User talk:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.
Welcome
|
Talk page guidelines
Hello again. When I left the welcome note for you, I added your page to my watchlist. I noticed that you edited Bakir123's comments, and removed one of your own after there was a reply to it. Please don't do that: it violates the talk page guidelines. If people change their own comments after other editors have replied to them, it can completely change the meaning of the other editor's comments. For example:
Editor1: I decided I'm going to spend all of tomorrow cleaning up articles in that area.
Editor2: I do that every Saturday.
Editor1: You seem to know a lot about that part of the country. What's the beach like?
Editor2: My mum's parents live there, and we spend a month with them every summer. It's mostly rocks, and a bunch of albatrosses.
But then Editor1 changes their remarks, and now Editor2 looks quite mad:
Editor1: In Antarctica, they use penguins for money.
Editor2: I do that every Saturday.
Editor1: So you've been to Mars? What's the food like?
Editor2: My mum's parents live there, and we spend a month with them every summer. It's mostly rocks, and a bunch of albatrosses.
I know you're still quite new here. I remember how many things there were to learn when I started editing here (and I'm still learning). That's why I'm leaving you this note. The best thing would be for you to undo the changes. Things will be back to the way they were, no harm done. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here. I'll keep this page on my watch list for a bit. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
Hello, I'm 1234qwer1234qwer4. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:GorillaWarfare that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:GorillaWarfare, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your posts on that page are completely out of order - comparing someone to a member of the KKK is a completely unacceptable personal attack.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: IM SO DONE WITH THIS. Why don't you actually read instead of just seeing the word 'KKK' and giving me a warning? Read the actual conversation for once. I don't stand for this absolute bias and misandry. Quit it. I didn't compare her to a KKK member, I JUST GAVE AN EXAMPLE! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH THIS! Also, the relations between a KKK member and a BLM protester is the same as a men's right advocate and a feminist. Just read her MGTOW article and see how biased and one-sided it is. Shouldn't feminists not be writing men's rights articles? JUST READ IT! You'll see what I mean... She even turned on edit lock. This is ridiculous. This isn't feminism vs masculism fight. So I've had quite enough of this. LOOK AT HER TALK PAGE AND PROFILE! SHE'S A PART OF ALL FEMINISM MOVEMENTS, SHE'S A WOMAN AND A QUEER! And here she is calling the MGTOW movement "misogynistic" IN A REAL ARTICLE AND TURNED ON EDIT LOCK! YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? Mohammad (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry for sounding harsh.. I just don't like the way the MGTOW article was expressed. What really annoyed me was the editing lock was on so nobody except the original creator could edit. I'm sorry for being angry and expressing it in a harsh and rude way... I don't even edit these types of articles.. If you look at my contributions I'm really helpful to articles such as 2021-22 UEFA Europa Conference League, 2021-22 UEFA Europa League, and 2021-22 UEFA Champions League. I'm a good editor and I constantly edit football articles. I love doing this and losing this account is the last thing I want to happen. Please forgive me and I'll stop doing things such as this. Mohammad (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
see comments below Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Posting this unblock a mere 10 minutes after making this edit does not fill me with confidence that your remorse is genuine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Well only now have I realized how aggressive it was and I'd like to apologize for anyone who got offended with my comments. This is really the first time I got into a severe argument like this as you can see by my contributions. I swear I have never done anything like this before which is why I'm even shocked I had the thought to even think about typing that. Really I'm just here to edit football articles, please forgive me. I literally added over 110 tabs of domestic leagues and cups in Europe to keep track of so I can be the first to edit when something new happens. Please, I love Wikipedia, and I'm awfully sorry for every person I offended. Thanks for your time Mohammad (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam This was in reply to a final warning. I'm not sure what is supposed to not have been clear. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(keep getting edit conflicts, sorry if this doesn't address all comments) So, a couple of notes:
- It's not a matter of sounding harsh. It's a matter of repeated unfounded accusations and insults.
- GorillaWarfare did not edit protect the page. That was another admin, El C. I wonder why you would just assume GW did it when it is so easy to check? If you are referring to the protections from last July, the logs clearly show that GW just restored the protection level El C originally specified.
- There are a lot of editors of that article, including since the protection was applied. It is not protected so only GW can edit, it's protected from drive-by disruptive editors. The recent upgrade to extended confirmed protection was done, again, by El C. Again, these are easily checked. Why do you assume the worst without even checking?
