User talk:Tamsier/2019

Don't

indulge in these silly posturings with me and I don't give a damn about your warnings. Bye, ∯WBG^converse 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I notice you've deleted the warning I left on your talk page [1]. Instead of arguing your case in a deletion review, you resulted to personal attack against another editor here, and I see here as well. What is wrong with you? If you continue with this silliness you will get yourself blocked.Tamsier (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Interracial marriage

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a personal stake and POV in this article. I don't. You reverted my two edits twice [2] ; [3] and ignored the concerns raised in my edit summaries. I am surprised that you do not find any issues with the article especially the sections I've tagged and raised in my edit summaries - despite portraying yourself as an experienced editor. I do not have a dog in this fight, but articles must abide by our policies. Do not tell me about our policies. I am well familiar with them. And your BRD bolded text comes off as aggressive and patronising. Don't do that again. In any case, I have already raised the issues on the article's talk page and pinged you - see here. In order to centralise communication, please keep all your comments there, and not here on my talk page. This will help the community address the issues and decide what to do moving forward. Going by the article's history, it appears that this has been a problem for such a long time. We have policies in place and all articles must abide by them.Tamsier (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Traditional African religions sidebar

Hey I'm going to start a chat about freshening up the sidebar in the talk page for the sidebar, hop on and give me your thoughts.Mangokeylime (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've commented there with some suggestions.Tamsier (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

You replied to my edit and talked about redaction, but I neither made nor redacted the relevant edit. This is the second time you've made false accusations about me, the first being the accusation of vandalism here. Please interact with more care. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have left a comment there.Tamsier (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:African Union

Hi T. Happy New Year. Thanks for the message. You did an amazing job on Portal:Pan-Africanism. On a side note, are you aware that they deleted Portal:African Union under a mass nomination and deletion [4]? Why would anyone in their right mind delete such an important and vast topic I will never know. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Sen, welcome back and happy new year. No I was not aware of that but you can file it at deletion review.Tamsier (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Serer royal houses has been nominated for discussion

Category:Serer royal houses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Serer people and Portal:Serer religion

Portal:Serer people and Portal:Serer religion, both of which are page which you created or substantially contributed to, have been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Serer portals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Serer people and Portal:Serer religion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Traditional African religions

Portal:Traditional African religions, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Traditional African religions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Traditional African religions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yo left me a red link. For your information, the actual deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Traditional African religions.Tamsier (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 08:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is because of your conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-African People's Revolutionary Party. I am blocking you for six months because you have a long block log for personal attacks and similar misconduct, most recently for three months, as well as a conditionally lifted WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Sandstein 08:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: are you serious? Which part of my comment is personal attack? That the nomination was silly or disingenuous? Have you actually read the whole tread and the rationale the nom later gave for nominating the article? It was a silly nom because evidently the nom didn't even bother with before. If anything the only personal attack there was me being called a "dick". So which part of my argument constitutes personal attack?Tamsier (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The block was for your aggressive, confrontative statements including:

• "Please do not waste the community's time with foolish nominations",
• "I would urge the nominator to withdraw this silly nomination and stop wasting the community's time",
• "Your silly nomination is 'dikish'",
• "your original rationale for deletion was to deceive and manipulate the community. You used our AfD process for disingenuous reasons",
• "Perhaps we can also ban the nominator for ever bringing another article to AfD",
• "Keep trying in order to cover up your disingenuous nomination. You lack understanding of our policies (not to mention your disingenuous nomination) which is why you must be stopped from making any further nominations. I wouldn't even comment on your silly analysis of the sources as you clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source",
• "AS for Toa Nidhiki05, I think he is trying to give me a migraine. He has wasted enough of my time already",
• "don't get me started on his disingenuous nomination",
• "The very fact that you failed to grasp that shows that you have no understanding of the subject and do not want to understand it"

