Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:48, 9 April 2022

Welcome!

Hello, EnlightenmentNow1792, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Greyjoy^talk 07:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts

Have you used any prior account on Wikipedia? I'm thinking User:Ledenierhomme and his various socks. nableezy - 19:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did at some stage, about 2-3 years ago, but I forgot what the username was, and I got a new laptop, so I created this one recently. I'm flattered, I'm sure, but why so curious? This User:Ledenierhomme you speak of, is he your White Whale? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Why curious? Because we have a policy that prohibits banned users from creating new accounts. No worries, will lay this out in a sockpuppet investigation if I get annoyed enough. nableezy - 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, it'll be riveting I'm sure! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: his rhetoric sounds so similar, and see this. Beshogur (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"rhetoric"? How is simply quoting - from what I can tell is - the leading academic scholarship on this topic, "rhetoric"? And why should it be any surprise to you that in the talk page and in the article Johanson is cited as an authority numerous times? Shouldn't that tell you something Beshogur? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. nableezy - 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you got me! Go on then, nableezy, please be my guest, "lay this out in a sockpuppet investigation". Surely I deserve it for tormenting you all these years! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurdistan Free Life Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qandil. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iraqi Turkmen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turkic and Turk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ANI is

You probably have learned what ANI is since this thread, but if not here's a briefing: Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is for receiving help for settling disputes or dealing with users when things need administrator attention, such as moving and protecting pages and other things that regular users don't have the ability to do. It's mainly used for discussing or handling users when they get out of hand and if something is posted there about someone it's usually with the intention of getting them blocked to prevent future problems.

You've been mentioned here most likely not for your contributions of these sources you're discussing on the talk page but rather for failing to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:TEXTWALL. Personally, I think this is a premature discussion, but it could be better off for you not to be too bold that your ideals are the right ones in future discussions, and be open to other opinions and discussing them. Maybe also to be less frank with what you feel, because it's often taken personally by other editors. And while you were also criticized for WP:SPA, I wouldn't stress that. People contribute to topics they like and that's it all the time; would I rather prefer to write about the Paper Mario series a seventh time or decide, "Nah, people might accuse me of SPA, lemme force myself to contribute to some cell strand for the next month"? Panini!^🥪 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!:Are you an admin? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Now isn't that ironic? Panini!^🥪 03:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!:Well thanks (I think?) for your input :-) Can you explain to me - what actually happened to that ANI? It's disappeared, and I never heard anything about it again. Is that typical? Reported "incidents" (I still don't know what the incident was) drift into the ether without an admin/s making a ruling? Would that mean there's generally no penalty for filing frivolous "incident reports"? His last one he accused me of being a sockpuppet (three people on two separate articles have done that - is that also typical on WP?), disruptive editor, and "Also he's definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, (wp:nothere), by his editing rethoric+talk page contributions." Days have gone past, and he still hasn't specified any objections to my edits: only insults and accusations, and complaints that I write too many words on Talk. What I really mean, is it safe to just ignore him at this point?

I clicked on this contributions, can see what his game is, but I can't see that he adds much to the project, or has the degree of competence nor expertise required to meaningfully contribute to his pet subject area.

For example, I clicked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benlittlewiki#Arab_name_on_Murad_V

And it's apparent he can't read Ottoman Turkish or even recognize the Ottoman Turkish alphabet, perhaps not even able to differentiate between it and the Arabic alphabet. When I attempted to point out that in the article Murad V's "Ottoman Turkish" written name in the first line was in fact his written name in Arabic, his reply was: "It's the infobox. I mean Arabic alphabet. Sorry for misunderstand."................... what?

