User talk:Tookatee
| This is Tookatee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Command: Modern Operations (February 2)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Command: Modern Operations and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Command: Modern Operations, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Tookatee!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
I made the corrections that were stated, it's now ready for review again.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Command: Modern Operations (February 8)
[edit]Disputed non-free use rationale for File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:CMOpromotionalart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Command series
[edit]Hi Tookatee, don't just hit the revert button on an article you're invested in. My edit was perfectly fine, as you can see. I fixed the layout, removed the timely word 'currently', removed inappropriate acronyms (Wikipedia maintains a formal tone, we're not using CMANO as a shorthand), forums are WP:ELNO and most importantly, I removed the WP:PRIMARY sources. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- *sigh* "If you're going to start this daisy chain I will report you for page vandalism, nobody has the time nor patience for this. Leave policy enforcement to administrators." You certainly don't have the time to follow basic editing guidelines, considering you've reinstated it back to a revision which does not meet those guidelines. You do not own the article. Look, I don't really care about Command; I am trying to get the page in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on articles. My edits were fine, I can assure you, but sure, all means, report me for page vandalism. See how that works out for you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Just to piggyback on this comment, this edit summary is really not appropriate. Reporting people for vandalism should only be done for actual vandalism, not content disputes. Greyjoy talk 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say a repeated mass deletion of encyclopedic content on a page could be considered vandalism, however as a member of the Counter-Vandalism unit you would know better as to what does technically constitute page vandalism. Additionally the content on that page was found to follow the basic editing guidelines as seen through the various administrators who've reviewed the page over a period of time in addition to discussion about its current format in this conversation with administrators.Tookatee (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please be careful of WP:3RR. I understand we're not in agreement on a number of different things, but perhaps we can agree that WP:EW is not going to lead to a resolution of any of these issues. When you boldly add content to an article, another editor who disagrees with the changes you made can revert them (even after a long time has passed) and their doing so is not vandalism, particularly when they leave an edit summary and follow up on the article's talk page explaining in terms of relevant policy and guidelines why they removed the content. It can be frustrating when that happens for sure, but when it does we're encouraged to follow WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss), not WP:BRRD (bold, revert, revert back again discuss). Soetermans posted on the article's talk page explaining why he made his edit, and at that point you should've engage in discussion with him instead of reverting back to your preferred version almost 90 minutes later. Content disputes are resolved through discussion per WP:DR and don't automatically require an administrator getting involved. You're free of course to seek administrator assistance at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 if you like, but you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG if you do so. Finally, you keep pointing to the discussion on Explicit's user talk page as if it represents some kind of validation/approval of the current state of the article. That discussion is only related to whether the non-free use of one particular image in the article is appropriate per WP:NFCC; it is not a discussion about whether moving the page was appropriate or whether any of the content in the article is appropriate and you're the only one posting such things as part of your explanation to justify that particular file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)\
- I'm aware of WP:3RR and intend to report that offender should it continue to escalate, thank you for the word of caution. However, your interpretation of that referenced discussion seems to ignore the fact that the topic of the discussion diverged quite heavily in an attempt to establish the context as to why that image met the NFCC, and so there was significant discussion also in relation to this topic and simply reading the conversation can allow one to gain a quick understanding of it.Furthermore, if you look at his "discussion" you'll see that it only made as an alert indicating that he already made the changes for his own reasons rather than as an impetus for a discussion before making such changes. And since he only made vague references to a policy violation having occurred (not what the specific violation was, other than stating what he deleted was a violation) and appeared to have had an ulterior line of reasoning other than what he had written, I made the decision to restore the encyclopedic information lost in his edits. After which he proceeded begin in WP:EW and I ended it with the warning for a report as seen on the edit summary. As you said, a discussion must be had before substantive changes like that occur, especially if there is going to be a substantive elimination of encyclopedic content on a page.Tookatee (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Editors aren’t required to discuss any changes they want to make to an article in advance; they can be BOLD if they think the change is an improvement. Similarly another other who comes along and disagrees with the changes can also be BOLD and revert them regardless of who originally added the content or how long ago it was added. If the reverter leaves an edit summary explaining why and then follows up with a post on the article’s talk further clarifying why, then it’s probably best to WP:AGF and ask for clarification, than reverting back to your preferred version, unless their revert reintroduces a serious and clear policy violation like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO that would be seen as such by any admin who was asked for an opinion on the matter. S, if Soetermans’s edit summary or post was confusing, it’s perfectly OK to ask for clarification or seek input from others; reverting back to your preferred version, however, is sort dismissing his concerns without really trying to understand them. Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, but their use is not automatic and can be a bit tricky and often further discussion is needed to sort them out; for this reason, secondary sources are preferred instead.Regardless, assuming that an editor has some “ulterior line of reasoning” for making an edit is basically accusing an editor of being WP:NOTHERE, and it’s best to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS and stick to commenting on content and not contributors in these types of discussions, unless you’re planning on supporting such statements with WP:DIFFs at one of the WP:ANs. As for the discussion on Explicit’s user talk page, the attempts to establish context were being solely made by you and nobody really seemed to agree with them at least not with respect to that particular file’s non-free use. The discussion wasn’t about whether it was appropriate to move the page, the use of primary sources or whether certain blocks or text should be removed. Those are separate things that may require a separate discussion to resolve. You probably disagree with me on that and that’s OK. If, however, that content is removed again or the page move is undone, then you will probably be better off using discussion to try and resolve things instead pushing the 3RR envelope to see how far you can go before someone ends up at ANI or AN3. Even if you don’t cross the 3RR threshold, an admin can step in at any time and block anyone whom they feel is being disruptive without warning; so, you need to be pretty confident that you clearly meet WP:3RRNO if you wasn’t to test fate like that. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- You say that about the referenced conversation, yet you were the sole dissenting opinion (everyone else either deferred me to somewhere else or has yet to respond to the discussion.) In saying that you also appear to hold a heavy bias towards your initial opinion as you have yet to directly counter any of the points I've made and are now attempting to dismiss that entire conversation as a whole (anyone who cares to comment on the topic can view said conversation and acquaint themselves on the context surrounding this if they're not familiar.) As for you, as I said before I don't want to waste time going in conversational circles, if you don't want to accept the argument based on the policies and guidelines that were cited for whatever reason then that's fine, but do not attempt to spread misinformation. It serves only a selfish purpose and in doing this you simply waste all of our time for, what I can only see as, petty satisfaction. If you have legitimate, specific, points that go against my argument and show that there is an issue with the page and/or its content (not diversionary, irrelevant, or flat out baseless lines of conversation) towards this fact then I'd love to hear it and discuss it further. Otherwise please accept that the page is fully complaint with Wikipedia guidelines and policies as there is nothing in violation of this fact.Tookatee (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Editors aren’t required to discuss any changes they want to make to an article in advance; they can be BOLD if they think the change is an improvement. Similarly another other who comes along and disagrees with the changes can also be BOLD and revert them regardless of who originally added the content or how long ago it was added. If the reverter leaves an edit summary explaining why and then follows up with a post on the article’s talk further clarifying why, then it’s probably best to WP:AGF and ask for clarification, than reverting back to your preferred version, unless their revert reintroduces a serious and clear policy violation like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO that would be seen as such by any admin who was asked for an opinion on the matter. S, if Soetermans’s edit summary or post was confusing, it’s perfectly OK to ask for clarification or seek input from others; reverting back to your preferred version, however, is sort dismissing his concerns without really trying to understand them. Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, but their use is not automatic and can be a bit tricky and often further discussion is needed to sort them out; for this reason, secondary sources are preferred instead.Regardless, assuming that an editor has some “ulterior line of reasoning” for making an edit is basically accusing an editor of being WP:NOTHERE, and it’s best to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS and stick to commenting on content and not contributors in these types of discussions, unless you’re planning on supporting such statements with WP:DIFFs at one of the WP:ANs. As for the discussion on Explicit’s user talk page, the attempts to establish context were being solely made by you and nobody really seemed to agree with them at least not with respect to that particular file’s non-free use. The discussion wasn’t about whether it was appropriate to move the page, the use of primary sources or whether certain blocks or text should be removed. Those are separate things that may require a separate discussion to resolve. You probably disagree with me on that and that’s OK. If, however, that content is removed again or the page move is undone, then you will probably be better off using discussion to try and resolve things instead pushing the 3RR envelope to see how far you can go before someone ends up at ANI or AN3. Even if you don’t cross the 3RR threshold, an admin can step in at any time and block anyone whom they feel is being disruptive without warning; so, you need to be pretty confident that you clearly meet WP:3RRNO if you wasn’t to test fate like that. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:3RR and intend to report that offender should it continue to escalate, thank you for the word of caution. However, your interpretation of that referenced discussion seems to ignore the fact that the topic of the discussion diverged quite heavily in an attempt to establish the context as to why that image met the NFCC, and so there was significant discussion also in relation to this topic and simply reading the conversation can allow one to gain a quick understanding of it.Furthermore, if you look at his "discussion" you'll see that it only made as an alert indicating that he already made the changes for his own reasons rather than as an impetus for a discussion before making such changes. And since he only made vague references to a policy violation having occurred (not what the specific violation was, other than stating what he deleted was a violation) and appeared to have had an ulterior line of reasoning other than what he had written, I made the decision to restore the encyclopedic information lost in his edits. After which he proceeded begin in WP:EW and I ended it with the warning for a report as seen on the edit summary. As you said, a discussion must be had before substantive changes like that occur, especially if there is going to be a substantive elimination of encyclopedic content on a page.Tookatee (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please be careful of WP:3RR. I understand we're not in agreement on a number of different things, but perhaps we can agree that WP:EW is not going to lead to a resolution of any of these issues. When you boldly add content to an article, another editor who disagrees with the changes you made can revert them (even after a long time has passed) and their doing so is not vandalism, particularly when they leave an edit summary and follow up on the article's talk page explaining in terms of relevant policy and guidelines why they removed the content. It can be frustrating when that happens for sure, but when it does we're encouraged to follow WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss), not WP:BRRD (bold, revert, revert back again discuss). Soetermans posted on the article's talk page explaining why he made his edit, and at that point you should've engage in discussion with him instead of reverting back to your preferred version almost 90 minutes later. Content disputes are resolved through discussion per WP:DR and don't automatically require an administrator getting involved. You're free of course to seek administrator assistance at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 if you like, but you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG if you do so. Finally, you keep pointing to the discussion on Explicit's user talk page as if it represents some kind of validation/approval of the current state of the article. That discussion is only related to whether the non-free use of one particular image in the article is appropriate per WP:NFCC; it is not a discussion about whether moving the page was appropriate or whether any of the content in the article is appropriate and you're the only one posting such things as part of your explanation to justify that particular file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)\
Hi, I've taken the administrative action of reverting to the status quo version from 2 February per another request today, both in article content and page title. It seems that there was not consensus for the changes that you made. Please feel free to draft or discuss your suggested changes on the talk page. I would strongly advise against reverting either the page move or the revert. Feel free to ping me to this [your] talk page if you have questions specific to these actions. --Izno (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, at the time I viewed the above message it was quite late in my local time zone. So anyways, you appeared to have been called into this larger conversation to simply enforce a decision by skipping the discussion step normally required for it to be implemented. I await your answers to the questions I asked on that talk page.
Izno may I ask why this was done without the conclusion of this discussion in relation to said title? What was your ultimate reasoning for the title revert despite the content present on the page?Tookatee (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have a few points.
- Discussions may sometimes end earlier than you might expect. Review WP:SNOW.
- Even when they do not, sometimes policy or guideline allows for an earlier conclusion. Particularly, Marchjuly correctly cited WP:RMUM. You moved the page boldly, to which a correct response at a much earlier date by any editor with the correct permissions may have been to move it back to the original title.
- Please consider this next comment carefully: You have multiple independent experienced editors telling you that you are the one off the beaten track. You're moreover starting to get shouty. I don't intend to issue a warning, but you're on the short path to being asked to leave Wikipedia right now. Take a day or two away from the specific, and read all the blue links that Marchjuly has sent your way as part of the discussion. They will get you most of the way to understanding what you need to know, but sometimes they're confusing or Byzantine, so as before, please feel free to ask questions for clarification.
