User talk:Arglebargle79
|
Hi Arglebargle79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. 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 |
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.
| |
(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)
- 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)
- Did she or not? I'm serious. That's the question.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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 While i'm a bit on the obnoxious side, I did NOT violate any rules. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The below is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please reduce your text by an order of magnitude. Yamla (talk) 14:24, 5 January 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.
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 Fuente 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 Administration, 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? No. In this case, she is right.
the top of the talk page on the article in question encourages WP:Be bold, which as i folloed this policy, is why I believe I am being punished.
I ask humbly, please unblock me. I have much to contribute. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
could find no reason why she would go to such lengths to defend her
- try reading WP:BLP again carefully. It's a cornerstone policy and plenty of us care about it a great deal, yes even for unpopular people. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)- Arglebargle79, as soon as other editors object, WP:Be bold no longer applies. Objections should be met with backtracking and attempts to discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus. Continued bold editing in such cases is disruptive, edit warring, and uncollaborative. Nil Einne, should this understanding be codified better in the guideline? -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79 - WP:BLPSTYLE directs we not “label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision” while WP:BLPTALK clarifies that this directive “also applies to user and user talk pages.” Referring to a BLP as "babykins" repeatedly, or implying another BLP is a criminal, may lack the precision expected when discussing BLPs. I would also note that, though the block was not given for a WP:CIVIL violation, you probably did violate our policy in that regard by making a rather outlandish accusation that
Valjeanvalereee was a relative or friend of one of your targets [1]. You have also displayed a WP:NOTHERE attitude by indicating your editing is done in order to disseminate what you believe to be urgent public safety warnings of various disasters you have predicted will occur in the future based on information you claim has been given to you through social media [2]. While your concern for public well-being is laudatory, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the emergency broadcast system. Finally, you have rejected our WP:NPOV policy as inconsistent with the plot of Fiddler on the Roof [3]. While you are welcome to have this opinion, you may not – in general – unilaterally apply other sources for WP content standards outside of our polices and guidelines. Again, while these were not the reasons for the block they may be points for optional self-reflection. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is very disappointing to see an indefinite ban for a very productive user as a first block. While his language on the talk page was not well thought out at a time of frustration, it's hard to see a serious BLP violation when the subject is the highest public figure who could not win a theoretical defamation lawsuit. I certainly respect these administrators' decisions regarding this language but I hope ArgleBargle79 can return at some point after a time of penance and a cooling of the political atmosphere, perhaps with the topic ban in the following section. Reywas92Talk 09:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone seen user talk:Ket10ny? Yes that user was blocked as a sockpuppet of someone else, but the evidence presented had merit. Also, take a look at the extensive interaction shown here, in particular Arglebargle79's work on articles started by Ericl like Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges and Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials. Seems pretty likely the user is an Ericl sock. Sro23 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sro23, I've interacted with Arglebargle79 a lot, and their behavior is extremely similar to Ericl's. I think a discussion should be started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ericl. This is not the proper venue to discuss the issue further, so I'll leave it at that. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Community TBAN on AP32 imposed
A Community TBAN has been imposed on Arglebargle79, prohibiting editing on all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.
It will continue to apply if any appeal of his indefinite block is accepted, unless a successful appeal is made at AN. An appeal may be made 6 months after the removal of the indefinite block.
In the event that ARBCOM change the definition of AP32, to use a later cut-off year, the original definition will continue to apply (again, subject to any AN-appeal). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC
| January 15, 6pm: Wikimedia NYC celebrates 20 years of Wikipedia | |
|---|---|
 Wikipedia Day is always a big day for Wikimedia NYC. While we cannot meet in person, we still have something special planned. We will begin the event with the debut of a new video celebrating our community. This will be followed by a panel discussion with some of the people you'll see in the video talking about Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, Wikimedia New York City, and the amazing work they do on Wikimedia projects. The event will be broadcast live via YouTube. Feel free to ask questions for the panel through the chat! We will also have some NYC wiki trivia you can participate in, with confectionery prizes.
| |
(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 14:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
testing
February 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| February 17, 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 Black WikiHistory Month in February, plans for WikiWomen's History Month in March, and of course the great work that is being done in these topical areas throughout the year. We will also have a relevant demonstration of the Wikipedia:Did you know process. If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or responding to this message.
| |
(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 01:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thursday Feb 25: ONLINE Black Wiki History Month at the Schomburg Center
| Feb 25, 1:30-5pm: Black Wiki History Month at the Schomburg Center | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the AfroCROWD and Wikimedia NYC communities for the 7th year of this edit-a-thon, this time being held in a virtual format. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page, and register on the form to get the Zoom link. 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!
| |
(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 07:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
| March 6, 12:30pm: Met Women's History Month Virtual Edit Meet-up | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and the Metropolitan Museum of Art for our The Met x Wikipedia Virtual Edit Meet-up: Women's History Month. We will be partially coordinating with Art+Feminism and all of the International Women's Day and Women's History Month campaigns. Watch and join the livestream! The Metropolitan Museum of Art event on Saturday Mar 6 will host a tutorial and question-and-answer session live on YouTube and other social media platforms.
Chat about improving articles! Support will be provided to help guide new editors in this area at Wikimedia Gender Gap Editing Chat for the duration of the campaign.
| |
(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 01:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
| March 13, 12-5pm: Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and Asia Art Archive for our fourth annual (and first virtual) Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon! Organized by Asia Art Archive in America and NaPupila in collaboration with Asia Art Archive in Hong Kong and supported by Wikimedia NYC, this event brings together participants to discuss, create, share, and improve Wikipedia articles about women and non-binary artists. We will be partially coordinating with Art+Feminism and all of the International Women's Day and Women's History Month campaigns. Register and join the virtual event!
P.S. Next WikiWednesday You are also invited to join our March 17 WikiWednesday next week with a Saint Patrick's Day guest speaker from Wikimedia Community Ireland. | |
(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 00:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
| March 17, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Wikimedia Community Ireland for St Patrick's Day | |
|---|---|
 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! As this WikiWednesday coincides with Saint Patrick's Day, we will have a guest speaker from Wikimedia Community Ireland, about Irish-language Wikipedia, the efforts of the community in Ireland, and personal work on historical biographies with a special Irish-New York connection. This month will also include a discussion of Black WikiHistory Month in February and WikiWomen's History Month and Art+Feminism in March, and of course the great work that is being done in these topical areas throughout the year. If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.
| |
(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 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
testing
one two three
| April 21, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Environmental focus | |
|---|---|
 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! As this WikiWednesday is just the day before Earth Day, we will have an environmental focus. If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page.
| |
(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 00:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)