– and all of this for an entirely normal, and on the face of it entirely justified AfD nomination. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors need to respect one another, even if they disagree. They need to comment on the content (e.g., why the topic is notable or not), not on the contributors or their supposed motives. See WP:NPA, but you have had this explained to you many times already, evidently without effect. Sandstein 10:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: — Saying that a nomination is silly is not a personal attack especially when the nom failed to do before, and moreso if it can take anyone 2 minutes to find RS that establish notability. Further, there are editors who would have even used a stronger word than "silly" for wasting the community's time, and indeed have used it before. Every minute we spend discussing poor nominations when a simple before would have helped establish notability, is a time we are taking away from the project helping out in other areas. Therefore, it has long been establish that poor nominations leads to a lot of time wastage, and the community, especially those who participate in AfDs do not like it. I have restricted my language to the use of "foolish" and "silly" when describing the nomination itself, many others would have used stronger language. None of these two words are personal attacks. Despite the nominator calling me a "dick" (which was a direct personal attack for which you didn't block him for), I still brought it back to the nomination itself by saying "your nomination is "dikish"". Unlike him, I didn't say to him "you are a dick" or "stop being a dick", but used his language when commenting about the nomination itself - hence the quotation marks in "dikish".

As for the "disingenuous" comment, the nominator initially gave us a reason for deleting the article which I accept in good faith although it was evident to me that they failed to do before, as anyone who've checked for reliable sources would have found plenty within few minutes, and thus the nomination was silly for lack of before. Despite the lack of before, I accepted the nominator's original rationale in good faith. However, it later transpired that the real reason for the nomination couldn't be more different from their original rationale and in contravention of our AfD process. That is, he later disclosed that he simply nominated this article because he does not like stub article (quote: "to make it not be a pathetic stub") and thus wanted other editors to source it and expand it. I made it clear in my comment that we do not use AfD for that purpose. And looking at the recent participation, I notice another editor also commented there that we do not use the AfD process for clean up etc - which is absolutely correct. This new reason which only came to light later was not the reason he originally gave for nomination, and therefore disingenuous. A spade is a spade. I never had any issue about nominating this article or any article for that matter, and made this clear in that discussion. It is irrelevant to me whether the article is kept or deleted, but our deletion processes must be used properly for reasons we have them in the first place. If you look at the article's own talk page, I was already in discussion with another contributor to the AfD. Although we had disagreements, it was a rather fruitful discussion. Take a look at the talk page itself : Talk:All-African People's Revolutionary Party#Founder. Whilst all that AFD was going on, I was already expanding and sourcing other articles, hence why the AfD process should not be used to waste the community's time - i.e when a simple before would have established notability. Even if you feel that I still should be blocked, your block is too harsh for simply stating the obvious and for not calling the nom a "dick" despite being called a dick by the nom. My primary reason for coming back to Wiki is to help the project. Nothing more, nothing less. Since coming back, I have been called a dick, told to fuck off - and in all those instances, I have not attacked them back but remained focus on the main point no matter what anyone says. Years ago, I would not have entertained that kind of attack from anybody, but since coming back, I have remained cool and argue on principle and policy - if I ever participate in those discussions at all, because most of my time is spent on sourcing and adding content to problem articles. However, if after going through the entire AfD and still feel that I deserve a block, fine.Tamsier (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am of this view. Your conduct in this AfD was disruptive. All you needed to say was "The article should be kept because of the sources X, Y and Z." Personalizing