User talk:Bus stop

Please don't mess up my recently archived Talk page by posting anything that fails to meet my standards, which will be explained at a later time.

Your contributions

Bus stop, you and I have never really interacted but we've contributed to some of the same articles and talk page discussions. I just wanted to let you know that I hope you will not allow certain editors to bring you down, especially those who launch rude and unprovoked personal insults at you. I may not always agree with your positions, but you have shown yourself to be a very well-intentioned and friendly editor who cares a lot about improving articles. When someone disagrees with you, you show a great interest in understanding their arguments, effectively communicating with good, relevant questions in a very patient manner. Also, you have an excellent ability to remain civil in the face of incivility. I think you're a valuable contributor to this project, and I therefore hope you will always keep that in mind whenever you're dealing with strong opposition. You obviously care a lot about improving articles and the integrity of this project. We need more editors like you. So stay strong. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the encouragement. I was thinking of posting on your Talk page. I wanted to encourage you to create an WP:ACCOUNT. I can understand not wanting to lose edit history. But maybe you could incorporate a few of the present characters into a user name and announce (repeatedly?) your previous identity? The string of characters is an eyesore. But the choice is yours. Thanks again for the compliments. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I appreciate your input about creating an account. For now, you can just call me Eyesore and I'll know who you're talking to. :) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to figure out that I'm one of the "certain editors", and I think I'll respond to the criticism.
I'll cop to being very direct and pointed on the rare occasion when I feel the need to offer criticism, and I understand that's annoying to some. I work on it constantly and I'm proud of—and surprised at—the progress I've made on it during my Wikipedia tenure. One of the reasons I stick around, when there are good reasons to quit, is that Wikipedia is a great place to work on improving things like patience. To the extent I'm not yet the person I'd like to be, I apologize. But I do not launch rude and unprovoked personal insults at anybody, by Wikipedia standards. Anybody who feels that I do is entitled to their opinion (and it's telling that they choose not to test their viewpoint at WP:ANI—rude and unprovoked personal insults would be a clear and sanctionable violation of WP:NPA).
One thing I'm still learning is how to stop responding to endless debate that won't affect the outcome. I just keep getting sucked back in. I'm trying again.
Bus stop, I know your heart is in the right place and your only interest is in improving the encyclopedia according to your views about what would be improvement. I have never doubted that for a second. I hope you know that about me. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred

I think I was being fair enough. He is putting "himself" up for election, on a ticket of ridding the project of those he sees as bothersome. Note also that he is living in the distant past, and I think he means Giano, Eric (both effectively long gone) and now me :) Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My motivation for weighing in here is to restore normalcy. I don't have a dog in this fight. Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Dont understand that thinking but ok. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about the origins of the animosity that erupted at the bottom of this page. Nor am I that inclined to get up to speed on the matter. I know what WP:CIVIL is and I know that its exact meaning can be debated. It occurred to me to ask the candidate if they perceived any areas that are technically violations of WP:CIVIL but which can be considered acceptable. The three questions I formulated are designed to accomplish that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are innocently walking into this and taking everybody at face value, and to hell with the past, I'm judging on the here and now only. It didnt start "at the bottom of the page", read the rest of the page, but if you dont get it then that's your luxury. I dont really give a shit what you think, but you voiced against me at AN/I, and here is my perspective. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil—one either uses a forum in a valid way or not. You called someone "a caste conscious warrior", you told them that they "come across as a surly, dismissive and cranky, monosyllabic CIV warrior" and you asked them "[w]hy the hell should we elect you again"? Is that a legitimate use of a candidate screening process? Finally, the thread at AN/I was initiated by you. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for jumping in, Bus, but I just wanted to say something.) Ceoil, if you "dont really give a shit" what Bus thinks, then why did you come here and start this thread? And then respond to Bus twice? It sounds like what you're really saying is that you only give a shit about someone's opinion if they take your side. Just saying. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it was an obtuse way of expressing that i only give a shit if the person giving the opinion is somebody I respect, as in this case. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"[W]hy did you come here and start this thread?" I think their purpose is to lodge a complaint. Do I feel bad? Yes. It is an unfortunate encounter. I have enjoyed seeing Ceoil around, occasionally interacting, and they always have amazingly good images on their Talk and User pages. But I would have felt creepy about myself if I turned a blind eye to the ongoing skirmish at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions and then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I regret the whole thing but I think it was unavoidable. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Point taken Bus stop. I would'nt have posted here but I have respected you for years. Given your reply above, then now I understand. There is a lot of history behind what happened, but none of it to do with you. Would be pleased if you were to let this be a bygone and accept my apology for posting here after the fact. I was upset, but misdirected. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not a problem, Ceoil, and thank you for that expressed sentiment. Wikipedia can be a particle collider in which human beings are the particles. Collaborative editing is just a euphemism. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, art history seems to be an area that is one of the few exceptions, well except for modern periods were image use becomes a problem, sigh. I get a kick (and learn a lot) from the fact that we have some very knowledgeable and rational subject experts knocking about, incl yourself. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know nothing. But that doesn't stop me from pontificating. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that you know quite a bit, but will respect your modesty and not tell anybody. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts are very admirable. Just a random thought: editing Wikipedia has to be one of the worst hobbies anyone can have if their health is negatively affected by stress. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I sleep like a baby. Nothing upsets me. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that's why you're a very good editor. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You "have" to be to keep sane in this place. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More input needed

Yesterday (Saturday), I asked the editor who started the consensus discussion on the Thousand Oaks shooting talk page if they would please publicize it since the "vote" is about 50/50. They did not reply to me. Today (Sunday), the editor posted this "Progress" comment in the discussion, but I don't see any mention of the discussion being publicized anywhere. I'll be gone until late tonight or tomorrow, but I wanted to let you know about it. It's a very important discussion, so I think inviting comments would be a good idea so we can try to get consensus one way or the other. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thousand Oaks

Re: [1]

Ok, I'm not going to participate in adding more clutter on that page, but I can't ignore comments like this. So let's do it here instead.

Are there any reasons that we should omit the victims' names and ages? Facepalm! Yes there are, and that's what we have been putting on that page for a couple of days now. You don't accept our reasons. You are not convinced. We get it. We are not convinced by your reasons, either. That's not at all unusual in Wikipedia discussions, in fact it's routine. You still don't get WP:SATISFY.

There is rarely one "correct" answer on a Wikipedia content issue. Almost always, there are only differing viewpoints. Editors state their viewpoints, and their viewpoints prevail or they don't. The world is not black-and-white but rather continuous shades of gray. So is Wikipedia editing.

I know you're not trolling us, but your comments there are becoming indistinguishable from trolling. I am honestly flabbergasted that a editor with your intelligence and experience is unable to grasp this simple concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You are linking to this but you are not linking to this. I removed the edit. I reverted myself. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Now perhaps we can agree to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision

Look, that whole page has gone way of the rails. Dennis and I, and some others, have agreed to stop posting, to allow the page to calm down and consensus to form. I read your last post to me, but there is nothing new there. You are sticking to you opinion, and asking me to clarify and/verify mine. Read through all my comments, along with all the other opposer's comments, the answers you seek should be there. You can support this in the end as that is your right. But where does it end? Do we list every single person killed in 9/11? Or at Pearl Harbor? What about all ≈58,000+ US military killed in Vietnam? How many is ok and how many is to many? I'll leave you with those thoughts. But for now at least, I'm done posting there. - wolf 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bus stop. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bus stop. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah—I see you've taken care of it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But I still have a question about canvassing. Does it apply to that page? Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I do not know but I think editors commonly communicate with other editors. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note

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 recently shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Template:Z33 wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A trout, for that fishing expedition

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is for the I'm-not-listening act at this thread (in response to Eli355's !vote), in which you badgered a respondent while accusing them of badgering, refused to drop the stick after multiple editors asked you to, and were offering an interpretation for which you had no evidence and which turned out to be completely wrong. Mandruss was being entirely reasonable in asking Eli355 if that editor's meaning was "All modern-day mass killing articles should list the names of all of the dead". You denied this interpretation was plausible, but this is exactly what Eli355 says they meant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Re this, I'm not going to add to the problem you create with repetitive over-commenting in discussions, cluttering them to the point that new arrivals don't take the time to read any existing discussion. This is another example. Stop repeatedly demanding that others make a case that convinces you. That is not how it works, and it's exceedingly annoying that you still don't get it. You are not required to be convinced. If you continue with that in that discussion or others, at some point it will be worth somebody's time to take you to ANI on a disruptive editing complaint. That of course would be an early step on the path to a community ban. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, Mandruss. In my opinion I personalized the discussion. I will strike through my comments to you as they were a little strident and a bit over the top. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a shortcut about this, as I recall: WP:SATISFY.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know. I've linked that for Bus stop at least three times in the past several months, in various venues. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best and continued success for 2019 and keep on going. Yes I don't know how to do basic white on black, sorry! Ceoil (talk)

Season's Greetings, Ceoil—Thank you! Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Strikethrough

