up the meaning of the word.TVC 15 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments

Please do not move other editors comments around in a discussion, as you did here. I place my comment in the appropriate place to reply to another editor, and indented it beyond the normal flow to indicate that it had been placed out of sequence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your out-of-sequence placement of your unsigned comment created a misimpression that Sparrowhawk64 was agreeing with your comment, when in fact he disagreed with yours and instead agreed with mine. Usually, when an editor accidentally places a comment out of sequence, they don't object to it being moved, but I will keep your unusual ideas concerning placement in mind. Meanwhile, since you've moved your comment back to its original location, you might enjoy this website[9].TVC 15 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to his friend

According to longtime friend and fellow Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Bob Brady, Murtha's large intestine was damaged during the laparoscopic surgery

Please don't put this content back, we din.t need it, you will notice that Bob Brady is not a medical person so he is reporting something somebody else told him, it is very accusatory towards the doctors and yet adds little to nothing to our detail, he has just died, that is plenty, the claims as to doctors responsibility are at this moment in time nothing but tabloid type titillation, we don't need to sell newspapers, let the nyt do that and retract later, we are looking at the longer picture, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you're not the sole judge of what "we" need or don't need. I'm not trying to sell newspapers, and I've added a link to CNN that quoted a prominent surgeon (president-elect of the American College of Surgeons).TVC 15 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of death is pure speculation and could change tomorrow, the prominant surgeon also specutated that it couls be this or that and got his interview money, this man was quite old, perhaps he just died of old age, wait to find out a medical report this is not a news show, I am just watching it now, some guy on abc world using a lot of words like may and could have and possibly I don't come here as a judge of anything. I am a neutral wikipedia editor who cares less how he died. If and when there is a decent autopsy then I would be the first person adding it to this article, I am not an editor that would add speculative titillating headline claims Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if the surgeon was paid, and the text reflects the reliable sources (which are not tabloids). As of now, the linked sources include CNN [10], The Washington Post [11], and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette [12]. THEIR sources include the hospital where Rep. Murtha died, the president-elect of the American College of Surgeons, and a longtime friend of Murtha who also happens to be a member of Congress. So, it is notable, and reliably sourced.TVC 15 (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice people

We are nice people so consider not putting so stern an edit summary like "take it to dispute resolution" in the Murtha article. There is no dispute. We're all nice people! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't mean to offend, and I'll respect your concern about edit summaries. I was confused though that after posting this[13] on the Talk page you then changed the article, which is what made me think the matter might require a different forum. Whatever - we can discuss further on the Talk page if you prefer.TVC 15 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing CfD

Per WP:CANVASS, please stop canvassing editors who you think will agree with you at a CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:CANVASS, you will see that it specifically permits the notices that I've started posting. I haven't had time to finish, but I'll stop for the moment and reply on the topic page.TVC 15 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A limited number of neutrally-worded notices is permitted by WP:CANVASS, but it does not permit you to post lots of them or to post them to a list of editors who you think will agree with you. What you were engaged in is votestacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notices were brief and neutrally worded,[14][15] and you reacted after only two, so you can't honestly call that excessive or votestacking.TVC 15 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't start from the top of the list of contributors to the other discussions, you selected two editors who shared your view in those other discussions; I can see no reason other than bias for selecting those two. Once votestacking has been done, it's hard to undo, which is why it's best to put a rapid stop to it rather than try to deal with consequences afterwards.

If you were concerned that the usual notifications to category creators and tags on the categories were inadequate, you could have discussed that with the nominator ... but the fact that you launched straight into calling in your supporters leads me to believe that per WP:DUCK, you were engaged in votestacking.

You mentioned at CfD that you believe I was abusing admin powers in asking you to desist. Abuse of admin power is a serious matter, and should not go unchallenged. Since you believe that it has happened here, I urge you promptly report it at WP:ANI to seek the opinion of uninvolved editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making accusations against each other, I suggest we simply put the same notice onto each of the user pages of the editors who participated in the liberal & progressive discussions.TVC 15 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Try reading WP:CANVASS; the relevant section is helpfully labelled "excessive cross-posting".

And that's it. You have accused me of abusing admin powers, which a very serious matter ... but you are apparently not prepared to actually make a complaint in the place where such abuse can be remedied, or to withdraw the allegation. If you are not prepared to follow through on your allegation, then it's no more than a personal attack, so I'm not going to waste time discussing this with you further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following your instruction above, I started reading WP:ANI, but it says "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour... Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here." So, it seems WP:RFC is the place to start, yes?TVC 15 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD section heading

I have reverted your edits to the section heading of the CFD discussion, for two reasons.