the dispute, characterizing the nomination and the nominator as silly, a dick, a waste of time etc. at great length and repeatedly personalized the dispute and was contrary to our community norms. Sandstein 14:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: With the utmost respect and frankness, did you actually read the whole discussion or did you just fancy blocking me? You are saying that I called him a "dick" when I never did. He was the one who called me a dick, not the other way round. Anyway I don't want to be going back and forth with you about this. You've made the decision to block and that's fine.Tamsier (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t insult you. I was referring specifically to WP:DICK - the aggressive attitude you were taking, which I am still baffled by. I have never encountered any sort of behavior like that in an AfD and I do not think it was appropriate, hence me point it out and asking you to stop. I apologize if you took any offense, but I was obviously specifically referring to your aggressive and confrontational response. There was no reason for it. I’m only responding here because you continue to insult me and make false claims about why I nominated it for deletion. I am of no stance on whether you should be blocked or not or how long. Toa Nidhiki05 19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment — I was not going to comment on this tread any further since Sandstein in his judgement had decided to block me using his admin privileges. As commented by myself and another editor, not only was the block strange, but somewhat harsh. Despite that, I accepted the block as given. However, I am pretty concerned about the WP:ANI report filed against Sandstein by @Black Kite: regarding Sandstein's conduct in a different case (and this 2013 report). As commented on by Black Kite and @Mendaliv:, it would appear that Sandstein has been taking administrative decisions without reading treads as I have comment on above on this very block. This is certainly not a good look - and concerns me greatly.Tamsier (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to re-examine this block, and whatever their decision, I shall abide by. There was nothing in my comment in the relevant AfD that warrants a block and certainly not the duration of the block I've been given. As I have mentioned above and in the AfD in question, stating that a nomination is silly because the nominator failed to carry out WP:BEFORE as evident therein certainly does not warrant a block. Indeed, I have sat in AfDs long enough to know that many editors would have used and have used stronger language than "silly" on nominations such as these. The idea of blocking them for such language would never cross someone's mind - as poor nominations lead to time wastage and it is the responsibility of the nominator to check for sources that substantiate notability before bringing any article to AfD. I know that AfDs can sometimes get rather heated, however, I always try to exercise restrain with my language. Many editors would probably say that my use of the word "silly" to describe the nomination itself is rather lenient under these circumstances and would probably have used stronger language. As evident in that AfD (and above), my comment about the "disingenuousness" of the nomination was made after the nom later expressed their real reason for the nomination which was not expressed in their original rationale. As commented on by myself and another editor, we do not use our AfD process for WP:NOTCLEANUP. And as commented therein by another editor, it was quite evident that not only did the nom failed to carryout BEFORE, but also failed to consider WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. As regards to my "diskish" comment, I have never ever used such a word (or any of its derivatives) on any Wiki project before, and I challenge anyone to find where I have used that kind of language previously not until this AfD. That kind of language is not part of my vocabulary. And the only reason I've used it was in response to the nom who called me a "dick" with the statement "No need to be a dick here." to which I responded "Nobody is being a dick here. Your silly nomination is "dikish."" Note that the word "dikish" is in quotation marks, and unlike the nom who called me a dick or acting like one (which is a direct personal attack, let's not play semantics here, the language used here has the underlining meaning that I'm a dick or acting like a dick), my "dikish" comment on the other hand was about their nomination as evident therein. I used the word that was thrown out by the nom to describe me, not at them but at their nomination. Therefore, where is the personal attack here? Certainly not from my side.