Just FYI, the HTML element for that is <s>...</s>. The <strike>...</strike> one hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bus stop! You created a thread called Editing dispute, possible next steps at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Patton

Thank you for the wonderful song that I had never heard before. Something in return [2]. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil! Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Palace - Come In. (ps yes love Janice, the Palace song always reminds me of the stones "cant always get what you want") Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Puzzledvegetable (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point. I completely agree with you when it comes to your opinions about the IDF. I've been to Israel, I have relatives that either live there or have been studying there for a considerable time, and I wholeheartedly support Israel. It is the only democratic country in a region characterized by dictatorial governments, and that is not lost on me. However, this article is biased towards the IDF. It contains a lot of subjective terms that make the IDF seem perfect. I fear that if the article is like this, people will be inclined not to treat the information as seriously as they otherwise might. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it needs to be impartial in order to present its information in a meaningful way. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC) + edit

Do you think it is the most productive thing to add a Peacock notice? If you feel the article "contains a lot of subjective terms that make the IDF seem perfect"—why not just work on those specific problems? No one knows which specific areas you have in mind because the Peacock notice is nonspecific. I think you should consider removing that notice after a limited period of time. I haven't worked on this article to any real extent so I may be unaware of its problems. But I just thought I'd mention that the notice on the top of the article seems to me to be counterproductive. (Just my opinion.) But maybe short-term it announces intention to address a certain sort of problem. There is always room for improvement. (My motto.) Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think any of these notices are productive, because I've never seen any of them do anything, but I also see no harm in having it there. I will try to replace subjective words, but if it gets me the attention that my last attempt did, I just might not have the patience. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why it's called collaborative editing. Didn't you notice the collaboration? Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My response to your last question on Stefan Molynuex's BLP discussion

Hello Bus stop,

I wrote this out and it took me forever. The point seems moot, but I'd figure I post anyway since you apologized. You asked why I didn't add the sources to the Stefan Molyneux article page, here is my response and an analysis with the hopes of preventing confusion in the future:

Bus stop I didn't added those sources to the main article because:

1. I didn't provide the sources, that was MPants at work

2. because I hadn't read those sources yet

3. because I was trying to read everything in the White genocide conspiracy theory section of Stefan Molyneux's talk page and this BLP page before commenting (Due diligence).

Generally speaking it seemed like you had your mind made up before discussing with other editors. You immediately repeated what Jwray said as if it was an obvious fact--both of you stating that "RNZ is the TMZ of New Zealand" which isn't just saying it's politically biased (like if you compared it to Air America), it's WP:Battleground behavior. Any knowledge of RNZ or even a passing glance at it's Wikipedia shows it's more like National Public Radio for NZ. Characterizing a public radio station as at all like TMZ, even if it's not in bad faith, is negligent and breaking WP:CIVIL.

So things got off to a bad start, but then it seemed like you were either not seeing people replying to you like here or were saying things like:

"The article is presently using the direct quote. (In the past it had been using a paraphrase.) But that only makes the matter worse. We are inserting an internal link into a quote. I think this is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not acceptable. I don't think the nature of the White genocide conspiracy theory article lends it to insertion within a quote. Such an internal link would be better placed in the See also section."

Like you just restated the same opinion you've already said before and still without a source. This is frustrating, especially for a newbie like me. This response took me forever, mostly because I was learning how to do things and making sure I understood everything around the discussion. So when you said:

"we would not be at liberty to tar and feather the subject of a biography even if it were not a BLP. I am ignorant of the policy, but I'm sure there is one, that compels us to paraphrase instead of quote a source..."

Better decisions could be to just go find the policy, ask another editor, or better yet try creating a new or more specific policy. Wikipedia is not a forum so pontificating on policy that may or may not exist is not why we are here. Researching policies and taking initiative to find other sources (instead of complaining about just one). It saves us all time, keeps Wikipedia consistent, you'll learn things (and be able to teach them), and then it won't be he said, she said or "I think..."

TL;DR Spend more time crafting your own response that is well sourced and is up to date with the current discussion. I did not feel that I could give a good response until it was clear that you had missed something that I didn't. Let me know what you think! Or not, totally up to you.

Cheers,

Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard tussle

Just wanted to thank you for sticking up for me the other day. I was reminded when I did something similar and I was hoping the other editor would defend himself against the erroneous charges. But I've found it's a lot easier to stand up for someone else than it is to stand up for yourself in here. And I'm sure you've noticed, it's not very productive when it involves MPants. I think his assertions and my edits speak for themselves so I don't feel the need to entertain his attacks, but I didn't want you to feel like I left you out to dry. I'd like to echo what Eye Sore said. We need more editors like you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Everybody's got a saving grace. Eyesores are a beautiful thing. It just depends on how you see them. Thank you for your kind words. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Regarding your latest edits at Jewish religious clothing. Don't you think an experienced editor like you should refrain from edit warring. In general, I mean. It becomes bothersome, no? Especially in this case, where there are two editors who disagree with you. And the discussion s ongoing. Please also take WP:BRD to heart. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Flore (artist)

Please leave out little back and forth at Flore (artist) collapsed. there's no need to conceptualize wiki space as a battleground. I'm planning on avoiding any interaction with you in future, and suggest you do the same. We obviously disagree often enough on trivial things for it it to be a hindrance to the editing process.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing. Legobot (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Should not be altered after they have been replied to (as you did here [[3]]).Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven—that was more along the lines of an edit conflict. I apologize. Why not just remove or alter your edit so that the sequence of comments make sense? Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not even bother to read the post you were replying to, why therefore should I see any value in continuation of that discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"You did not even bother to read the post you were replying to". I thought I read it. I made a mistake. I misread it. I apologize. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy violation

As stated in my edit summary, your revert is in violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is regardless of how many editors immediately present are unaware of the policy or choose to ignore it. Please self-revert and, if you like, seek consensus for inclusion on the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A different editor has started the talk page discussion, so all that remains is to remove the disputed content pending a consensus to include it. Since you're an ethical person I trust you'll do that in the spirit of fair play, just as I would respect a consensus to include a list despite disagreeing with it. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

good faith editors

Also read others responses, maybe if you had done that here [[4]] you might have realized that in fact I has said exactly what you were asking for clarification as (as I do in fact literally say what you think I might not have realized I was saying).Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.  Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Hi, Bus stop. I believe your previous DS alert for American politics has expired. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Disruption continues at Aurora, Illinois shooting

You have three experienced editors asking you drop the stick, and no experienced editors who feel this warrants further discussion. That means you drop the stick or face a disruptive editing complaint. You exhausted my patience in this topic area some time ago and I would strongly support a topic ban in such a complaint. Consider yourself warned. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Beach shooting‎

Just a reminder-- y'all might want to discuss more and revert less.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not averse to discussion, Dlohcierekim. Is the proximal reason for this heads up this edit? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I got an identical "warning" from that admin. Since my revert in that exchange was the completely routine R in WP:BRD, it's more likely they were referring to earlier stuff that is old news at this point. Either that or they don't understand BRD, which seems unlikely. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—we are not insensitive to the emotional dimensions of the topic of this article. In this edit your concern seems to be with using "fewer words". This is a matter of judgement but in my opinion, when referring to the enormity of the crime of murder, the loquaciousness of "Prior to the shooting" is appropriate. But this is a matter of opinion and judgement. Perhaps you're right. I am just endorsing the previous version by reverting. I hope there is no harm done. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse content with process. No, there is no real harm done, it's not a big content issue, but I hope you will bear in mind that reverts and editsums are not substitutes for article talk page (not user talk page) discussion, nor an expedient way of !voting. BRD is a thing, but BRR is not—even when you are not the B editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I support keeping the lists, because its journalistic record. Notice how opposition persons characterize the keep side as an "emotional" matter. Clearly emotional arguments are beside the point, its a journalistic argument to keep. -ApexUnderground (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air Force Amy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Air Force Amy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI on RFC tactics

I was summoned by bot to the Virginia Beach shooting RFC. Going into the RFC, my initial leaning was towards including the names -- sure, why not? But after reading thru the RFC, I changed my mind, primarily because of your arguments for inclusion. The arguments' weakness, especially of the "everyone else does it" type, made me wonder if there was any good argument in favor of inclusion. Seeing the same arguments repeated and pushed with strong insistence yet weak evidence undermined any remaining support I had for inclusion. Thus, your arguments had the opposite of your intended effect (unless you are actually against inclusion and are very devious, but I AGF).

As I stated in the RFC, I don't want the debate tactics, or lack thereof, to be the deciding factor in any RFC. To that end, I felt obliged to inform you of your tactics effect on me in this RFC.