First, changing the section heading breaks incoming links, which use the section heading as an anchor. Secondly, it's conventional at CFD to use a section referring to the parent category; there is no need to list the sub-categories in the section heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made only one revert, and in fact the use of the revert function was solely for convenience: DD2K had objected to a source and used that objection as a pretext to delete facts; I reverted to restore the facts, but I also added and quoted from a more widely accepted WP:RS, thus addressing DD2K's stated objection.TVC 15 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned DD2K about it at the same time as I warned you. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Your edits on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act do not conform to Wikipedia reliable sources policy. The only RS you listed(IBD) does not support your edits. Hotair, blogs, original research and editorials are not permitted for inclusion on articles. Especially controversial article such as the one here. I suggest you take your suggested edits to the talk page, and self-revert. Dave Dial (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from CBO directly, and linked to the CBO report. Are you saying the CBO is not a reliable source?TVC 15 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you've done. The majority of the information you posted was from Hotair, definitely not a reliable source. The IBD reference would be acceptable, except that it does not back up anything you added. Linking to a CBO report and giving your own analysis is original research and synthesis. Quoting the CBO is fine and great, if you are quoting what they actually say and not providing your own take on figures. Dave Dial (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that I added was definitely from CBO, I copied and pasted it directly from the CBO website to the WP page. If you can please provide a particular statement that you think is WP:OR, I will look for an official quote to replace it.TVC 15 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving in 10 minutes for my birthday dinner with family, so I will have to get back to you on the specifics. In the mean time, I will say that the analysis from Hotair and linking to the CBO figures is the problem because there should be a reliable source doing the research and analysis. But I will get back to you before I leave for vacation December 4th. Dave Dial (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday :) I didn't intend to disrupt your real-life activities, and will check back in the days ahead to resolve sourcing concerns. I am not affiliated with HotAir so I don't take their reliability personally, I linked there for convenience because they write in common vernacular rather than beltway procedural terminology, but plenty of other sources do say the same thing: the initial CBO estimates assumed "doc fix" wouldn't be enacted, but that assumption was almost immediately disproved, yet certain politicians continued to campaign on it, and then got wiped out at the polls.TVC 15 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and not a problem, I got myself involved. But, like you commented somewhere else, I am currently distracted getting ready for an extended vacation. So I'm not going to try and get into the intricacies of the PPACA and the CBO analysis of the budget. I will however ask that you do not use anonymous bloggers as sources. And any such instance remaining in the article should be removed. I won't really object(since I am not as informed on the subject as I should be or want to be) to the editorials at this time, and it looks like you've made an extended effort to clean up the quoting and such. Which is most appreciative. One of the main reasons for this request is that it sets a horrible precedence. It's not only because Hotair is a partisan source(they are), but they have no editorial structure and are not journalist. Annymous bloggers, or partisan sources without editorial structures can never be used as reliable sources. In any case, I'm going back to being distracted. Have a good day. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AOK - I've added more quotes from CBO; I also removed the pseudonymous Allahpundit/HotAir link [16] and replaced it with Senator Coburn's Op-Ed. An issue with sources on this subject is, PhRMA agreed to support the legislation in an initially secret deal that the White House initially denied and then admitted; PhRMA agreed to spend $150 million directly to advertise in favor of the legislation (in exchange for an extra $220 billion of federally mandated revenue). Ad-dependent media tend to support their relationships with advertisers; if you check ABC/CBS/NBC newscasts, you can observe they get around 30% of their ads from PhRMA members. I don't know much about HotAir's partisan history, but their story on this particular issue was well sourced and stated in frank terms what most independent observers (and voters) were expressing. It was kind of amazing to watch certain politicians repeating the disproved numbers, and the ABC/CBS/NBC newscasts didn't even call them on it, and then the politicians running for re-election learned the false assurances were backfiring (and so tried to change the subject instead of changing the legislation).TVC 15 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Talk:Earwig

Please be aware that articles' talkpages are for discussing how to improve the articles, not for musing about amusing but ultimately impossible fantasies concerning the internet proclivities of the articles' subject.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Tijuana

I've noticed your contributions on pages relating to Tijuana. We encourage you to join WikiProject Tijuana where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to Tijuana on Wikipedia.
If you would like more information on what needs to and can be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page.

08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPACA

TVC 15, our debates on PPACA are starting to get tense. I don't think either of us has violated any policies but I'm concerned that we're headed in that direction. I would recommend that you try your hardest to avoid making any assumptions about other editors' intentions or ideologies (see WP:AGF) and focus on one thing: making WP content as good as possible. Try to avoid getting into arguments over side issues that do not bear directly on the issues being discussed. I pledge to you that I will redouble my efforts to take my own advice and do my part to keep the tension level down. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I simply quoted what you had written. I wasn't trying to upset you, although that appears to have been your reaction on seeing you had contradicted yourself. WP is about reading and writing, based on WP:RS, it isn't a talk show or tennis match, and it isn't about "winning" by posting the most comments with the fewest sources. I wish you a very pleasant trip to DC, where I hope you will listen to both sides of the argument in the Supreme Court.TVC 15 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about turning off the snark for a change? Think you can do that? --Nstrauss (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my Talk page, and recognizing your apparent need to have the last word, as demonstrated by your immediate responses to everything without taking the time to research and find sources for anything, I nevertheless invite you courteously to be my guest and have the last word here.TVC 15 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Then I will take it that your answer to my question is no. I'm going to add an WP:RFC for our 3 little impasses. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello TVC 15. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As described in the article^[1] from The Economist quoted on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, I took a break after seeing too much carefully researched and sourced material deleted. This happened particularly with regard to Obamacare and the medical sector, which brooked no criticism no matter how well founded. I couldn't compete with a $3 trillion industry and its legions of publicists and dependents, so I took a break.TVC 15 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop right now