- You are not going last very long here if you compare being a feminist with being a member of the KKK. I know you claim you didn't say that.... except you did. Re-read what you wrote.
- You are going to have to be able to edit collaboratively with women, non-straight people of all stripes, and feminists. Without name-calling, without all caps freaking out. This is not a misogynist-safe space.
- Being anti-misogyny is not the same as being misandrist.
- I assume you're getting most of your information about what is going on here from an off-wiki site. Is that a reasonable assumption?
If that is clear, and you're assuring me you're not going to continue to attack another editor for the crime of being a woman who dares to disagree with you, I'll unblock so you can go back to football articles. But let me be clear - this will not be tolerated. Deal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: That is absolutely clear. Thank you so much... Mohammad (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK, based on this assurance, I've unblocked. You are absolutely not required to answer this, but if you're willing to answer, I am genuinely curious why several editors have recently being making similar accusations, all based on the same easily-disprovable errors in fact. Was I correct above that you got your information from an off-wiki site? That's the only explanation I can think of. Again, don't answer if you don't want to, and I'm not asking what site. But it's kind of like 5 neo-Nazis all accusing a Muslim editor of doing something they obviously didn't do; you have to wonder if they were coordinating on Parler or something. (See what I did there? I obviously know you're not a neo-Nazi, I didn't say you were a neo-Nazi, but the comparison was a little insulting, wasn't it? even though you probably knew exactly what I was doing?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Thanks for reaching out! No we aren't running on anything it's just I guess we all think that the article was expressed badly and seemed a little one-sided. And also the reason of the attack wasn't because she was a feminist, but because the article about men's rights was supporting feminism. I guess we all agree with that. And no, your comparison wasn't insulting at all and I'm even a Muslim (if you don't believe me look at my user page, I don't know how else I can prove to you...) because you were just giving a comparison so I could have a better understanding of what you mean. And no I am definitely not getting any off-wiki sources nor am I in a cult. Thanks for asking though! Mohammad (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No we aren't running on anything it's just I guess we all think ... I guess we all agree with that.
When you say 'we', to whom are you referring, exactly? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @BlackcurrantTea: The comments made by Floquenbeam (as seen above) mentions "I am genuinely curious why several editors have recently being making similar accusations... you have to wonder if they were coordinating on Parler or something." Mohammad (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. It was a slightly unusual word choice. On the off chance someone on another website did suggest that you post that to the MGTOW talk page: They're not doing you any favours. You're better off ignoring them if you want the chance to keep editing articles on football here.
It's never a good idea to say the kinds of things you said about GorillaWarfare. All sorts of people work on all sorts of articles here. And behind every username, there's a real person. Please remember that. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. It was a slightly unusual word choice. On the off chance someone on another website did suggest that you post that to the MGTOW talk page: They're not doing you any favours. You're better off ignoring them if you want the chance to keep editing articles on football here.
- @BlackcurrantTea: The comments made by Floquenbeam (as seen above) mentions "I am genuinely curious why several editors have recently being making similar accusations... you have to wonder if they were coordinating on Parler or something." Mohammad (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @BlackcurrantTea: I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't attacking her because she was a feminist. I'm not excusing myself, I'm just letting you know Mohammad (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
2020 Baltic Cup
2020 Baltic Cup had a clear consensus to redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Baltic Cup. If you disagree, please use WP:Deletion review to contest this. Also, your restoration provided 0 sources that the cup is not cancelled, restored a blatantly incorrect fixture list with dates in 2020, and provided no sources that it will be called the 2020 Baltic Cup- given that it's now 2021, it would be expected to be called 2021 Baltic Cup and so should be created there if there are sources so that it passes WP:GNG. Please stop reverting without discussion against the AFD consensus with zero evidence that the 2020 Baltic Cup is uncancelled and will use that name, as it's disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Hi Joseph. Thank you for reaching out. The 2020 Baltic Cup actually starts in June 2021. Just look up "2020 Baltic Cup" on Google and it will give you the date thing saying "2020 Baltic Cup will begin on Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and ends on Thursday, June 10". Also according to this source it shows the fixtures, dates, and times for the 2020 Baltic Cup. Thanks!