- --Izno (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- So you're citing opinionated interpretations of technical policies (your citation of WP:SNOW reflects a viewpoint with little context at the larger discussion, as it simply assumes my points are baseless without proper examination) regarding discussion practices rather than basing the decision off of the content of the discussion? Since you've decided to not address any of the points I've brought up in that larger conversation on the topic of the article name. Additionally, I'm now aware of the fact that all of those criterion for WP:RMUM need to be satisfied, at the time I was under the assumption that if the page title did not fit the content within the page then it would be better if the title was rectified to reflect this rather than to retain an inaccurate title. Furthermore, I apologize if you feel my tone is "shouty" but to be quite frank that's a immensely personal opinion based on a lack of context. Marchjuly in particular has made it a point to continuously make tangential references to topics that have little to do with the discussion at hand (or in some cases simply engage in conversational circles that recycle his old talking points despite what's been said in response to them) in order to avoid said discussion, it's been nearly a week and I have yet to actually receive a specific refutation to any of the points I made in regards to the encyclopedic value of the article title "Command (Series)", and so this in combination with his practice of inviting others without the proper context on the larger conversation (you and all of the other administrators in that conversation on the Command talk page) simply to enforce his original verdict without consideration of the encyclopedic implications of that decision has resulted in an understandable amount of frustration towards his malicious/conversationally unproductive comments.Tookatee (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Uninvolved admin here. I've been observing your behavior on multiple talk/project pages for the past few days, and every single editor you interacted with has been incredibly patient while you verbally abused them. Needless to say, we're tired of your nonsense. You are blocked until you decide you're ready to a) respect Wikipedia's policies, b) stop harassing other editors you disagree with. -FASTILY 08:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wow...just wow. The sheer fact that a basic support of one's position on talk and discussion pages is enough to get indefinitely blocked (I guess forget having an actual discussion on a topic, you make one edit considered controversial and this is a result of a discussion attempting to obtain an explanation) from all edits by an administrator is astounding. If it is the actual, spirit of the policy, interpretation (again, as I've said in nearly all my discussion thus far, please prove me wrong) that serious discussion of a topic (in this case is simply labeled as " Wikilawyering" nonsense [ironically a well written statement on what is and isn't wikilawyering and proper "collegial consensus-seeking" use of the term is present on its page]) is not wanted in any way, shape, or form then I don't understand why that was not made clear nearly a week ago when the topic at hand was brought up to begin with and instead of being told it was not a topic for discussion, had several talk pages and a discussion page related to each be created in the first place. ONE edit was made, a long conversation on the topic occurred (I say conversation due to a sheer lack of effort to support their points in detail, that's free to observe by simply reading it in its entirety), and a conclusion was seemingly reached irregardless of what was said by anyone else, for better or for worse. How this entire thing has been treated seems more reflective of mob rule overriding any basic logic and a complete lack of care for how that resulted. If that's how discussion and policy enforcement on this platform intends to be, then I recommended a much more direct approach. Anyone and everyone can see this behavior if they care to as it's public information, no point in hiding behind some thin pretense of bureaucratic integrity to inefficiently enforce a specific atmosphere of "discussion". Finally, with all this in consideration any accusations of "verbal abuse" or "harassment" can be seen to be complete and utter falsehoods (at no point did I make any explicit personal attacks on any individual on Wikipedia, only: refutations of their points, appeals for an explanation as to what they said, a statement of another user's actions [as seen above], and/or corrections of misinterpretation(s), nearly all of which had a statement of apology and a call for myself to be corrected in the event that my assumption on their meaning or my assumption on a topic was incorrect; if you yourself think this is a blatant lie for whatever reason then please post an example of your accusations below and I will give you the meaning and context behind it, although in all honesty, based on the fact that I was blocked to begin with using this ridiculous reasoning it probably doesn't matter if all I said was the word "front" six hundred times after simply disagreeing, it'd all have the same meaning wouldn't it?)Tookatee (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- You don't get it, do you? But that's okay I guess, since you can only hear yourself. Enjoy your new echo chamber. -FASTILY 23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wow...just wow. The sheer fact that a basic support of one's position on talk and discussion pages is enough to get indefinitely blocked (I guess forget having an actual discussion on a topic, you make one edit considered controversial and this is a result of a discussion attempting to obtain an explanation) from all edits by an administrator is astounding. If it is the actual, spirit of the policy, interpretation (again, as I've said in nearly all my discussion thus far, please prove me wrong) that serious discussion of a topic (in this case is simply labeled as " Wikilawyering" nonsense [ironically a well written statement on what is and isn't wikilawyering and proper "collegial consensus-seeking" use of the term is present on its page]) is not wanted in any way, shape, or form then I don't understand why that was not made clear nearly a week