And this guy is policing my contributions on linguistics? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EnlightenmentNow1792, the discussion was automatically archived by a bot due to lack of activity, but you can still view the discussion here. When a discussion has been automatically archived, usually someone will pull it back into mainspace if they feel it hasn't garnered enough attention on the matter. It's been a couple of days, so I wouldn't stress too much about it. There's a pattern in ANI discussions that usually fall within three categories:

Reports of vandalism, trolling, or other urgent requests that is solved immediately and archived.
Discussions that are premature or the user who was reported is acting in good faith with some faults. Normally people emphasize that what they're doing is wrong, but after a couple of slaps on the back of the head administrator action isn't required, or at least not at the moment.
Probems that have good arguments for both sides and get extremely complicated. Usually they lead to no consensus and everyone moves on, but sometimes its outsourced to something beyond ANI.

I think you fall into category two here, but that doesn't mean you should take the ANI with a grain of salt: avoid satire such as the comments you were called out for there. When I first joined I used satire often, and frankly, things didn't go too well. Besides, comments such as "you are a complete novice in this field" may be viewed poorly (some people might take it personally) and people won't take your proposals seriously, although what you're saying is accurate. And TEXTWALLing is never a good thing; it's most likely difficult to summarize into something minimal considering the size of the topic, so using the templates {{Collapse top|Title of table}} and {{Collapse bottom}} could help condense references and other large explanations you may have. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables for more. Panini!^🥪 13:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll have to learn how to do all that formatting/styles/tables caper. Ugh... I hated computer programming at school! Cheers man. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar

I considered mentioning this in the relisting comment, but you have put a lot of text into making your points on the deletion discussion. It is not advisable to bludgeon discussions, as the policy supplement on bludgeoning states: If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear.. This isn’t a terrible mistake to make, and I do understand from your post that this is your first AFD. But, at this stage, as you have made your viewpoint clear on the matter, it would be a good idea to step back and let others in the community now discuss the matter to come to a total consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|reason="Disruptive editing"? No one ever accused me of that. I've brought dozens of high quality academic sources to the articles I've edited, and dedicated hours to researching the subjects in order to provide guidance to those who tend to edit, shall we say, instinctively. As you blocked me, I had literally just finished my chronological defense of my conduct vis a vis HouseofChange. It is 1,3000 words long, has diffs, and I believes proves conclusively, that the disruption and nastiness started and escalated with HouseOfChange. I spent hours trying to add academic sources to that article, and he deleted them all. There were 16 at my last count. As it stands, he has kept the White Supremacist, antisemitic, degraded, Holocaust denying websites in as worthy sources, whereas mine were expunged totally. He even tried to add some blacklisted sources, repeatedly. I believe you have made a grave error of judgement here sir, that you made it in haste, and that you will feel much different if you take a read of my defence, and have a glance at the dozens of RSs I have introduced to Wikipedia, and the hundreds of hours I have spent researching and curating them. For brevity's sake, I'll post my defence below. I do hope you read it. I'm no angel, but I certainly don't deserve this. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk)

Insults? Civility?

For the record: HouseOfChange has just written this:

@Bbb23: or some other admin: Could we have an indef block until there is some acknowledgement by EnlightenmentNow1792 that policies AGF, CIVIL, or BLUDGEON apply to him? Even those who consider themselves subject-matter experts don't get free rein to insult and abuse other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Previously, I hand counted what I could remember of his insults/accusations (11):

So, 'too wordy', 'unwilling to listen', disrespectful, 'POV-pushing', 'adding peacock text', oh and having a 'political agenda' was I believe his first accusation (the second was being a sockpuppet), now HouseOfChange is moving onto accusing me of having a CoI now a third time now (thankfully he has finally ceased bombing my talk page with warnings and threats that he would take me to this place and get be banned, despite me repeatedly asking him not to on my talk page, four times before he ceased). Now my CoI is that I am a journalist and on here to bash 'my colleagues'? Sorry, no, I'm not, dabbled many, many decades ago, but like square-dancing and cigars, it's just not for me. And I'm the one who has a problem with personal attacks? I'll let the admin/s be the judge of that. I'll try to furnish them with diffs when this bout of nausea dissipates. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

All I ever did was criticize his sourcing, and his stubbornness in failing to understand what a RS is.