If you don't find this helpful, I understand. I just had to satisfy what seemed to me my duty to WP to inform you of this. I've been guilty of the same tactics myself, and have made it a point to change -- still a work in progress. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A D Monroe III—at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#RfC: Should the page include the victims' names? I'm asking why an on-topic and reliably-sourced area of information should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also FYI, Jim Michael hasn't read a single story you presented him during your long and arduous conversation. Nor anything about the victims. His assertions of fact are entirely based on hunches. I suggested he come clean to you himself, but he seemed remorseless, if not proud. Everyone else's fault for assuming he studied the subject he seemed so convinced about, or something. I wouldn't waste any more time getting bullshitted, I were you. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're here, I wanted to mention to you that I found an article on the subject you've referenced—the Five Ws. It is that old standby, the who-what-where-when-why thingy. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Spirit of Eagle included that link in his vote, and I already knew I wasn't making it up. But thanks, anyway. It's a good thingy to brush up on. You ever look in here? Or there? What about now? I haven't...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

"It's a good thingy to brush up on." The question is—what sort of Brush. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that technically a statement? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

I gave considerable thought to whether to question mark the end of the sentence or period the end of the sentence. I finally felt there was a greater degree of appropriateness in the non-question mark formulation. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is perhaps no greater feeling on Earth (given the circumstances, I mean). Well played! Certainly trumps the sadness I felt upon visiting my Wikilinks. Just ambiguity all the way down...not recommended. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casualty lists essay

I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Casualty lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I would like your input on if possible, or at the least, for you to watchlist it and help me maintain it. I believe we can provide a good rationale there for including names in the victim section of appropriate articles, and perhaps this can be a jumping off point for starting a project-wide conversation on the issue. If you can make any improvements, or have suggestions, don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have certainly watch-listed it, Locke Cole, and believe it or not I have scratched out a couple of sentences under contemplation for inclusion in such an essay. The thing is the issue is so basic, by which I mean that basic information belongs in an article. It's hard to write an article on brick houses while omitting the word "brick". I mean, you can do it. The articles exist without the names of the victims. But they are conspicuously absent. I think any reader would say "why are the names missing?" I obviously don't buy the argument that they don't "enhance the reader's understanding of the event". There is no one "understanding" of the event. An "understanding" emerges from the compilation of the basic facts. And one can easily look to articles containing victim names and see that feature as entirely constructive to the quality of the article. It looks like I'm writing an essay here. Anyway, thanks for contacting me and obviously I'll keep in mind the document you've initiated. Bus stop (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My hatting

Please respect my hatting of your comment. I'm sorry that you feel like your argument isn't being treated fairly, but consensus is very clearly against it, something established quite strongly now: this means it is beyond time to drop the WP:STICK. This is not the first time you've been asked to do this (#Disruption continues at Aurora, Illinois shooting), and the same thing applies here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I will take this to AN/I if you again revert my hatting of your comment, which is beginning to stray into disruptive territory since it is now interfering with constructive discussion about "warehouse" (hence the hat instead of just a reply). Why can't you just make some comments about that issue instead of futilely arguing against consensus?--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng—no one needs you imposing their will on them...I certainly don't. You are not assisting me by repeatedly collapsing my input to a discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you abused rollback, I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bus_stop_at_Talk:Oakland_Ghost_Ship_fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on at Talk:Stanley Kubrick

Hi, I noticed your past participation in a 2017 Rfc regarding adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick's article. I just wanted to notify you that there is an Rfc currently underway there. I thought you may be interested. This is likely to be the multi-year moratorium on the topic once this survey ends. Thanks! HAL333 01:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting

Surprised you rolledback your edits as a minor edit. That's not a minor edit from my understanding of them. Accident? Gwenhope (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - The "minor" flag just prevents edits from cluttering watchlists with things of little importance. I don't think editors need to be made aware of a simple retraction-before-reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, Mandy-kun. I guess I, as an editor, would prefer to be notified about a -830 reversion edit, but you do you. I was just basing off WP:ME - "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances." Gwenhope (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just an accident. You make a valid point, Gwenhope. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—page stalking is great, but butting in is not. Gwenhope was not speaking to you. You are of course welcome to post here courteously. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Bus stop. I think your best chances of not being sanctioned is for you not to post in that thread at all anymore (or as little as possible). Incessant posting will merely prove the point of the proposed sanction. My unsolicited 2 cents of advice. I won't be changing my oppose, but I do understand where the supports are coming from. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sluzzelin, both for the "oppose" vote as well as this post of advice. Bus stop (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the thread with a 3-month ban from administrative noticeboards, with some specific exceptions. See [5] for details. 3 months is short in the long run, and I'm sure both you and the noticeboards will endure it just fine. As some of the people there implied, this isn't about the quality of the positions you take on noticeboards, it's about the WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT behavior. I haven't reviewed your interactions anywhere else on the 'pedia, but from what some were saying in the thread you might want to take this as a warning shot and take some time to examine the way you interact on article talk pages as well. ~Awilley (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, regarding this comment, and just to be clear, I think you can be a good contributor to Wikipedia, and I certainly don't want to impose even one block, much less subsequent escalating ones. I don't think anyone else does either; that's not at all the goal. I think people just want the WP:BLUDGEON behavior to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/I is off my watch-list. And I commit to no more bludgeoning. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, on the Bludgeoning, I totally get how hard it can be to make a valid point, have someone misunderstand/misrepresent/ignore that point, repeat the point again, have it ignored again, and then force yourself to back down and let the other person have the last word. It helps me to remember that no matter how many times I repeat myself I will probably never convince that other person, and that the Bludgeoning is likely to be a turnoff to other people who might otherwise be receptive to my argument. ~Awilley (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, Awilley. I will try to be more thoughtful and less impulsive with input I provide to discussions. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bus stop! You created a thread called What is the essay ... at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Template:Z33 - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Things

Hi Bus stop. Noticing your recent difficulties and how I basically land on you side, a small tune[6]. some here have a very high opinion of you. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconded...Modernist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil—thank you for that music. Thank you to Modernist and Ceoil for the expressed sentiments. Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Understanding EDITWAR

Re: [7][8]

It's important not to edit war. It's equally important to refrain from telling other editors "Don't WP:EDITWAR" when you are edit warring yourself. You stated on User:WWGB's UTP, I'm not going to follow you down the path of WP:EDITWARing.[9] when you had already done exactly that. Please read the policy you are wielding, including the last sentence of its first paragraph: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

Policy abuse is as disruptive as policy violation. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You should probably ignore this policy wonk *baiting* fool. Step away from the trap. Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If I were looking to another editor for advice on how to act at Wikipedia, I really don't think it would be an editor with a block log like yours. Seriously? But Bus stop is free to follow whatever advice he chooses and live with his own consequences. He's living with one now.

Anyway, per the (quite unusual) rule Bus stop has established for his talk page here, you shouldn't comment because I was not speaking to you (assuming of course that he applies the principle uniformly instead of weaponizing it). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The very definition of a strawman, in fairness well done, but used to further a campaign of harassment and baiting based on shallow and ungentlemanly reasoning. Your single purpose career here is similar to anti-matter, adding nothing, disillusioning many; you are not respected. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Ceoil...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You spew some of the best insults I've seen, I'm certainly no match for your talent for stinging rhetoric. I'm respected where it matters. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You may want to re-examine your reason for being, and what you are trying to BRING to the project. My conclusions as to your plight are very different. Harsh, bitter, rules driven people like you are not very amusing to content people, while your bludgeoning superior approach invites dissent. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Stunning lack of self-awareness. I'm done here, having accomplished my purpose for coming here with my initial post and wasted too much time already with pointless bickering. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—something you haven't figured out yet is that there is logic apart from policy. You will probably bring me to ANI for saying that. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ceoil. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil meant well because Ceoil was trying to prevent me from getting baited into responding in a way that would get me into trouble. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For my trouble, I'm going back to helping Ewulp on the Velázquez page. Peace in our time. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in this section, as well as the previous section, Ceoil. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got dragged into a bunch of other stuff, and you talk page was hijacked. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I can't weigh in at AN/I, which is probably good for me, as I probably would have been there running my mouth by now.) Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No matter, you didn't miss much. The usual bo&&&&. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I read most of it. I just can't post there due to past infractions. I killed someone. But I swear it was in self-defense. All kidding aside, I hope you didn't get into trouble. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to cut down on that killing people stuff. Its frowned upon here, although not as much as late modernist paintings. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconded...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Dayton shooting

The discussion on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting closed soon after your last comment to it, so I'm replying here. We agree that our articles should be based on RS. However, you're asserting that info being in RS in regard to particular events mandates its inclusion in our articles about those events - but that's not the case. Jim Michael (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Jim Michael, I have asserted nothing even remotely like that. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the names of the victims in RS is the most common reason you give for saying that they should be included in articles about events in which many people were killed. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—you are merely misconstruing what I am saying. Nevertheless you may wish to weigh in here. It is a newly-created "discussion" section (I created it) at Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note

to tell that I don't agree with your repeated unilateral moves [10] [11][12] of the Halle and Landsberg attack article title. We should try to reach WP:Consensus in the talk page section. Wakari07 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've responded to you here. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BADGER, as I suggested to you previously here? Wakari07 (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I've added more to my post on the Talk page of the article we're discussing. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bus stop! You created a thread called problems at the Cebu article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Your edits on 2019 Halle synagogue shooting:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erica C. Barnett

