User talk:Arglebargle79

Hi Arglebargle79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Trump tweet

Heads up – Trump just tweeted about your latest edit to Matthew W. Brann. It has since been reverted and restored with better wording, but I thought you should know. – bradv🍁 05:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Cool!!!!!...Better wording is never objectionable to me, thanks for the heads up!Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

December 16, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month will include a discussion of the sixth annual Community Wishlist Survey, an opportunity for editors and other community members to submit proposals for fixes and features you'd like the Wikimedia Foundation's tech team to address. As always, it's the agenda anyone can edit, so please feel free to add any projects you'd like to share. Wednesday December 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Electoral Count Act have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. I have reverted this edit. I see no support for the assertion in the source cited, and your characterization of such certificates as "counterfeit " is both inaccurate WP:POV.Template:Z186 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Even worse POV edits have been made by you on Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. This is deeply concerning behaviour. I urge you to not make any edits that are likely to be reverted for neutrality purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Letting you know I asked for an admin to take a look at your comment on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

This and this are beyond the pale for discussing living persons. Please turn your rhetoric way, way, way down, or you are likely to end up with a topic ban from modern American politics. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The question was, did she do it and was it appropriate?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not the question. The question is What are reliable sources saying? —valereee (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Arglebargle79. For goodness sake STOP, just STOP :( GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, @GoodDay:, Did the GSA Administrator refuse to sign the asertainment papers for two weeks and delay the cooperation between Biden transition and the administration? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to help you, but to no avail :( GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did she or not? I'm serious. That's the question.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's

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 ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Arglebargle79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79#top|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79#top|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79#top|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Okay, here we go: I did not violate the biographies of living persons policy. True, I was less than civil when it came to the edit on Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. I did not say anything that wasn't verified by reliable media.

Yes, I know that in the past I have been falsely accused of being disruptive. These have to do with previous articles in the series. The first was about where to put the perennial hobbyist Rocky de la Fuented in the Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. The fellow had gotten on the ballots in enough states to make him 'major candidate' and So I put him on the chart separately. A protracted argument followed, and It was eventually decided in my favor. Then there was a kerfuffle about a photograph of President-elect Biden, who hadn't gotten the title yet. The photo was changed from a decent one to one that was downright creepy. The use of the term by others on the subject is in the record somewhere. The person who was defending the use of the photo as "consensus" began stalking me, and they issued numerous unfounded complaints. Taking their side, I was put on limited sanctions. Again, these were unfounded.

So now we come to this. I am accused of violating biographies of living persons. How?

The policy is, and I quote:

 Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

AS to WP:NOR, there wasn't any. I have never done so, except for maybe once. This was at the 2016 Democratic convention when after ASKING PERMISSION, I posted a photograph of a credential I had been given to attend the event. It was later taken down, for copyright reasons, and I didn't complain.

On a number of times, there were false accusations of such because I had posted the facts just prior to posting the reference. Most recently, having to do with a nifty bit of trivia having to do with last Sunday's opening of Congress, It was the first time this has ever happened. It was challenged and I proved it again. No harm no foul.

Then there's Verifiability WP:V, Everything I have put on the main page of all articles have been verified. As to the Emily Murphy thing. I never posted anything unverified in the article. In fact, I never posted anything about her at all on the main page of the article in question. I did not put the "offending" section up, nor did I revert it when it was twice taken down. I'm serious. If there disruptive edits, it wasn't me.

The only thing I said on the matter was:

 "...just got rid of the entire Emily Murphy section, which BTW, was there from the very creation of the article and is a vital part of the narrative."

that's it. There was a later part of the thread when another poster falsely accused me of libeling Ms.Murphy. I replied infelicitously, but then, I was provoked.

Remember, Ms. Murphy is Administrator of the General Services Aministration, a cabinet-level office in the Federal government, making her a Public Figure. The relevant "scripture" on the subject is this:

 ...In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. 

What Ms. Murphy did, was widely reported in all major newspapers, TV networks, and reliable websites in North America and the Rest of the World. I said that that the certain poster knew Ms. Murphy because I could find no reason why she would go to such lengths to defend her. I was simply trying to understand.

I also wish to note that I never mentioned Ms.Murphy's social life, personal life, or anything else about her taking place between November 3 and 30, 2020. They are irrelevant.

The main thing was about Trump himself. The article in question, and most of the other articles related to it, are, as to subject matter, quite insane. (this is NOT WP:POV)

Babykins throws a tantrum: Depicting Trump as a baby here (and not on the main page, obviously) is done because the enablers in high and elected office were treating him as such...

There are countless reports in reliable sources where people say this.

To quote one of the people who got me blocked :

Now you're calling her an actual criminal, (which I did not) and your evidence is a tweet from Trump, a known liar who will throw anyone under the bus if he thinks it'll make him look good. Nope, I don't know the woman and as far as I know have never met anyone who's met her, but thanks for that show of good faith lol. All of us should be concerned that we avoid libeling any living human being. 

Notice that THEY are characterizing the President in the exact same way I did. Should THEY be blocked as well.

I ask humbly, please unblock me. I have much to contribute. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)