So who was the greater insulter here? Who displayed more of a battleground mentality? Even after I'm banned, the insults and threats continue, and he wants to see me gone forever. Wow. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. He is doing pretty much the same thing over in my corner of the wiki. Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Defence Intended for the Incident noticeboard

My first interaction with HouseOfChange, was his reverting[1] my restoration (so, immediately not adhering to the WP:BRD cycle) of content that was reliably sourced and made a fair point. Namely, the Anti-Defamation League questioning why he would twice attend the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, not just in 2014, after which many anti-Israeli journalists expressed disgust at the antisemitism, conspiracy-mongering, and Holocaust denial on display, but again in 2019.

I didn't want to engage in a petty back-and-forth at the time, as it seemed obvious to me the other editor was in unfamiliar territory and would realize who he was defending in good time, or else, and this I thought much more likely, lose interest all together.

The ADL criticism remains absent. As does any criticism. HouseOfChange has made sure of that.

He then proceeded to construct a weighty, quite impressive looking article, which, unfortunately, paid virtually no attention whatsoever as to what qualifies as a reliable source.[2], [3]

Here,[4] he states, upon yet another revert, "restore text and references that clearly show evidence of NJOURNALIST #1. "analyst" is sourced to 2 RS)

What reliable sources cite him, you might ask?

Well, none, really. Jacobin - not a great source - quotes him on his Brazilian compatriot Lula, the quote itself showing the kind of nuance and considered journalism Jacobin is renowned for: "The fact remains that, in the words of journalist and international relations analyst Pepe Escobar, 'Lula is Brazil’s only possible factor of stability.' I don't know who comes out looking the more ridiculous there. Hindsight is 20/20 though of course. Something seasoned journalists are supposed to be well aware of (Pepe's words there are very typically untypically journalistic, if you know what I mean. He never was a reporter, so he never had to temper his language or enthusiasm, or his flights of fancy - 9/11 denial, Covid-denial, and all the rest).

And so it goes, he just does a horrible job of it.

The sources he added ranged from "KBOO FM", school teachers, self-published blogs, "Filmmaker Magazine", etc. Almost all of them were trivial mentions, many times Escobar wasn't even name-checked by the author, one of the hundreds of Op-Eds he penned would merely appear in the footnotes of a source of either unknown or middling reliability/notability.

If the source was solid, like The New Republic, then it would mention Escobar only to disparage him as a spreader of misinformation, hyperbole, flights of fancy and conspiracy theories.

None of this bothered me too much at first, except for the fact that he kept accusing me of things (sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, political bias, etc). He had no evidence for any of this, he just randomly threw these accusations out there.

I thought he'd come around eventually, but his sourcing actually got worse, much worse. A long with his attitude (I kept asking him to please not post big signs and threats on my talk page, but he kept on doing so).

Here,[5] he says "Please AGF that my edits to the article are intended to improve Wikipedia by providing NPOV information about a journalist notable enough for an article".

How could he possibly know at this point if Escobar was a notable journalist? He'd still been unable to find a single notable article penned by him, or another notable journalist citing him.

Nevertheless, he wrote: "Escobar has reported extensively from Afghanistan. In August 2000, Escobar and two other journalists were arrested by the Taliban, and accused of photographing a soccer match." No one was able to find any evidence of this ever actually happening. Escobar has made many such fantastic, unverifiable claims throughout his career. For example, that he met Osama bin Laden before 9/11 and warned everyone about him - no such warnings or reports of a meeting exist in print anywhere prior to 9/11... which he believes was a hoax anyway.

Still, he continued to revert me, restoring the bad sources (filmmakermagazine.com, kboo.fm, etc) I'd removed. And he continued threatening me on my Talk page [6].

This is where things took a weird turn.

Amidst continuing threats [7] he would say things like "You seem to be a new editor, at least with this account, so I hope you will take note of well-meaning advice to review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You should not get into a habit of edit summaries that violate either"

Ironically, he wrote (what was really another veiled pre-emptive threat I can see now in retrospect): "If you want to continue to accuse me of POV-pushing, or if you continue to violate core policies, ANI will be the place to get help from other editors. It's an awful place, and I advise us both to avoid it."