ago when the topic at hand was brought up to begin with and instead of being told it was not a topic for discussion, had several talk pages and a discussion page related to each be created in the first place. ONE edit was made, a long conversation on the topic occurred (I say conversation due to a sheer lack of effort to support their points in detail, that's free to observe by simply reading it in its entirety), and a conclusion was seemingly reached irregardless of what was said by anyone else, for better or for worse. How this entire thing has been treated seems more reflective of mob rule overriding any basic logic and a complete lack of care for how that resulted. If that's how discussion and policy enforcement on this platform intends to be, then I recommended a much more direct approach. Anyone and everyone can see this behavior if they care to as it's public information, no point in hiding behind some thin pretense of bureaucratic integrity to inefficiently enforce a specific atmosphere of "discussion". Finally, with all this in consideration any accusations of "verbal abuse" or "harassment" can be seen to be complete and utter falsehoods (at no point did I make any explicit personal attacks on any individual on Wikipedia, only: refutations of their points, appeals for an explanation as to what they said, a statement of another user's actions [as seen above], and/or corrections of misinterpretation(s), nearly all of which had a statement of apology and a call for myself to be corrected in the event that my assumption on their meaning or my assumption on a topic was incorrect; if you yourself think this is a blatant lie for whatever reason then please post an example of your accusations below and I will give you the meaning and context behind it, although in all honesty, based on the fact that I was blocked to begin with using this ridiculous reasoning it probably doesn't matter if all I said was the word "front" six hundred times after simply disagreeing, it'd all have the same meaning wouldn't it?)Tookatee (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Uninvolved admin here. I've been observing your behavior on multiple talk/project pages for the past few days, and every single editor you interacted with has been incredibly patient while you verbally abused them. Needless to say, we're tired of your nonsense. You are blocked until you decide you're ready to a) respect Wikipedia's policies, b) stop harassing other editors you disagree with. -FASTILY 08:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- So you're citing opinionated interpretations of technical policies (your citation of WP:SNOW reflects a viewpoint with little context at the larger discussion, as it simply assumes my points are baseless without proper examination) regarding discussion practices rather than basing the decision off of the content of the discussion? Since you've decided to not address any of the points I've brought up in that larger conversation on the topic of the article name. Additionally, I'm now aware of the fact that all of those criterion for WP:RMUM need to be satisfied, at the time I was under the assumption that if the page title did not fit the content within the page then it would be better if the title was rectified to reflect this rather than to retain an inaccurate title. Furthermore, I apologize if you feel my tone is "shouty" but to be quite frank that's a immensely personal opinion based on a lack of context. Marchjuly in particular has made it a point to continuously make tangential references to topics that have little to do with the discussion at hand (or in some cases simply engage in conversational circles that recycle his old talking points despite what's been said in response to them) in order to avoid said discussion, it's been nearly a week and I have yet to actually receive a specific refutation to any of the points I made in regards to the encyclopedic value of the article title "Command (Series)", and so this in combination with his practice of inviting others without the proper context on the larger conversation (you and all of the other administrators in that conversation on the Command talk page) simply to enforce his original verdict without consideration of the encyclopedic implications of that decision has resulted in an understandable amount of frustration towards his malicious/conversationally unproductive comments.Tookatee (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Eternal links
[edit]I have reverted your change to the the external inks at Command (series) per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The dicussion forum is linked right off the main menu of the official site. Also, the official site template adds functionality to transfer data to wikidata so it preferred over plain http link -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Cmopromoart2.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cmopromoart2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Cmopromoart2.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Cmopromoart2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
March 2020
[edit]
Tookatee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An overreaction based on what appears to be lack of context regarding specific discussions, liberal application of Wikipedia guidelines to end a discussion (or the potential of one), and a blatant falsehood regarding the, and I quote, "verbal abuse" and "deliberate misinterpretation of policy to the point of threatening/harassing other editors" of which assumes that any of what I said could be considered (using common sense for human decency) to be anywhere near the levels of that requiring a complete block from Wikipedia (let alone the ability for any administrator to simply have a rational discussion addressing said facts rather than immediately jumping to this.) See above replies to the Command Series section of this talk page and the talk page of this article for further specific examples and/or in depth context into the entire situation. Tookatee (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block appears justified at first review, and your subsequent responses to it make that justification even clearer. Your approach to interacting with other editors is evidently not conducive to collaborative editing. Yunshui 雲水 08:25, 11 March 2020 (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.