Since I came back from my block, which I did not appeal until 3 years later after some wonderful editors sent me some rather touching messages asking me to appeal and come back and help out with Wiki Project Africa, I have mainly focused on sourcing and expanding articles. I have never even seen the article in question prior to its AfD - which only came to my attention when it popped up on the list of Africa-related deletion discussions, which is on my watchlist along with the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Despite never contributing to that article until its AfD, as well as not even being aware of its existence, the nom accused me of having a WP:COI (another direct attack) as evident therein. Despite all that, I went on to expand the article to the best of my ability with reliable sources, and as evident in that AfD, at least two editors commented on how I should be congratulated for improving the article. Improving articles and other Wiki projects takes up most of my time every time I visit Wikipedia. Even during that AfD, I was already preoccupied fixing other articles and had to stop that and work on the article in question. My comments in that AfD does not warrant a block, and even if an uninvolved admin deem that I should be blocked, I do not believe the length of the block given was justified. As such, I am requesting that an uninvolved admin re-examine this block.Tamsier (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: In addition to the above unblock request, I am also requesting that this block be struck off from my records. Where I have exercises a blockable offense, I take full responsibility for, and have taken responsibility for my actions. Yes, it is common practice that when one is blocked, one may initially feel that the blocked is unfair, but after a day or two, if they are truly honest with themselves and are here for good reasons, they contemplate their actions and whether it was the right thing to block them. In most cases it is. As such, they admit to themselves that yes, they deserved to be block. However, I feel so strongly about this unjustifiable and one-sided block, and simply for using a rather lenient word to describe a poorly nominated AfD when people have been using stronger/vulgar language including the F-word, etc., for years about poor AfDs and have never been blocked for that. One rule for the goose, one rule for the gander? Indeed, I have posted 2 diffs above where I have been called a "dick" and told to "fuck off" etc and no one bats an eye lid. One of the reasons for this block was specifically to taint my record almost exactly after a year since I came back to English Wiki - when I have been trying to improve articles on English Wikipedia and especially the Africa project. Since my return, I've have bitten my tongue despite all the names I've been called for mainly raising issues as per our policies, as well as focusing mainly on expanding and sourcing articles. I have no problem accepting a block when the block is justified, but this block is unwarranted and I feel very strongly about this especially when one looks at the case against the blocking admin (and this 2013 report) I've linked to above where other editors have raised the same concerns I've raised two weeks earlier (see above). If an uninvolved admin is unable or unwilling to strike off this block from my records (even if they decide to lift the block) which I have been trying to improve since my return, then I rather they leave the block as is, and I would simply vanish, but wish this project and all its editors nothing but the best. I feel very strongly about this. In all the years I have served this project, I have never felt so strongly about a block - and that speaks volumes. I cannot continue to walk on egg shells and/or be judged by a different policy, yet at the same time continue to be called all adjectives under the sun and no one bats and eye lid.Tamsier (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. And verbosity doesn't help, see laconic speech. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Well, THEM is relevant here, so let's not play the bull shit game by ignoring wp:common sense just because we have an essay about NOTTHEM. A spade is a spade. If we have an admin that have been using the admin tools wrongly to block others as commented on by numerous others in the link provided as well as my self as least two weeks prior, then obviously there is a problem. I notice that you have not debunked any of the arguments I have put forward other than relegated your review to a redundant and irrelevant essay. NOTTHEM would have applied here had my actions warranted a block in the first place and I was the catalyst of it. I don't actually mind you declining the review, but I would have actually expected a bit more detailed and/or meaningful explanation as per the points raised in your decline decision. You have provided nothing here that I can use/rely on rather other than refer me to an irrelevant and inappropriate essay. Anyway, thank you for your unhelpful review. I always take responsibility for my actions and would have had no problem taking responsibility for this block if this was a blockable offense as a result of my actions. However, it isn't. As such, I would rather slit my throat than give anyone the satisfaction of apologising for something that was never a blockable offense to begin with - amidst the double standards here. @Sandstein: was upset that I saw his friend's (the nominator - the very person that ran to his defense in that ANI report linked above) nomination for exactly what it was and stated it in that AfD. Evidently, I was not the only one in that AfD who saw the nomination for what it was as evident therein. Notice that, despite the article being saved at AfD, the nom resulted to vandalising the article as commented on by another editor. If I could forget about Wikipedia for 3 years and only came back to help out after others asked me to, I would have no problem forgetting about this project. In my last return, I really wanted to help and devoted most of my time here helping to the best of my ability. I wish this project all the best, but I refuse to be party to a racist, double standards, bigoted, Eurocentric cliquey system. Enjoy your Wiki, but I would rather slit my throat than apologise for an admin's blatant abuse of their admin tools.Tamsier (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not friends with Sandstein. I don’t even recall interacting with him before this block. Toa Nidhiki05 11:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is all your fault. You were the one who brought a notable article to Afd without following due process, and when you were called out for that, you threw a temper and cursed out Tamsier. I don't know how you escaped without being blocked for your behaviour, yet, Tamsier who called out that Afd for what it was got blocked. Mind you, most of the contributors to that Afd were thinking the same as Tamsier. I found nothing about Tamsier's comment that deserved a block. I said it in that Afd and I will say it here again. Many people have used f-ing this, f-that in Afds and talkpages for years without being blocked. This block is bull shit and nothing but targeting. Trying to push away our dedicated and hardworking editors on the Africa Wiki project. Tamsier, I agree with you 100%. You have nothing to apologize for. Do not give them the satisfaction. There's no justification for this block and the length is just ridiculous. Even the reviewing Admin could not debunk your argument as you said. Since your return you have done amazing work with Africa Wiki project. They want you out and that's the truth! Just enjoy your life outside Wikipedia. Who needs this BS? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You've made my point for me. In the meantime, your continued finger pointing here is disruptive; further attacks and other invective here will swiftly lead to sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you referring to and what point is that? You have not made any point yet, and have not addressed any of Tamsier's points yet. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. I was speaking to you immediately above, and my unblock decline addressed everything relevant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDHT states that: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." The emphasis is on the words consensus and community. Where is the community consensus here especially when you factor in the fact that editors have been using f-this and f-that on Afds and talkpages for years without sanction? To the contrary, your unblock decline has not addressed anything as T said other than refer to an irrelevant essay which is pretty lazy if you ask me. If you are going to be using the Admin tools given to you by the community, you must accept the responsibility that goes with the job, and know that sometimes your actions as an Admin may be questioned by the community. And as an Admin, you should be able to defend your position. Threatening to sanction editors because you don't like their points of view does not instil confidence. And for your info, I don't give a damn about your threats. @Tamsier:, enjoy your life outside Wiki. You don't need this BS. Senegambianamestudy (talk)