Hate to keep using the word "ironically", but after still failing to find him cited by any peers in RSs, he wrote: "You are mistaken to think that I am trying to portray him as an expert or authority--he is a journalist, widely-cited enough that it is a service to our readers to provide them with some information about him. If you consider him not notable as a journalist, I suggest filing an AfD so that others can express an opinion." [8]

Here[9] he bizarrely accuses me of WP:NPOV for not deleting yet another atrocious self-published source by a non-peer, but just saying ^{[better source needed]}

Here[10] you can see by now his civility has totally disappeared by now, and he can barely conceal his contempt.

Here[11] he again doesn't follow BRD, and accuses me of not following BRD. However, my patience is starting to run a little thin at this point too, so instead of ignoring it like last time, I stand strong and insist he adheres to policy.

After my AfD[12] obliterates his poor sources, he all of a sudden changes his tune completely[13] and the only defense he offers after putting in all this effort is:

"*Weak keep Escobar is just barely notable enough that we do our readers a service by having a short encyclopedia article about him. See above for my reasoning.

The first editor to weigh-in agrees with me 100% and echoes my criticisms of HouseOfChange's poor sources.[14]

But instead of taking on this advice and treating it as a learning experience, he doubles down. And the rest, as they say, is history.

He resorts to Fake News websites, Blacklisted websites, Far-Far Right antisemitic Holocaust Denial websites....Here hides my comments[15] without asking. I don't complain, it's clear to me that this will be over soon... or so I thought...

But no, he starts defending Escobar publishing for RussiaInsider as no big deal.[16] Someone pops up with a YouTube clip, and ludicrously claims "He [Escobar] has also met former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who frequently reads his work"[17] and all of a sudden he wants to have another swing at it.

Now comes the demonstrably false claim that Escobar "is well known for breaking stories in the Arab and Muslim worlds."[18] The source for this is a friend of Escobars, a former backpacking pal, who somehow managed to blog, once, at The Atlantic Council. But never again. If you read the piece you'll see why. He implies Escobar used to be a CIA agent and he predicted al-Qaeda's presence in Libya before anyone else. This friend of Pepe refers to non-existent articles for think-tanks Escobar never worked for. Escobar has never repeated any of this claims. And Borchgrave's journalistic career predictably ended in disgrace. Mass plagiarism.

By this point he's citing F. William Engdahl, Veterans Today, GlobalResearch.ca, InfoWars, a medical journal (weird), he's standing behind Russia Insider again, quoting philosphers mentioning his name on their website as "a cite from a RS" and, most comically of all, he cites a RS calling Escobar a crank and a non-RS - he tries to use that as an example of his esteem as a journalist.[19]

Upon realizing the mistakes he's made, he sees me active in the Persian Gulf RfC, spots me disagreeing with someone, and then goes over there, to nominate me here, taking that editor - Apaugasma - with him.[20]

It was a cunning, calculated move, timed perfectly to get me blocked. Well played I must say - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Please do not mark major content alterations a minor edits like you did here. You can read WP:MINOR for appropriate uses of the minor edit tag. BSMRD (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record imho that is a rewrite for NPOV, which is mandatory on Wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AE logged warning

This warning is to inform you that you must curb the WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially for a topic area as contested as WP:ARBEE. The way you're going about things right now isn't sustainable in the long run, so you need to self-correct if you wish to continue editing pages covered by the sanction. I'll be logging the warning at WP:AEL. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 11:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: What are you referring to exactly? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Are you an admin? Either way, can you please point me to what you regard as me showing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? So I can take well heed of your advice to "self-correct"? Much appreciated. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. El_C 12:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment at ANI (diff). I also randomly sampled a diff from your contribs (this one), which I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. It is too aggressive and adversarial, needlessly so. When you address other editors, just stick to being matter of fact. It helps no one, yourself included, when you falter there. Thanks again. El_C 12:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, a response to an unprovoked personal attack, which was a reply to my Comment that the thread was a disgrace (sharing much the same sentiments as yourself I would've thought?)... is tantamount to WP:BATTLEGROUND? It was the first interaction I had with that person! I mean, that's not even a Foul is it? Surely not a Yellow!