- I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please decline this request, as I am strongly opposed to an unblock at this time. I'd like to see the user a) read and explain WP:HARASS, WP:IDHT, WP:NFCC, WP:CONSENSUS to us, b) individually apologize to all users they have harassed, and c) promise to stop harassing/threatening behavior towards others (with the understanding that any repeat of this behavior will result in an instant re-block). -FASTILY 23:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this is the individual who created the block, of whom may have some form of personal bias against whatever they found wrong in my behavior (as seen by their less than productive response to my latest commentary on the block, of which included a request for them to produce some tangible examples that they believe supports their accusations, with the expectation being to initiate some sort of discussion as to why and how such examples, or the context behind them, may have been misconstrued.) Furthermore, as I indicated in my latest response to him in the Command Series section of this talk page, I've never engaged in harassment towards any user on Wikipedia and clear observation of all of my written responses shows that, in fact, if anything I myself may have been the victim of WP:HOUND, as seen by the actions of Marchjuly since his initial joining of a conversation of mine on another talk page, he's followed me around through to all the different pages in which I've been active in discussions on as of late and has continuously challenged or simply needlessly made derivative comments on them until he could/would no longer come up with anything further and I told them to cease their malicious activities (which as far as I can tell by their behavior, is for nothing else other than to prove themselves correct.) a.Tookatee (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've stated your conditions for unblock above. By continuing to blame others for your own poor behavior, you're simply substantiating the need for this block. Have a nice day, FASTILY 01:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- To the reviewing administrator, as you can obviously see the block-issuing administrator has some sort preconceived bias and a frankly unprofessional attitude coming into this entire situation, as even now I'm receiving confrontational, aggressive, and flat out stubborn responses in this brief interaction with them, where so far I've only really asked for some sort of proof supporting their claims, and in response have been simultaneously called an incompetent, stubborn, and rude individual (based on his demand to unblock me that I explain to him every one of the quoted articles he stated like a petulant child) which I find personally ludicrous given the information that they're basing their claims for the block off of.Tookatee (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Aww touched a nerve, have I? You're free to sling every insult in the dictionary, but it's not going to get you unblocked. I'm just pleased that this block is preventing you from continuing to harm the encyclopedia. -FASTILY 04:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is this some sort of game to you? Are you feeling pleasure in what I can only assume to be feelings of victory over someone you've deemed "in the wrong"? Despite having absolutely no idea who you are and not even interacting with you (at least as far as I can remember) in any manner before this and yet it seems like from the moment you left your first comment on this talk page you've been hostile and diminutive towards anything I've had to say. I've tried to have a discussion with you about what exactly about my behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policies and you just won't have it. To be honest I'm surprised you're not self-aware of this; it's literally just a Wikipedia page on the internet, and so I'd imagine that on here hostile, confrontational behavior (rather than a factually based discussion) is not conducive to making it appear as if you hold some sort of legitimacy in your points, in fact just the opposite is (or at least should be) true as all it does is expose the fact that you can't/won't support your points because you know there is something you wouldn't be able to support because of this. I don't want to make false assumptions, but it's looking like this very questioning has made you angry in some way. If this is not the case feel free to correct me, but I don't see any other logical reason as to why you're coming off this aggressive over a topic this insignificant in the grand scheme of things (and since I've received no attempts at a discussion, let alone an explanation, it's all I have to go on.) Irregardless, hopefully the reviewing admin takes this all into consideration and hopefully comes into this with the willingness to resolve the situation rationally one way or another. Tookatee (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think