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erica C. Barnett. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:BRD in relation to Greta Thunberg

Please review Wikipedia policy, most notably WP:ONUS, which states in pertinent part, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Inclusion of the disputed material on Greta Thunberg has been repeatedly challenged and multiple editors have objected on the article talk page. It's incumbent on you to develop a consensus for inclusion; absent such a consensus, the material does not belong in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discus the rule on whether to include the victims names

Dear Bus stop,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop

TheHoax (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Hoax

TheHoax is not only temp blocked but also topic banned, as I CLEARLY stated TWICE: Once in the comment following my strikethrough, and again in that edit summary![13] They are two different things. Please stop interfering in areas that you demonstrably know nothing about. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Your correction regarding the Economist

Greetings Bus stop,

As the conversation has already moved on, I didn't want to interrupt the flow and add a comment on WT:MOS. I'm not exactly sure where you say my mistake is in what I wrote regarding the Economist. I didn't include them in my list of style guides that recommend "it" for ships, and attempted to clearly state that they view ships as an exception to the general English practice of using gender-neutral pronouns for non-person nouns (in short, that they use "she" rather than "it" for ships). I then linked the entire text for others to read, which you later quoted. I didn't mention them because they bolster my argument, I did so in the interest of being thorough and transparent. CThomas³ (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cthomas3—I don't believe I said you made a mistake. I said something to that effect to user Doremo. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Bus stop, I was referring to this edit directly below my posting of the Economist's style guide where you begin with Incorrect concerning The Economist:. Doremo hadn't yet posted. CThomas³ (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, maybe I was speaking to you, Cthomas3. I stand corrected. And I will try to make a correction to what I posted. Sorry. Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all. I thought you and I were saying the same thing, but if I really did make a mistake I would have been happy to correct it. CThomas³ (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cthomas3—I've made this edit and this edit to try to rectify my previous besmirching of your good character. Please accept the apologies of this humbled supplicant. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion at WT:MOS. You do not need to respond to every comment. (Some of them are making you come across as deaf on top of the bludgeoning, which is not helping.) --Izno (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Izno—this and this are just joking comments. I think that sort of thing should be permissible.

By the way that discussion is a hopeless quagmire. There is no intellectual honesty or willingness to address the subject. After I posted two comments asking to examine actual usages of "she" and "her" in relation to ships, two things transpired: additional quotes damning the use of "she" and "her" in relation to ships were provided, and a subject header was inserted above my comments indicating that we were looking for more examples of commentary denouncing this usage. This would be a variation on moving the goalposts. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about the entire discussion, not specific points or "joking comments". Which, the concerns are a sensitive area, and "joking" probably is not in your best interests accordingly. Please leave off the discussion for a few days or even just let it go until the end of the discussion. If others think that someone supporting the proposed change needs to be challenged, I'm sure they will do so. --Izno (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Izno—how about BLP violations? Can I weigh in to remove address BLP violations? I don't get the idea of calling someone a "shitty human being". It's interesting that "she" and "her" are deemed impermissible for use with ships but a bona fide human being can be referred to as a "shitty human being"! Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Problem editor

Thanks for your corrections. SharabSalam seems to be a bit problematic on the Black Hebrew Israelites article. They had Capers Funnye as "the leader of the Black Hebrew Israelites" when such a concept is obviously at odds with what our article says and what the news story said. They also removed the attributed statement that both shooters had expressed interest in BHI. Without looking at the rest of their edit history, it makes me wonder if they have some interest in sanitizing this coverage. Bears some watching. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but I notice you were at one point supposed to be staying away from articles on this topic? When/why did that end? I'm not sure that will be helpful in dealing with SharabSalam if there is some underyling problem with them. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DIYeditor. It is on my watchlist. As concerns "staying away from articles on this topic"—what do you mean? I'm not aware of being under any kind of restriction. I've had my run-ins with the law, but I'm a relatively free man now. The only restriction in place now is that I'm not allowed to weigh in at AN/I, unless of course I am the subject of a report/complaint. I don't mind that restriction. I actually enjoy having less to do with weighing in about complaints about other editors. It allows me to stay clear of Wikipedia as a social site—intellectual ideas are much more interesting. My early-onset Alzheimer's interferes with my intellectual pursuits—but I don't let that get me down. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"For the foreseeable future I have made the decision to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention" from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Topic ban for Bus stop - AndyTheGrump and Guy Macon's proposals would seem to apply to Jewish identity and Judaism. Doesn't matter to me, I am not familiar with the Jewish-tagging dispute or any of that, just did not want to taint any actions against SharabSalam, should it come to that, with other disputes. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditor—I think SharabSalam was mistaken when they wrote "The Black Hebrew Israelites leader, Rabbi Capers Funnye..." I think I corrected that mistake when I changed it to "Rabbi Capers Funnye, the head of a separate organization called Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation..." The only thing that matters is that the reader receive the best representation of the material found in sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Final warning

This is quite enough. If I see one more comment in which you personalize victims' names discussions against me, I will try my hand at the first WP:AE complaint of my career and I will propose a topic ban from anything related to victims' names. I believe that's the correct venue, since the article is under discretionary sanctions. Discuss content, not editors, and how many times have you been told that nobody is required to discuss until you say they have discussed enough? Notifying admins MelanieN and El_C. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—I apologize if I offended you. "Personalizing" the discussion was only intended as a manner of speaking. But if I offended I apologize. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It was another instance in a series of dozens spanning years, of you trying to dictate how I participate in discussions without wide support for your views in that regard (ie, they are novel views). It's not about my being offended; it's about disruption of article talk pages. You need to drop that stick or take the question to the community for comment. I hope your Christmas has been a joyous one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, just for your information: you have made 26 edits to that talk page, the most of any editor (the next two are at 15 apiece), and you have contributed 24% of the total added text on that page, also the most of any editor. Just something to think about. And I do agree with Mandruss that it is inappropriate to demand that someone respond to you, or that they deal with your issues to your satisfaction. Just say what you want to say and let the discussion take its course. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"I do agree with Mandruss that it is inappropriate to demand that someone respond to you" MelanieN—so you're saying you approve of canned text suggesting there are privacy concerns with little to no further dialogue? At every RfC Mandruss asserts "Further, there are arguable privacy concerns." This is recorded text, also known as Boilerplate text. I'm supposed to engage that text in dialogue? And get very little in reply? In my opinion this is not a minor point. If there are privacy concerns then I don't want Wikipedia to include the victim names. I don't want Wikipedia to do harm. I want Wikipedia to do good. We are an informative project. But we should not want to spread information that brings harm to people. Bus stop (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss can say what he wants to say. So can you. He is not required to engage in "further dialogue". All you have to say is something like "I don't think Mandruss has established that" or "I don't think there is a privacy issue, here's why." The point of an extended discussion like this one is to state your opinion and your reasoning, and if there is not a clear consensus, let the ultimate closer decide how to weight your opinion and that of other people. The point is not to argue with other people until they either give in and admit you are right, or convince you that they are right. That approach just becomes a wall of repetitious argument, ultimately ending in bludgeoning. Keep in mind the wise saying: When I argue with someone, my goal is not to convince them. My goal is to convince the onlookers. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Canned text is an abomination, MelanieN. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I've been around Bus stop a lot more than you have, and rest assured that s/he is incapable of both (1) responding to reason and (2) deferring to others based on their numbers and experience levels. What s/he believes is indisputable fact, and any number of editors who see things differently, no matter who they are, are simply wrong. That's long-term WP:IDHT and WP:DE by any definition I'm aware of, and it leaves us with only one way of dealing with Bus stop – the more direct: "You don't need to understand or agree. Stop doing it or risk a topic ban or site ban." ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, you launched this thread on Bus stop's talk page telling them to stop personalizing discussions. Since you are contemplating a formal complaint, it was appropriate for you to warn them. They heard you and responded. I then chimed in with some advice, which they may or may not have heard (apparently not based on their reaction, which I chose not to respond to). End of discussion - except that you decided to double down, by repeating your own opinion of how they post and how they are capable of reacting. You might have done better to take your own advice about personalizing discussions. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lots of personalizing happens at UTPs, and there is little to disrupt at UTPs. In fact, this discussion was personal from its first comment. Posting warnings on UTPs is inherently personalizing discussions – it's discussing editors, not content. I used to argue this issue on the ATPs where it occurred, thereby personalizing those discussions in the other direction, but I have stopped doing that and now try to ignore Bus stop's comments whenever possible.