Regarding the second: context is everything here. When lengthy, involved discussion is ongoing on the Talk Page, someone bursts out of nowhere with a list of sources such as 2014 tabloid news articles, self-published books, fringe partisan publications by fringe unheard of presses, The Telegraph and two academic papers that actually support my contention - all of which he characterizes as "higher-quality" than mine (which are, incidentally, the highest one can get, starting with the acknowledged leading scholars on this very issue such as Andreas Unlamd,[21] Rybiy, Shekhovtsov, Fedorenko, and many more besides. My pointed comment was to instill the lesson I thought s/he should've learned already: before adopting a Battleground mentality, claiming "consensus" (seriously, yes), making massive changes to the article, multiple reverts, even repeatedly removing the the "NPOV" and "Disputed" tags themselves (claiming "consensus")... one should probably read the sources the other people (the majority in fact) on the Talk Page had been discussing for the past week, no?

Surely that's anti- WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, isn't it?

At least I thought it was, because I accused him of as much from the moment he came blustering in making countless edits and reverts and claiming "consensus", deleting RS, all in the space of about 12 hours!

I didn't touch the article at all, except to try to twice add page the POV tags that had been added and reverted something like a dozen times during that period of time because, as the editor kept telling us, "consensus had already been established" in 2021. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EnlightenmentNow1792, even if that were so, it is inappropriate to respond to BATTLEGROUND with BATTLEGROUND in turn. That is not "anti-BATTLEGROUND" or whatever. Beyond that, I'm throwing you a lifeline here, which you do not appear to recognize as such. You've engaged in sanctionable behaviour, so you need to adjust moving forward. If you reach an impasse on an article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests that you may avail yourself of. El_C 12:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What impasse? Sorry, I just don't follow your reasoning at all here. Seems like an admin equivalent of drive-by tagging. If you'll excuse me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can think what you will, EnlightenmentNow1792, but I feel like I've explained myself clearly enough. If you repeat the misconduct, the likely outcome will be a topic ban from ARBEE. El_C 12:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Yes Sir! You just be sure and gather all that evidence of my "misconduct", no doubt it will be a valuable use of your time, Sir! Sir, permission to fall out, Sir? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Anyway, EnlightenmentNow1792, I'll leave you to it. El_C 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Thankyou Sir! Ship shape and Bristol-fashion Sir. Turn-to-the-left - left march!.... Left... Left... Left.. Right... Left... Right... Left... Right... Left... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... These replies reflect poorly on you, EnlightenmentNow1792. I warn you, in part, against engaging in innuendo, so you respond with innuendo? Eep. El_C 13:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo? I was trying to be humorous. OK, what would it take for you to leave me alone? The last word? Then please, by all means, take it... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And User:El C: I just saw he not only removed my message here with edit summary "Yuck no thanks", but also warned me for disruptive editing when I only worked to fix the clear-cut misleading information introduced by him to the article. This is a clear case of battleground mentality. 106.215.40.96 (talk)

@@ Line 197: / Line 197: @@
 ::::::::::Okay... These replies reflect poorly on you, EnlightenmentNow1792. I warn you, in part, against engaging in innuendo, so you respond ''with'' innuendo? Eep. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 :::::::::::Innuendo? I was trying to be humorous. OK, what would it take for you to leave me alone? The last word? Then please, by all means, take it... [[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#top|talk]]) 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
+::And [[User:El C]]: I just saw he not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081780952&oldid=1081753553 only removed] my message here with edit summary "Yuck no thanks", but also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:106.215.40.96&oldid=1081780945 warned me] for disruptive editing when I only worked to fix the clear-cut misleading information introduced by him to the article. This is a clear case of battleground mentality. [[Special:Contributions/106.215.40.96|106.215.40.96]] ([[User talk:106.215.40.96|talk]])