wasting time on these long, incoherent rants is going to result in an unblock; it's quite bizarre honestly. I've already stated the conditions for unblock above, and I grow tired of repeating myself. The reasons for your block are in your recent contributions. And since it's such a mystery to you, why don't you take another gander. If you still think your treatment of other editors is all rainbows and sunshine, then guess what, you're going to stay blocked. -FASTILY 07:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is this some sort of game to you? Are you feeling pleasure in what I can only assume to be feelings of victory over someone you've deemed "in the wrong"? Despite having absolutely no idea who you are and not even interacting with you (at least as far as I can remember) in any manner before this and yet it seems like from the moment you left your first comment on this talk page you've been hostile and diminutive towards anything I've had to say. I've tried to have a discussion with you about what exactly about my behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policies and you just won't have it. To be honest I'm surprised you're not self-aware of this; it's literally just a Wikipedia page on the internet, and so I'd imagine that on here hostile, confrontational behavior (rather than a factually based discussion) is not conducive to making it appear as if you hold some sort of legitimacy in your points, in fact just the opposite is (or at least should be) true as all it does is expose the fact that you can't/won't support your points because you know there is something you wouldn't be able to support because of this. I don't want to make false assumptions, but it's looking like this very questioning has made you angry in some way. If this is not the case feel free to correct me, but I don't see any other logical reason as to why you're coming off this aggressive over a topic this insignificant in the grand scheme of things (and since I've received no attempts at a discussion, let alone an explanation, it's all I have to go on.) Irregardless, hopefully the reviewing admin takes this all into consideration and hopefully comes into this with the willingness to resolve the situation rationally one way or another. Tookatee (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Aww touched a nerve, have I? You're free to sling every insult in the dictionary, but it's not going to get you unblocked. I'm just pleased that this block is preventing you from continuing to harm the encyclopedia. -FASTILY 04:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- To the reviewing administrator, as you can obviously see the block-issuing administrator has some sort preconceived bias and a frankly unprofessional attitude coming into this entire situation, as even now I'm receiving confrontational, aggressive, and flat out stubborn responses in this brief interaction with them, where so far I've only really asked for some sort of proof supporting their claims, and in response have been simultaneously called an incompetent, stubborn, and rude individual (based on his demand to unblock me that I explain to him every one of the quoted articles he stated like a petulant child) which I find personally ludicrous given the information that they're basing their claims for the block off of.Tookatee (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've stated your conditions for unblock above. By continuing to blame others for your own poor behavior, you're simply substantiating the need for this block. Have a nice day, FASTILY 01:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this is the individual who created the block, of whom may have some form of personal bias against whatever they found wrong in my behavior (as seen by their less than productive response to my latest commentary on the block, of which included a request for them to produce some tangible examples that they believe supports their accusations, with the expectation being to initiate some sort of discussion as to why and how such examples, or the context behind them, may have been misconstrued.) Furthermore, as I indicated in my latest response to him in the Command Series section of this talk page, I've never engaged in harassment towards any user on Wikipedia and clear observation of all of my written responses shows that, in fact, if anything I myself may have been the victim of WP:HOUND, as seen by the actions of Marchjuly since his initial joining of a conversation of mine on another talk page, he's followed me around through to all the different pages in which I've been active in discussions on as of late and has continuously challenged or simply needlessly made derivative comments on them until he could/would no longer come up with anything further and I told them to cease their malicious activities (which as far as I can tell by their behavior, is for nothing else other than to prove themselves correct.) a.Tookatee (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)