I have addressed only one aspect of Bus stop's persistent ATP disruption here, the part that directly affects me. I have listed eight problem areas on my computer – most of which have been pointed out in article talk at least once – where they will remain for the time being. If other editors feel it's constructive to go round and round with Bus stop in one ATP discussion after another (at least one apparently does) that's entirely up to them. But Bus stop will cease his campaign of trying to impose his novel views on proper talk page behavior on me or he will respond to an AE complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"They heard you and responded." I more than heard them and responded. I apologized. I admit wrongdoing. I should not have spoken the way I did. I'm sorry. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You apologized for offending me. You gave no indication that you will cease trying to dictate how I participate in discussions, and in fact your subsequent comments suggest that do not intend to. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Question for you, Mandruss—why do you post boilerplate text at RfCs on victim names? I believe the most recent instance of this can be seen here at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting. But you are repeating that canned text at many RfCs on the subject of victim names. Why canned text? Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have answered that question at least twice in article talk discussions – at some length – including in the latest discussion. Question for you, Bus stop—why do you repeatedly ask editors to answer questions that have already been answered multiple times, pretending that you are asking them for the first time? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Happy Holiday Season Bus stop and best wishes for 2020. Coldcreation (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Great pic.. Oooooh!

Aaaaah... NOW I see what you mean.. I would have replied on the Greta talk page, but felt it was probably more appropriate to reply directly to you. The stars in the EU flag do almost make a halo, in a way. Thats not something I would usually look for, much less pick up on. Especially in a biographic image. You might have a point. I read you are an artist, and that matters in this specific instance. Im not, so it isnt something I would see. For anyone with an artistic eye, you may have a good point. For those who dont, like me, you may not. Its a matter of opinion, I believe. And thats the issue, from me, its a belief. So now, for my opinion, all I can say is: maybe defer to the artist? As a non-artist, and someone who has been only a general reader of Wikipedia for over a decade, I wouldve HAD to have you point that out in order for me to see that. Its something to condsider, but I do not at all discredit your point of view on this. You MIGHT be on to something, logically. I will refrain from futher comment on the pic. If anything Ive said here on your talkpage you wish to use in furthering your arguement on that talkpage for Greta? By all means go for it, I wont be offended or anything. But I do feel I should step back and let others have say, as Im not sure if I have anything more to contribute if I am so on the fence.. You are absoutely welcome to use this msg on that Greta talkpage to tear my own pov apart if need be. I wont take it wrong. Whatever is logical, reasonable, and you feel furthers a good contribution to Wikipedia. And thank you for making it clear where that image came from. It makes far more sense now. :) Debates are fun. For that, I am not sorry. Haha XD Consensus, right? Its a way we all learn, gain wisdom, see another point of view. And, thank you, for your patience and willingness to put up with my long ass posts. ^_^ Cheers, Bus stop! SageSolomon (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are a weirdo. 86.187.234.169 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, that is kind of you. Bus stop (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Last warning

This is the second time you change my comment, third time and I will report the issue to the WP:ANI.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi, Bus stop. We've interacted on the Greta Thunberg talk page. I've fallen into a minor edit war, and I would like your opinion. I don't even remember how I chanced on this page, but I added it to my watch list and then saw a user removing a large chunk of information, well-referenced (I thought), about the current news on this person Indur M. Goklany. This other user says it's inappropriate allegations on a BOLP. I think it's statements of fact, well verified. Am I wrong? Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Paulmlieberman. I've suggested to KipHansen that they start a section on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or you could do the same. Real-life precludes in-depth Wikipedia involvement at this time. But I'm flattered to be asked for my arguably nonexistent expertise. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You were a man of many words

I'll always remember some of them. Don't worry, you're not gone. But I'm getting there! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk—I really just want to survive to find out how this COVID-19 thing works out. I would hate to die and miss the end of the story. Will science come to the rescue? Bus stop (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

God only knows. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump Coronavirus

Appreciate some your comments on Trump’s talk page regarding the coronavirus. There is a new rfc at the bottom on proposed wording that is less politicized and dramatic, and more encyclopedic. Appreciate it if you weighed in. Cheers✌️Bsubprime7 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments, Bsubprime7. I will check it out the mentioned RfC. Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your revision of Trump talk post

I asked you to undo your after the fact revision of your talk page post, to which I had already replied. It violates WP:TPG. You can then make the same point in a subsequent post that will make the meanings of our messages clear to editors who see them at a later time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GW's age

I have some questions for you about this. I'll number them for easy reference in your reply(s).

1. Perhaps you can explain to me how the article could have been improved by successive edits in that specific case. You added the age to the first sentence. Other editors, experienced editors acting in good faith, felt it didn't belong there. They are allowed to disagree with you on that point, and in fact such disagreements are a basic part of editing. How does one resolve that difference by successive edits?
2. Also I would like to know why it was a problem that your edit was reverted "immediately". Should Jim Michael have waited before reverting it? How long? Toward what end?
3. If you feel that Jim Michael should have started a discussion instead of reverting, do you claim that that is widespread practice? Not in my experience. In fact I can't recall the last time I saw that happen. Can you point me to two instances?

Please try to be responsive. Directly answer the questions asked, rather than sidestepping them with general philosophical aphorisms about Wikipedia editing. Doing that makes you seem evasive and dodgy, a bob-and-weave artist. I know you understand this concept since you said here that Jim Michael was "avoiding the question". (And, incidentally, he had just answered the question you asked, which may or may not have been the question you sought an answer to.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Mandruss. I simply prefer not to revert editors except for egregious changes to articles. One aspect of editing is "looking" at edits, and thinking about edits. It is like listening to another person when they speak. Immediately reverting takes the edit out of view, and obviates "looking" at the suggestion of a supposedly "collaborating" editor. For non-egregious edits, immediate reversion impairs viewing what another editor has "suggested" by removing it from view. What "tolerance" means to me in this context (I think explain further on the article Talk page) is allowing non-egregious edits to remain in view for awhile, to be only gently altered, or for a discussion section to be initiated on the article Talk page. I've explained myself a little more fully at Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Dead and injured dogs and the origin of this issue can be found in archives at age in lede. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the point you're missing is that your ideas about this are not widely accepted – actually I had never heard of anything resembling them before you – and yet you seek to impose them on others because of some inherent "rightness" that you see in them. That's fundamentally un-Wikipedian, and when it persists for years it increasingly pisses off some editors who care about such things. But my experience is as limited as anybody's. Do you claim widespread support for your ideas? Can you point to one or two situations where other editors endorsed them? Or is this just more Wikipedia According to Bus stop?

You haven't explained how successive edits can improve GW's age in the lead. If you misspoke (or misthought), just say so. If you were speaking generally about something unrelated to the immediate issue you were talking about (GW's age in the lead), I would submit that that is not helpful, and that it's an example of the philosophical excursions that are a large part of the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"If you misspoke (or misthought), just say so." What I'm wrong about is addressing this issue on Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks. I have struck that through, Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore what was said and change the subject. I'm not sure what that's about, and I waver between seeing that as the behavior of a crafty politician and that of someone incapable of directly addressing others' comments. Either way, it's damned aggravating. Please disregard this thread as a waste of my time. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

New message from Acalycine

Hello, Bus stop. You have new messages at Talk:Li Wenliang.
Message added 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see proposal by Ohconfucius and inquiry about the definition of whistleblower - seeking your thoughts and consensus on this issue. Acalycine (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 09:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller—can I ask, why are you putting this notice here? Have a nice day. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The same reason User:Bishonen placed one last year, this one is a few days late. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But why are you placing this notice here, at this time, Doug Weller? Any proximal cause? Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

They expire after one year. This was posted one year and one week later than the previous. O3000 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking Doug Weller, Objective3000. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, you still have an interest in the subject? I give a lot of alerts out, do you have a problem with getting one? The tricky bit about alerts is always experienced editors who you can assume have got one in the past but often haven't had theirs renewed. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller—you say "I give a lot of alerts out, do you have a problem with getting one?" I need not have a "problem" to ask you a question. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's unusual for any experienced AP editor to express surprise or concern when receiving the courtesy notices. So I think it's appropriate for Doug Weller to inquire whether you have any particular concern. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You need not weigh in, SPECIFICO, as I am speaking to Doug Weller. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Somebody call an InedibleHulk? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey InedibleHulk! Bus stop (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh. It's you. Look, can I call you back? I'm waiting for a very important notice. No idea why, but it's about time! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to pile on. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days

• See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days. IZAK (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you locate disscussion comparing image to lynching postcards ?

Hi. Just checked in and the discussion is missing... Know where it is and/or why it was either deleted or archived when still active? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pasdecomplot—it is now in a section called Header/main Photo. It was moved there presumably because it is on the same topic. It seems like a good idea to me as it keeps the sprawling page organized by subject matter. By the way, if you do a "search" for the term "Lynching postcards" on the Talk:Killing of George Floyd page, you will locate that discussion. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Exodus

Hi again, any chance you would want to take on The Exodus article by fixing it up from a Jewish scholarly perspective, especially correcting the sheer nonsense in The Exodus#Origins and historicity section? Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I will see what I can do. It looks tangled to a degree that Houdini could not even escape from. But I'll see if I can help it. Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not dropping it

You editing at Talk:Killing of George Floyd is now getting wp:tenditious. You have said go knows how many times what you think, and you are now saying it in replies that have nothing to do with whether it should be there but just asking for users to now tell the closer to suck eggs. It is time to let others have a say or let the closer now decide based upon what he (and he alone) thinks is relevant. If you carry on with this wp:badgering of the RFC I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha!

