This user interacts with Wikipedia using outdated equipment and at sometimes their output may appear strange. Please try to assume good faith, this user only wishes to help build the encyclopedia. If you have any questions or concerns, please see my talk. –xeno (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) ... if Xeno is not around, please contact me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The issue seems to be your edit summaries, which are incomprehensible. Huon (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 2012 ; « A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were lower in agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness than non-Wikipedia users. »
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for your apparent inability to communicate meaningfully with others, and for your otherwise problematic and/or incomprehensible contributions. See the AN discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopiakuta, I recognized your name in the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. I think I remember you have some significant accessibility issues, but I cannot recall the details. I'm not sure if there is anything I can do to help, but if you'd like me to try to help you resolve this, let me know. I am not very active, so it may take a while for me to reply. I will watch this page, you can reply here if you want to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You.
First, I do want to reference my first several edits, about Deon Baptiste & Ian Baptiste, which are currently linked in my signature, then, the pages @ user : persina, then, later, I would like to review what I have most recently been accused of.
A synthesis of humor and solemnity is an excellent way to live one's life. It may not be such a great way to edit Wikipedia, though. For example, my friend User:Proofreader77 was blocked indefinitely for mixing humor and solemnity too much. Wikipedia can be a pretty unwelcoming place for that particular combination.
First things first, though. You know you can be very difficult to understand, right? I think the majority of the people who recommended you be blocked did so more because of that, than because of any other reasons. I don't mean to pry or insult, but how much of this is by choice, and how much is due to your accessibility issues?
I get the impression that at least some of this is due to humor that is going over peoples' heads (including mine). Very few people on Wikipedia enjoy having to think hard in order to puzzle out other people's meaning. I'm practically a saint, and even I find it aggrevating at times.
As for Bling_Crosby, I don't know its history; it's been deleted and I'm not an administrator anymore, so I can't see it either. However, it was evidently created by another user, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that I had gotten the page moved, it remains okay to label two disabledAfrocaribbean men doppelgänger communist vandal sockpuppet. I continue to wish that I could warn them of that. Since that had been the basis of my original registration, I am obsessed by it.
I have written a lot about how hiding her identity could be construed as a further insult. Regarding « Bling Crosby » or any other issue, I do seek, much as she had, to defend agaist libel.
I am not capable of reviewing his, proofread's, overall history; but, I can see by that one example that our histories do diverge dramatically. I am glad to learn of proofread; but, we are different. Also, I cannot figure what his name is; my name is all over my userspace.
« ...by choice, and how much is due to,... »‽ Physical disability, emotional disability & cognitive disability are difficult to detangle. I do perceive the distinction of nature versus nurture as, @ least partially, missing the point. I do perceive the distinction of capitalism versus socialism as, @ least partially, missing the point. Despite my disability, my left arm needs my right arm, as my right arm needs my left arm. My malfunctioning brain needs my heart & lungs, which, in turn, require a brain, even a bad one.
I did not coin this quote: « A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were lower in agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness than non-Wikipedia users. »
Yes, if you cannot change the things you cannot change, and choose not to change the things you can change, then nature vs nurture is missing the point. It really only mattered if you wanted to change the way you edit here to improve your chances of getting unblocked.
I don't really understand what you mean about Deon and Ian Baptiste (except I gather that they are the "disabled Afrocaribbean men"?)
Oh yes, you and Proofreader are definitely unique in your own unique ways. I didn't mean to imply differently.
I am not at all surprised by that 2008 study. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that you had misunderstood that comment entirely:
Deon & Ian had been libeled on this website; that is why I had registered, primarily. It remains policy that this can recur, & that none of you had ever warned them & I do not know how to.
I had never had an account prior to having seen their photograph, & calling it to various persons' attention. As you can see in that early edit, I had not yet learned how to create a discussionpage: so, I simply placed the alert @ the bottom of the policy page &, I, also, had corrected some spelling in that edit.
I feel that there must be more pages like that one & one of you shall, eventually, in all likelihood, get someone assassinated in that fashion, someone who who has never written one character on any wikimedia website, someone who does not deserve it & does not want it.
I had argued against people who had sought to bury the name Sam Geimer.
You had asked « ...by choice, and how much is due to,... »; so, that entire paragraph had been about various metaphoric examples of how each are intertwined. Whatever you had said about that paragraph does not make sense to me.
Whatever you have just said, in the most recent comment before this one, does seem entirely incorrect compared to what I had said.
After some research and detective work, I see now who Deon and Ian Baptiste are; I think you were correct in having that picture removed, but over-estimate the damage that was done.
Also, I don't think the name Samantha Geimer is "buried"; it redirects to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, where she is prominently mentioned. If she also went by "Sam" Geimer, then a redirect at Sam Geimer makes sense; if she didn't go by that name, then a redirect isn't needed.