Once BLP has been raised, material should NOT be restored without a consensus to do so. Please leave it out and I'll discuss wit you and anyone else who cares to commentTwo kinds of pork (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus to include it. Please stop deleting it.TVC 15 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I raised a new issue, as described in my edit summary. Please don't restore, let's talk on the article talk page, ok?Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TVC 15. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

This is just a standard notification, though please do note that you've violated the 1RR restriction in place on the Executive Order article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TVC 15. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TVC 15. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jihad Watch; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.
Please note that you are not subscribing to WP:BRD SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SharabSalam (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.economist.com/node/10789354

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of ~~2 weeks~~ indefinite for disruptive editing, including but not limited to highly inflammatory provocations. Also, for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 05:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For refactoring the provocations onto your user talk page, I have modified your block duration to indefinite. Please do not misuse your talk page while blocked again, or access to it will be revoked. It is to be used for an unblock request only. El_C 15:11, 21 December 2019 (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).

TVC 15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for two weeks for answering factually (with links to WP articles and the NY Times) a direct question from an editor on the Talk page of an article. I stated also that I planned to take a break from Wikipedia, so the block was redundant. After my comment on the article Talk page was deleted, I posted it on my own Talk page. The same Admin who imposed the 2-week block changed it to "Indefinite." After editing Wikipedia for more than a decade, I have now been blocked for placing a comment on my own Talk page. The comment contained no profanity, no threats, nothing that would really justify even a short block, let alone a permanent one. I think the indefinite block was an abuse of admin power and should be reported to ANI.

Decline reason:

You don't address the reason for the block(the application of which I concur with) and double down on inflammatory comments through making unfounded accusations against the blocking administrator. I see no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, and I am declining your request. If you make another, it should only address the reason for the block and your own conduct. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2019 (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.

You realise it's completely ridiculous to suggest you're afraid something is going to be WP:rev-deleted from the article talk page history so you need to post it on your own talk page while blocked, right? While you're given wide latitude in managing your talk page, that latitude never extends to allowing stuff which is bad enough to justify rev-deletion. And especially not when blocked, when you're only supposed to be using your talk page to appeal your block, or to ask for help understanding your block. Your talk page ultimately belongs to the community not to you. It's not like you were reposting what you said as part of a block appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, no, I don't realize that, especially since the same admin deleted it from my Talk page too. To the contrary, I thought it reasonable to put the purported basis for the block into the block section of my Talk page. Moreover, since I had said in the comment that I was planning to take a break, and since my comment had not actually violated any WP policy that I have ever seen, I don't actually understand why a block would even be appropriate. Blocking without warning, and then making the block "indefinite" (again without warning) was abuse, and suggests that "El C" might be pursuing a personal motivation to de-platform certain long-time contributors to WP. TVC 15 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let's not conflate deletion and rev-deletion. It was deleted from both places, but it's still in the history. I'm sure you can see that. In fact, I strongly suspect the history is where you found it to re-post it here.

You specifically said "Lest it get deleted from the article Talk page history". So you were clearly thinking of rev-deletion, regardless of whether or not you knew this term. Rev-deletion is something only admins can perform. Even if you didn't specifically know that, you must have known it's not something any random editor can do, since you must know you cannot do so. You must also know it's very rare that rev-deletion happens, since it's very rare that there are revisions not visible in the history.

So think about it carefully. You were afraid something was going to happen, which hadn't happened yet. This is something which happens very rarely. Maybe you didn't know the precise requirements for it to happen, but simple common sense should have told you if your original message justified it, then you re-posting it on your talk page would likely as well.

And definitely it should be enough to tell you that re-posting it was clearly wrong, regardless of whether it would be rev-deleted. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. And you said you were storing it offline lest it gets rev-deleted here too, so this possibility occurred to you, and there's actually no real reason why you needed to post it here.

Even if the deletion of your comment was unjustified, there is zero reason why you needed to repost it here for an admin to review it, you could have easily included a diff if it was needed. And as I said, you weren't reposting it as part of an unblock appeal anyway. If an admin had reviewed your blocked and said the block was unjustified and your comment was fine, and unblocked you, then you could go about seeking to restore your comment. Not reposting it when it had been removed as inappropriate and you blocked in part for it, and you were even afraid it was going to be rev-deleted, and so logically you should have still been uncertain about the appropriateness of your comment or at least what was going on.

And the fact you are saying a 2 week block for "highly inflammatory provocations" is not actually a warning is another indication. If the police pull you over for speeding and give you a ticket, do you complain that you weren't warned when you speed away from them after receiving your ticket and they pull you over again and you lose your licence?

If you want to get unblocked, consider how what you're saying is coming across to me someone who is not an admin and has never interacted with you AFAIK. Either you lack the WP:Competence to edit wikipedia, or you're just making stuff up and are the one pursing a personal motivation.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.economist.com/node/10789354

[1]