Just ran across this edit (can't remember why or how I got there), but day-em, that is a catchy tune. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

lol Atsme Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of states and union territories of India by fertility rate on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paul Anka on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Boogaloo movement on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joel Fuhrman on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Politics of Australia on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queer erasure on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

bludgeoning

Bus Stop, you've now made 9 very similar comments at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Separating_out_different_discussion_on_whether_previous_RfCs_were_misconstrued, which as far as I can tell is at least three times as anyone else. Please stop bludgeoning discussion. You've made your point. —valereee (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—don't artificially create article sections. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't an article section. It was a talk page section, created to divide two separate discussions because you'd hijacked the original section, which was about developing an image FAQ. —valereee (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—you are creating a section that should not exist. I didn't object when you created that section, artificially, but I am objecting now. It was heavy-handed of you to relegate my objections to a separate section. I can disagree with you in the section you originally created. You initially created the section called image to faq? Your initial post to that section was "We've had multiple discussions of the main image. Should we add a 5th faq?" I opposed your suggestion and I still oppose your suggestion. I think the RfC is of exceptionally poor quality. And it is my feeling that image placement is not a factor that lends itself well to a FAQ. We have FAQs that say such things as "Does it have to say "white" police officer?" That is appropriate for a FAQ. That sources specify race is not going to change. But images can be moved. Wikipedia is primarily verbal. Images are supplemental. You are suggesting that a poorly formed RfC lock images into place via a FAQ. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The questions of whether there should be an FAQ covering frequent questions about the image selection and whether past image RfCs were misconstrued are almost completely unrelated, IMO, so I separated them into two sections. You can talk about the RfC in the section about the RfC, and we can talk about whether or not another FAQ is needed in the section about the FAQ. There's no benefit to discussing them in the same section. It just muddies both discussions, IMO. You can object to the separation of the two discussions and argue that they should be recombined in a new section, if you like. I just don't really see why there'd be an objection to discussing the two subjects separately. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spencer Wells on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Killing of George Floyd, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop asking rhetorical questions like "Is that what you would consider informative writing?" It's disruptive. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—why, in this edit, are you removing "positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid"? Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Explained at article talk. —valereee (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—you obviously cannot defend that edit. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Killing of George Floyd. Your edits appear to be disruptive.

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Drop the stick. You're being disruptive. —valereee (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—I didn't initiate this section: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled and I only made one post to that section. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, yes, and your post was an attempt to reopen the same discussion you've been trying to reopen for weeks. Every time anyone gets anywhere near talking about the image, you hijack the discussion to start beating your dead horse. We get it; you don't think that image belongs in the lead. You don't believe that constitutes censorship. Everyone working at that article is fully aware. You don't need to tell us again every time anyone mentions that image in any context. We get it. Drop the stick. Next time the image is mentioned, we all will still remember that Bus stop doesn't think that image should be in the lead and doesn't think that constitutes censorship. If it comes up a year from now, we'll all still remember. You literally never have to mention your opinion on this ever again; the first 80 mentions are sufficient. Drop the stick. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to understand why you are weighing in on my Talk page, Valereee. I have only made one brief post to Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled and 5 other people are participating in that discussion, many of which have participated in previous discussions, and none of which you have warned on their respective Talk pages. But of course I disagree with your position on the question being addressed and they agree with the position you have taken on the question concerning the lede image. Your position on that question is "The image is shocking, but it's what RS are showing as the iconic image for this subject. I think that means that of course we have to use it". Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's because in the discussions I've participated in with you, you tend to bludgeon discussions to the point of disruption, and it exasperates other editors. Multiple editors have asked you to stop. In order to call someone's attention to this problem, which you aren't fixing, I need to be able to show that I and other editors have been asking you to stop doing this and that you aren't stopping. Believe me this isn't how I want to spend my time. I wish you'd just stop already. —valereee (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Several of the other participants at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled have also participated in past discussions on the same topic, which is the lede image. Nor did I initiate the discussion. Those who weighed in before me voiced disagreement with the OP's suggestion and I voiced agreement with it. (Actually partial agreement.) That was a proper thing for me to do, Valereee. Of course we should lend support to those suggestions we agree with. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked me a question, I've answered. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—what is disruptive about this edit? It is the only time I weighed into the section Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled. You are referring to my disruptive "edits" but there was only one edit. What was disruptive about that one edit? Your series of warnings—3 times in 3 weeks—has an inhibiting effect on my speech. Your series of warnings on my Talk page has a chilling effect on my ability to express my thoughts, and I do not wish to feel inhibited in my capacity to weigh in on the issues that are being discussed on article Talk pages. If you want to have a friendly conversation with me I would be all in favor of that. But disagreement and disruption are two different things. I don't appreciate your behavior in regard to calling "disruption" when only "disagreement" applies. If you think there was a cause for leveling the charge of "disruption" then please explain how it applies. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This last comment shows you are deaf to Valereee's point, which is that you have made the same argument many times, it has failed, and you should have dropped the issue some time before now. "Drop the stick" applies in spades. IT IS NOT ABOUT ONE TALK PAGE EDIT! Can you possibly understand that if you squint your eyes and think real hard?

How many times in the past ~5 years have experienced editors—14 years and adminship in Valereee's case!—commented on this problem, Bus stop? Some have called it WP:BLUDGEON, others have called it WP:IDHT, others have called it circular and repetitive argument, but it's all part of the same problem.

Your series of warnings—3 times in 3 weeks—has an inhibiting effect on my speech. - We can only hope! Judging from long experience, I doubt your speech will be inhibited for very long. Work on learning to listen when many experienced editors independently complain about the same problem area (i.e. your style of participation on article talk pages), instead of arguing with them until they give up and go away utterly frustrated.

This is my first and last comment in this discussion; feel free to proceed with your IDHT rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—as I said to Valereee I'll say to you: "If you want to have a friendly conversation with me I would be all in favor of that." Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Note to self: Never say your comment is the last. Someone may reply with something that cannot go unanswered.

We were at "friendly conversation" roughly three years ago. Long-standing problems like yours do not make people feel friendly toward you, nor should they. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I have a thick skin. That is the only explanation I can think of. When I say "friendly" I mean "productive". By your formulation Wikipedia could be written by a machine. That would be great, but no such machine exists. Until then talking to one another is crucial. And the purpose, in my conception, of talking to one another, is expressing differences. People feeling friendly toward me is not a priority for me. I'm not trying to train friendly people. I can adopt a puppy for that purpose. If I'm saying something to someone its sole purpose is to have them understand my point of view. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If I'm saying something to someone its sole purpose is to have them understand my point of view. reflects your failure to hear this comment. We long ago understood your point of view on that particular issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—I didn't initiate this section: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled and I only made one post to that section. Do you want to tell me what you see as being problematic about me weighing in to that discussion? Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I and Valereee have already told you that. And in case it isn't obvious, the objection was not that you commented but the content of your comment. If you need further clarification on this, re-read this section. Don't ask people to endlessly repeat themselves because of your difficulty understanding clearly written communication. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—what do you see as being problematic about the "content" of my post in the Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Photo Must Be Pulled section? I am responding to "the objection was not that you commented but the content of your comment". Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See my previous comment. You are an incredibly obtuse person. I'm out, this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"obtuse" in what sense, Mandruss? Do you mean "exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees"? Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Attempted Arrest Errors - Talk Item Updated

I replied to you on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Attempted_arrest_errors

You'll find height, weight, age, and online links to the sources for those characteristics of both officers and the suspect.