Not the place for this discussion, concerns/proposals about AfD etiquette belong here. I doubt the community would approve of the invective above being a regular part of the process. And I'm not threatening, merely informing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I hate disagreeing with you, and with you too, The Blade of the Northern Lights, but I am somewhat surprised by this block (which I only just found out about, by chance). I know that "they started" isn't much of a defense in most cases, but here, really--"No need to be a dick here. My nomination did exactly what I hoped it would" is the personal attack that got Tamsier to lash out. But until then all they had done was a. provide decent, academic sourcing to save something at AfD, and b. call the nomination "silly". And it was a silly nomination, and a waste of time--and the nominator was really gaming the AfD system (using it for article improvement) when they said it did what they hoped it would. I am not, historically, a good friend of Tamsier; I've blocked them before, and I've had a disagreement or two with them, but this block is, IMO, too strong. Tamsier, if you place another unblock request, I will support. I'm not going to override Sandstein's block, that's not a thing I do, but I will argue for you. And thank you for improving that article. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like a hasty block to me. There is a lot of reluctance these days, verging on wagon circling, to unblock. This editor will be naturally unblocked around 29 January, I hope that they do not fall afoul of trigger happy admins again. All the best: Rich Farmbrough , the apparently calm and reasonable, 21:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC).
    

Sorry

Hey T. I just wanna say sorry for your block above. I feel like I am responsible for this having dug you out of retirement to help with Wiki Project Africa rather than leaving you in peace. I'm so sorry for your block. As commented on by myself and another editor on the article's Afd, you did an amazing job on the article and you should be congratulated. Thank you for all your hardwork and help with Wiki Project Africa, and I hope this does not discourage you to leave permanently. However, if you decide to leave after this, I totally understand. Do I believe you deserved to be blocked? No, in my opinion. As you said, saying a nomination is "silly" is definitely not a personal attack. I agree. I also agree with you when you said other editors have used stronger language when describing silly nominations. I agree with you . Not only was the block very strange, but harsh as well. Therefore, I wouldn't blame you if you decide not to come back even after the block has expired. Many black people have left or are leaving this project anyway. Who wants to deal with this nonsense? You take care T. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sen, thank you, and don't worry about it. Well, Black editors have been leaving for years so it's nothing new. You take care.Tamsier (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Senegambianamestudy: — Have you seen this? Some of the editors there echoed my sentiments exactly as I've stated above. This is very worrying.Tamsier (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been archived and the URL changed. You meant this? How about this? Both very alarming. I see they decline your appeal above! I agree with you 100%. You have nothing to apologize for. They want you out. You've been very vocal fighting systematic bias on Wiki and they see you as a pain. Why do you think many blacks are leaving? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sen. Yes, the first link. Hmmm! I didn't see the 2013 case! SMH! Don't bother going back and forth with these people. They are not worth it. There are some lovely editors and admins here with lives outside Wiki. And then are those whose lives revolve around Wiki. Give them a bit of power and it goes over their heads. Many of these admins are young kids anyway with no life experience of dealing with real people. Give them some tools and they think they are Gods. This is why I've been saying our RfA system needs a more vigorous vetting process. Although it has benefits, there are also flaws with the system. It is mainly about popularity than real life experience. Some, not all, forget that they are dealing with real people at the end of a keyboard. Without the editors, there would be no Wiki and no need for admins. Contrary to popular believe, Wiki needs editors in order to create free articles. Yes, there might be problem editors every now and then but that is sadly the price one has to pay. Most of the editors who come here wants to help the project. However when you have some admins (partly due to immaturity) waving their tools as it is the best thing since slice bread, the best thing is to ignore them and let them have their moment. I will not be commenting further to the silly thread above. It is a waste of my time. I've stated what I needed to and would advise you to ignore them. Speaking of youth, I would not lump Sandstein into that category as he has been here since the time of the dinosaurs and I expected better judgment from him after all these years. Evidently not going by the above links. You take care and please monitor my talk page and archive it at the end of each year if you are still here lol. I tend to archive my talk page once at the end of each year. Let this block notice runs its cause then you can archive. I'll email you sometime this weekend. As for me, real life awaits! Have a good weekend.Tamsier (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok T. No prob. Will monitor this talkpage. Take care! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)