I thought I understood you re: nature vs. nurture, but I guess not. My point was, I hope you are unblocked, and when you are, I hope you will make as much of an effort as possible to be easier to understand, without losing your sense of humor. Or sense of solemnity. At the very least, please understand that many people, who are not evil or dumb, do have a difficult time understanding everything you're saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute about Ms. Geimer had never been about any redirect; but, it had been regarding people who had, a few years ago, wanted to delete her name entirely, who did not even want it on a discussionpage.
Despite that, I have searched Sam, & most of the results do seem to indicate Polanski.
Regarding Mr. Gallego: I could change it to "the last time that he is mentioned in a document is in 2012", but I think what they are probably trying to say is "the last time he was refered to in a document which implied he was still alive was in 1507."
Regarding the other millions of ridiculous claims on this website: Yes, that's true, part and parcel of being an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Some of the claims are quite hippoposterous. It helps if you keep in mind that it's just a work in progress. Perfection is expected to be achieved sometime before the sun becomes a red giant. If errors really annoy you, stick to reading Featured Articles. Many of them are really quite excellent.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hopiakuta is sometimes misunderstood... he means well.
The Web Accessibility laurel
For your efforts over the years to make Wikipedia more welcoming to all people, I award you the Web Accessibility laurel. Here are some fine examples of your efforts -
I don't have as much time on Wikipedia as I used to, be please let me know if I can be of any assistance. –xenotalk 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting this here as an archive of what you had begun it with, in order that I might figure the meaning of it all:
hopiakuta is sometimes miunderstood... he means well.
The Web Accessibility laurel
For your efforts over the years to make Wikipedia more welcoming to all people, I award you the Accessibility barnstar. Here are fine examples of Hopiakuta's efforts -
I don't have as much time on Wikipedia as I used to, be please let me know if I can be of any assistance. –xenotalk 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not directly related; I am simply adding this for separate various reasons, although national color is common:
I've unblocked your account Hopiakuta (or do you prefer to be called Persina, or DonFphrnqTaub Persina?). There was no consenus to keep the block, and no consensus to overturn it, and I believe where there is no consensus either way, the default should be to unblock. I've added my name to the box that User:Xeno put on top of your page, and will keep an eye on this talk page. However, I will not be watching every edit, so if there is a question or comment directed at me, please edit my talk page: User talk:Floquenbeam.
To be honest, I too am confused about this edit you made: [1], which apparently started the whole mess. We generally do not add a "see also" for non-existent articles, nor articles that sound similar to the article name. The "see also" section is for articles on a related subject, not homophones or partial-homophones.
I'm hopeful that you won't have any similar issues in the future. Please remember that people have a hard time understanding you sometimes, and make allowances for that in your responses to them. They are neither evil nor stupid because they can't clearly understand where you're coming from.
I believe you should be able to edit now. If you cannot (sometimes the software has a glitch), please note that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete quandary, as I assume that if I make any new comment beyond userspace or noticeboard, or revive an old comment, I would, again, lose my account function. &, I assume worse for any alternate account as well.
I am acting as if none of my accounts have any function.
& there is this persistent malware accusation; I have offered a comparison with a message that I have just received, which you can find in my * today * history.
Hello, Hopiakuta. You have new messages at Persina's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DonFphrnqTaub Persina,
First things first. I don't think you should post anymore at the noticeboard. There is unlikely anything you can say there to help your case. People who are already convinced you are a troll will see every post you make that they don't understand as proof they are right. Confirmation bias. Those who believe you are not trolling will see every post you make that they can sort of understand as proof they are right. Confirmation bias again. Since those who think you are trolling evidently feel more strongly about this than those who don't, posting to the noticebaord now can only harm your case.
I should be clear that I hope you remain unblocked, but I don't guarantee it, and I am unsure what I actually expect to happen.
It is unfortunate that there will be several people watching your every post in article space, ready to pounce and say "aha! see? he's incomprehensible". I cannot change that situation. It is quite possible you will end up blocked because of it, and I cannot help that. The best I can suggest is to carefully consider each edit, and do what you think is best for the encyclopedia. If you see an edit you think is within policies and makes the encyclopedia better, make it. If you are right, great. If you are wrong, it will be reverted. If you are wrong repeatedly, then perhaps a block is unavoidable. If someone reverts an edit you made, don't reinstate it. Respond to bad faith with good faith, and let me know if you have an issue with someone that I can help clarify.
Other comments:
The malware accusation can be ignored *as long as* you don't repost the link to your blog on Wikipedia.
There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility; I cannot help make this place more accessible for you, or start a different disability access project for you; for one thing, I still don't understand what your access problems are. For another, I have limite time for Wikipedia.
Xeno appears to have retired from editing here.
I'm going to leave the other accounts blocked for now; there's no need to use them.
I will look at your comments re: Stericycle later.
Good luck and edit carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even prior to my first edit, some six years ago, I had hoped that the wikimedia complaints had been exaggeration; this month has proven them all as meiosis, which I have learned here, only because I have carefully searched for it, & which has a different definition @ wiktionary : meiosis.
Despite whatever is good here, it does not justify its existence.