Thanks for participating. It may really add a more balanced perspective to the article, if this topic can be fully discussed. (I forgot to "ping" you in my edit, so I'm editing this topic here). Thanks in advance, keep up the good work. 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If reliably sourced, such material would seem to me to be relevant for inclusion at the Killing of Rayshard Brooks article, 172.250.237.36. I, and at least one other editor have agreed in principle to the possible inclusion of such material. A big factor, I think, will be the prominence of such analysis in good quality sources. I haven't looked into it, so I don't really have an opinion as to whether the sourcing for such ideas is significant or not. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

mos/images

No, I was suggesting it might be an appropriate place to RfC on whether a particular image should be declared to be too shocking/offensive to be used in the lead. I don't actually know that's the right place, but if you asked a question there, they'd probably at least know where to point you. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ETA: re FAQs, I'd assume questions about appropriate use would go at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, but I'm just guessing. —valereee (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sally Hemings on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

i have a question

You did not understand my last post...I conceded the murder thing..all I said was my argument for that is legitimate..that being said..this is all Greek to me and always will be..I do read and write English probably better than most people but I`m an artist and virtually everything written on most of the talk pages is what I was taught in school rhetoric..most people here probably can`t tune a guitar let alone a carburetor..people see the world in different ways..this stuff is too complicated to me..I just don`t understand it. Nevertheless I have a right to input in the articles because for some reason I understand them not the minutia of Wikipedia editing and I don`t have time or the desire to learn..however some of what ends up in the articles is total crap and you know it. Please read what I wrote in my last post..I just don`t have the slightest clue what the 40 edits was about..please explain it to me..in addition I don`t understand why the closed discussions have a relatively small number of the same names on them..im not trying to be disruptive I just don`t get it..someone named Stayfree went on and on about George Floyd not being killed by the police and nothing happened he just kept posting..his id comes up as red which I thought meant his account was suspended and yet I see very accomplished editors appear the same and they just keep editing and alot..I`ve seen posts just disappear with no explanation...if I deleted someone`s post because I disagreed with them I have a pretty good idea what would happen..Please listen to me Bus Stop..I have bias`s just like everyone else..which is the main reason why I don`t edit articles..it would be unethical..now I know that sounds like a bizarre statement by today`s standards..welcome to the 21`s century..does this make me shallow ? Can anyone close a discussion ? I`ve seen alot of people go off on these insane tangents and nothing ever happens..am I allowed to do that ? There must be a process of some kind but does one have to get some special permission to do so ? You misread my last post..I`m just trying to figure this stuff and don`t have enough free time to decipher it..I am not trying to ruin your day..I don`t have an account and I don`t know how to contact you except here..please respond here..I will let you know after I read it then erase it if you want...I`m just trying figure this stuff out..please don`t ask to create and account..my life is boring enough..that`s joke ok?

Thanks 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by

2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF—I would say that Wikipedia has a huge silliness component. You either accept the silliness component of Wikipedia or you say toodeloo to Wikipedia. One thing I would suggest is register an account. (I know, you said don't suggest this.) It makes it easier for others to communicate with you when you have an account. And of course sign your posts. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous...I don`t know how the unsigned tag came up..I always sign..I had to go back and change a few typos that may have has something to do with it.. You didn`t answer my question..how are you able to close a discussion ? How do edits sometimes just seem to disappear with no explanation..the rules are complicated enough but there are editors..I`m not accusing you of this but they are here...who always seem to get there way. You said something about why I consider this a murder..for one thing Webster..which is a respected dictionary right...has more than one definition of the word murder one of is when one person kills another which is the way I`ve always taken it..I believe most people would...I am extremely literate and I`m not the dullest tool in the shed however personally I would consider homicide the legal definition and I`m pretty sure virtually anyone I know would..if you`re only going to use Oxford so be it..however..if someone were to kill another in plain site in front of witnesses..as happened to George Floyed..some go home and say they just saw someone get killed others would use the word murder..I probably would..it is not incorrect to say so just because one dictionary says so another doesn`t..Webster doesn`t say it isn`t a legal matter..but it also says that it is just the act itself..is there a rule on Wikipedia that says all words here only come from a single source..that one precludes the other ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem is you kept repeating the same argument that doesn’t fit WP guidelines. We don’t use dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary has over a dozen definitions for murder. And, it’s a legal term anyhow whose meaning varies from state to state. Further, there were lengthy, previous discussions on this topic involving many editors and the current wording is the consensus. Also, biographies of living people policy is one of the more important. We cannot prejudge a verdict. BTW, user Stayfree76 was, in fact, blocked for a while by one admin and then had their block extended by another admin. Yeah, most of us believe this was murder. But, an encyclopedia must be very careful. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF—see Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I`m trying change the guidelines which I believe are incorrect..I know it`s not going to happen which is the point..if you don`t use dictionaries to define words how do you ? Vote on it ? Yes it is a legal term..if there are 9 different definitions I`m guessing one of them says to kill another person..nobody asked me to participate in a consensus and I have no particular obligation to " consent " to it despite the guidlines...I have no particular obligation to respect the " law " if I`ve never consented to it..particularly an unethical law..I`m the guy who ALWAYS drives the speed limit because it save`s lives..the consensus in society is I`m the guy who is holding everybody else up when they are the ones breaking the law..look up the word reactionary...all a consensus is here is whoever get`s the last word 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you at least tell me what the deal with the red signatures is ? Some lead to pages that don`t exist others to editors with hundreds if not thousands of edits 2600:1702:2340:9470:4E4:5FFD:55DC:40F2 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll tell you anything, if I know the answer, 2600:1702:2340:9470:4E4:5FFD:55DC:40F2. There is WP:REDLINKS. If a registered user doesn't put anything on their user page, it remains red. On the other hand, even if they just put one dot on their user page, their user page becomes blue. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also customized signatures, 2600:1702:2340:9470:4E4:5FFD:55DC:40F2. See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, you may be blocked from editing. You realize the word bludgeon is used like 15 times RIGHT NOW on this user talk page, right? You remember committing to no more bludgeoning of discussions back in September? I a concerned that you just don't have the temperament for collaborative effort. —valereee (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—among the 11 that you removed are the 3 that I argued should be removed. You began the discussion with "I could see the connection for each of them" and "RS seem to be pretty clear that there's something going on here that connects to race" and in the final analysis you removed the 3 "See also" entries that were entirely about race, just as I had argued. Sorry we couldn't communicate well. One of us must brush up on our communication skills. Maybe both of us. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because you're being disruptive with your pointy questions and inability to drop any stick you've ever encountered doesn't mean you can't be possibly correct about something. It's not your OPINION that is disruptive. It is not voicing your opinion once and briefly that is disruptive. It's the bludgeoning of discussion with pointy demanding questions over and over AND OVER again that is disruptive, and honestly given the number of times you've been asked to stop bludgeoning discussion by various editors I would think you'd have figured that out. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We have phrases like "I agree" or "you make a valid point". Here is the discussion that we are arguing about. Where you wrote "Dude, this is disruptive" why didn't you just write something that indicated at least partial agreement? Effective communication is a two-way street, Valereee, especially in a setting calling for collaboration. Of course I posted again. I understood "Dude, this is disruptive" as an expression of disagreement. You had earlier in that discussion said "RS seem to be pretty clear that there's something going on here that connects to race". And in another discussion, seen at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks/Archive 1, you wrote "Seriously? You are seriously saying that someone has to be alleging actual racial animosity by a white cop who shoots a black man who is running away from him before their race is relevant? I find that...astonishing. To the point that I'm really wondering why you're here. You have been bludgeoning discussion at multiple articles surrounding race and the police. You need to consider stopping that." You have expressed to me that you consider race to be a factor even when sources do not support a racial motive. I respect your views. I disagree with them but I respect them. Let us move on from here. The only thing I ask for is clear communication. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, and you consider asking rhetorical questions to be "clear communication"? How do you explain that? Are you saying there's evidence that rhetorical pointy questions represents clear communication? Where in the sources does it say that?

See how that works? I could have just said "I don't consider rhetorical questions to be clear communication." That would be clear communication.

If you had said, "I believe even the links to racism in the US and police brutality articles is pointy," THAT would be stating your opinion and would have been clear communication. Instead you seem to want to use the Socratic method. It's not helpful.

What you're doing with your pointy rhetorical questions is disruptive, and that has been said to you on multiple occasions. When you make the same points or ask the same rhetorical pointy questions over and over again, that is disruptive. When you hijack discussions to continue to beat a dead horse, that is disruptive. Honestly, I've been trying to be patient, but I don't understand why you're behaving this way. Multiple people have told you your behavior is disruptive/tendentious/bludgeoning and you just keep doing the same thing over and over. It is not productive. I have a nearly-pathological need to help problematic editors, and you are testing the limits of it. —valereee (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—the "See also" section of Killing of George Floyd included Racism in the United States, Race and crime in the United States, and Institutional racism. This was problematic, before you fixed it, because sources don't support that there was a racial motive in the George Floyd incident. Let us keep up the constructive and collaborative editing. I thank you for your input. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The term "sexual preference"

It seems clear to me that a response to this post on the RSN would be even more off-topic and irrelevant than the discussion you were responding to :). But I did want to say something: I linked the article because it is a good example of a standpoint with which I largely agree, suggesting that the choice to use the term "sexual preference" in place of other terms for sexuality labels is not just outdated but grounds for offense, and it is therefore a bad idea to use "sexual preference" where better terms apply. It seemed more relevant in this context for me to point to a mainstream source elaborating this view, with which I agree, than for me to construct what amounts to the same argument out of my own insights and experience. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—you say the terminology "sexual preference" is "grounds for offense". I think the burden is on you to present an argument for that in your own words, not by linking to an article. You want people to say "sexual orientation" instead of "sexual preference". You need to present an argument for that in your own words, not by means of linking to an article on the subject, and you don't need to present that argument here. You need to present it where you raised this issue, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News Service / religionnews.com. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If I were to present a supporting argument for every single point I make on a WP project or talk page, I would need a much larger WP:BLUDGEON. Having left the link there, and since I am not making any further comments about the term on the RSN page, I am content to let editors make up their own mind whether my comments are clueless. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—you are saying it would be WP:BLUDGEON to explain to Guy Macon at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News Service / religionnews.com that they should use the phrase "sexual orientation" instead of the phrase "sexual preference"—but couldn't you do that on their User Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I could, and under other circumstances I might have done, but Guy and I went some way to irritate each other last month so I don't see any likelihood that it would have gone well. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—you are saying it is "demonstrably clueless" of Guy Macon to use the term "sexual preference" instead of the term "sexual orientation" and you are providing no explanation in your own words as to why that might be so. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Virginia Beach shooting#Names of the deceased victims unlisted

Do you really intend to cast aspersions because this is how it appears? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Mara Wilson

You're a regular so I won't template you, but I'll give you a reminder to review WP:EW. There is no consensus of one person. And I will not engage you in your endless brow-beating, either here, on the Mara Wilson talk page, or on my talk page. Seek dispute resolution the normal way. Otherwise we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the Rewrite

The editor on the Taylor page seems disinclined to revert his unexplained rewrite of the entire page and approach it as a series of individual edits. Instead, he sees the request as some kind of personal attack.