- PS- Oh and even when you look up "2021 Baltic Cup" on Google it still says "2020 Baltic Cup will begin on Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and ends on Thursday, June 10" Mohammad (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed
You have been sanctioned for continuing to assume bad faith and the harangue other users, after a recent block for similar behaviour.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GirthSummit (blether) 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- You need to recalibrate your understanding of what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. Start by reading WP:NPA - I really mean that, read it from beginning to end. Implying that someone is editing out of bad faith, or with ulterior motives, is a personal attack unless you provide specific evidence and do it at the proper venue. If this was the first time something like this had happened, I might only have issued a warning; given the previous comments you made about the person in question prior to your block, I see this topic ban as the minimum necessary sanction to prevent you from disrupting work in the topic area. GirthSummit (blether) 13:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Thank you. I needed that. I really need to get rid of all my distractions to continue my editing. I agree with your idea. But the guy under me (@El C:) is blocking me from ALL articles. Can you please tell him that this is enough? The only issues I have ever made were gender-related. If I'm blocked from that, perfect! Thank you for your help and please tell the guy that this and not an indefinite block is a necessary punishment. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 14:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged a while ago, before all the crazy page moves: Just want to say that, since SHTDCaA lied to me earlier in order to be unblocked, and I stupidly fell for it, I do not care whether they are ever unblocked, and do not need/want to be pinged anymore regarding this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@El C:
Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wait what? I thought I was blocked from gender related articles? What happened to that? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This block is for personal attacks/harassment. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2021 (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.
.
Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The only reason this happened was because of the article. Just cut off my access on these articles and you'll see that I can't get involved with anything. This is the only article I've done something wrong. If you block my access it will allow me to continue to contribute normally and will stop me from getting involved in that article which is causing everything. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The only reason this happened was because of the article
--no, the only reason this happened was because of you. If you have so little self-control that you're asking to be physically prevented from editing in a particular area to keep yourself from being disruptive there, then there is no reason to think that you won't be disruptive elsewhere. Or, to put it another way, that's exactly what we did: cut off your access to those articles (and all others). (Also, there's an ongoing ANI discussion about this situation that should probably be allowed to finish before any unblock would happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 11 April 2021 (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.
@Writ Keeper: That is partly true. But I've only caused an issue with this on that article because that's the only article I don't like. Scroll up to my talk page and see the "block from gender-related articles". I think that's a perfect idea. I won't get involved in any controversial gender articles, meaning there will be nothing to get angry for, and I can still edit articles such as sport-related ones. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's what you said the last time you were indef-blocked, and yet here we are again. I think Floquenbeam was pretty clear about how you needed to change your behavior then, and you didn't. Why is this time any different? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper: But I wasn't banned from it. My stupidity and not thinking twice got myself into more trouble. I am an idiot which is why I need to be banned from gender-related articles in order to get out of it. I wasn't banned before. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- A topic ban isn't a technical measure--it can't physically prevent you from editing a page. (There is such a thing as partial blocks that can selectively block you from editing a particular article, but that only works on a per-page basis; it's not effective at enforcing a broad topic ban like this.) Ultimately, it would still be up to you to abide by your ban, and if this is what you do when you're not thinking, then I just don't have faith that you wouldn't just disregard your topic ban when you're not thinking as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper: Can I make a promise? If I even look at the MGTOW article ever again just ban me. I am trying to learn how to control myself and from now on, I look before I type aswell. When I look back at this I see it was very stupid of me to do. I'm not even interested n the article and I'm staying away from it. I actually am going to block it from my computer. I'm trying to change for the good now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- A topic ban isn't a technical measure--it can't physically prevent you from editing a page. (There is such a thing as partial blocks that can selectively block you from editing a particular article, but that only works on a per-page basis; it's not effective at enforcing a broad topic ban like this.) Ultimately, it would still be up to you to abide by your ban, and if this is what you do when you're not thinking, then I just don't have faith that you wouldn't just disregard your topic ban when you're not thinking as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper: But I wasn't banned from it. My stupidity and not thinking twice got myself into more trouble. I am an idiot which is why I need to be banned from gender-related articles in order to get out of it. I wasn't banned before. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See chat with Writ Keeper right above this Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That discussion doesn't indicate any confidence on the part of Writ Keeper in your ability to control your behavior. You've already had a second chance, much to the first blocking administrator's regret. I see no reason to give you a third chance. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2021 (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.
@Acroterion: I have successfully blocked the article. Now there is no way I can interact with it. Just give me a third chance. I'm learning how to cool myself. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- First, there's not technical means for a user to do so, and second, you were blocked for personal attacks and harassment, which are not the fault of any article on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Acroterion: brother, I know that. But what I'm saying is that since I've blocked it there is no reason to attack someone and I am not angry anymore. Let's make an agreement. You can choose. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)