I don't edit extensively, but I seem to recall a process for restoring a page to revert an individual edit, while leaving other subsequent edits in place.

I think that's what should occur here.

Do you know how to do that, or know someone else who does who may be inclined to consider that action?

Otherwise, trying to restore it is going to be a cumbersome process. Thanks. John2510 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi John2510. The answer is "it depends". It depends on if there have been intervening edits, which in this case there have, so in this case (at this point) the edit cannot be undone. I just checked. The message the system provides is: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." As to how it is done please see here. Notice the term "undo" within parentheses within the line reading "Revision as of 07:24, 9 October 2020 (edit) (undo) (thank)". It is that "undo" which can be clicked on. But it is inoperable in this instance. You can try it, but you will next encounter the message informing you that "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." Thanks for posting here, and I am obviously in agreement about the underlying matter. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... I knew it couldn't be done the traditional way. I thought I recalled an editing app, that maybe only senior editors have, for this function. Maybe it's my imagination. I hate dealing with crap like this. I keep telling myself not to get involved in pages dealing with contentious social/political issues, but then I keep letting myself get sucked back in. To the degree you would care to help with restoring it, it would be appreciated. Thanks. John2510 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly this is a problem, John2510. Subsequent to the edit that we are discussing, I made these 6 edits:

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

That same editor came along and reverted all of the above 6 edits of mine in one single edit.[20]

I am being careful to make small, incremental edits. But they are reverting all of my edits at once. I agree with your statement that "You're turning this into a personal issue. I have no idea what other individual editors have done to your edits or why, but overwriting the work of many editors, all of which also was thoroughly-researched and thoroughly-cited, with no more explanation than "extensive changes" is disrespectful of the work of the many editors on this relatively-mature page." That is of course found at Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor#Edits versus rewrite. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh oh

I think maybe I (edit conflict) with you on Jimbo's - if I did, my apologies, it wasn't intentional. Let me know. Atsme 💬 📧 21:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. I re-added it. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Attacks Against You

Hey, I think you brought up some great points at the Arbitration hearing [21]. Just thought I should let you know that the IP who filed the case against me, referred to you and Atsme as "bullies" [22]. That seems highly uncalled for and kinda inappropriate. I just can't stand when people berate others behind their backs. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Meh. I've been called much, much worse. I don't think that qualifies as an "attack". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But, considering the fact that editors love to cherrypick every syllable I write, I just thought it should be brought to Bus Stop's attention Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d—it is closed now or I would weigh in again. The admin filing the complaint says the IP has "chosen not to create an account". My question would be: why have they chosen not to create an account? By the way as a new user I think your user page would look better if you brought it to life by making some kind of edit on it. It is none of my business and I'm aware some editors choose to leave their user page uncreated. Just a suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That was exactly what I thought. Seems really strange to me. And, yes, I've been meaning to spice up my user page--just haven't found the time yet! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons someone would choose not to create an account. In this person's case, they seem to believe (and I completely agree with them) that it shouldn't be necessary to have an account in order to edit contructively without attracting hostile attention. It shouldn't be necessary to have a bluelinked user name, ditto. It shouldn't be necessary to have tens of thousands of edits, or an admin flag, or a talk archive. But all of these things -- IMO, unfairly -- provide some level of 'seal of approval' in the minds of other editors. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, valereee,
in their minds they see
that a blue linked name,
levels the game
but when an arb acts as proxy
it gives it waay more moxy!
Burma-shave

Note: I'm planning to open a discussion, hopefully to establish some level of limitation on proxying or removal of the restriction altogether. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually think it's a good idea. I don't think GW did anything even iffy, myself, but Caesar's wife may apply. I suspect that for well-intentioned people with reasonable levels of personal insight, the more of those signals you yourself have, the less someone else having/not having them actually affects how you view them. Experienced workers at AE thinking, "Oh, it's GW proxying this? Rubber stamp it!" is vanishingly unlikely IMO. But by all means let's clarify whether or not it's a good look. Also lol :) —valereee (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee—I think you are saying that in one instance a "seal of approval" matters but in another instance a "seal of approval" does not matter. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I can see how that looks contradictory. What I meant was that to the average editor without a given signal, the signal is very compelling. Some editors with only a few edits are afraid to contradict an admin, for instance. Some are unwilling to contradict someone with 100K edits. Some people with 5000 edits discount the opinions/edits of IPs and redlink usernames and newbs. But in my experience, well-intentioned experienced self-aware admins don't treat admins any different than non-admins. Editors with 300K edits, in general in my experience, treat those with 30K edits with respect and those with 500 edits with patience and kindness. Every bureaucrat I know is painstakingly willing to engage. Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm not clarifying! —valereee (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think IP editing should be allowed but should be discouraged, Valereee. The project has a vested interest in knowing the history of an editor. We evolved for countless millennia to have a memory bank that attaches to individual humans. The IP-type entity breaks that bond. On the other hand the IP-type entity is a breath of fresh air. It gets stuffy in here with all these "regulars" we keep bumping into. Allowing IP-type entities benefits the project by increasing the likelihood of fresh perspectives. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Harry Styles on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Walter Wallace

Hi there. I'm not sure why you deleted here that Wallace was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and treatment in 2013. It was well sourced. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't delete that, Magnolia677. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you inadvertently referring to this edit, Magnolia677? Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry—my mistake. Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

All good. It's a fast moving article. No time to reflect on edits or they conflict with someone else's. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my accidental deletion to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Occupational burnout on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler has an RFC

Parler has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Notifying all editors who participated in the informal discussion about removing the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

My indentation change just now was intentional—see how it matches Pudeo's and XOR'Easter's indentation? That's because multiple bolded comments that are unindented appear to be two separate votes from separate users. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics.

You have been sanctioned per the diffs, arguments, and other evidence at this ANI thread of persistent and long-time bludgeoning of discussions, rehashing of arguments, and many warnings. [The completed thread is here, with input from yourself as well as many other users, but I'm also leaving the link to the original thread that was there when I decided to topic ban you. Added by Bishonen | tålk 01:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC).]

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Come on now, Bus stop. I believe that continuing to discuss Parler or BitChute won’t turn out well for you given the above ban. You still can step back. Take care and you don’t need to reply to this, lest you actually continue to discuss. starship.paint (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, Starship.paint? I don't have to articulate a reason for everything I do. Did you watch the hearings yesterday in which Ted Cruz grills Jack Dorsey? It's an important issue. Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of a free democracy. Wikipedia is utterly bankrupt if it thinks it can abusively use ledes of articles to disparage entities like Bitchute and Parler. Look at this crap: Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists.[5][6] Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[12] antisemitism,[14][discuss] and conspiracy theories.[17] The site has been described as an alternative to Twitter, and is popular among people who have been banned from mainstream social networks or oppose their moderation policies.[5][7][18] That is absurd. All of that, or at least most of that, belongs in the body of the article, and not the lede. A lede introduces an article but a lede does not have to summarize everything in the article. I "bludgeoned" the Talk page to try to introduce a little fresh air into the stuffy room. To tell you the truth it's a pleasure to speak freely. If they ban me, fine. So be it. I would not go back there and say please forgive me; I'm sorry for what I've done. These are all adults. And it takes two to tango. Let them tell me that they admit wrongdoing for trying to make Wikipedia into a partisan screed. Then I can admit wrongdoing for "bludgeoning" the page, and we can work constructively in the future. This isn't a one-way street. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, why would you immediately violate your TBAN like this when there's still active discussion about a site ban on the ANI page? This is a head-scratcher. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I was trying to offer you a kind word in a difficult time for you. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn’t. This is a dangerous path. Please turn back. I do not think you have much power to negotiate while taking the path you have. starship.paint (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion Bus stop. @Starship.paint and SPECIFICO: if you are referring to Bus stop's comments on this talk page, I think venting on one's own talk page is not a violation of the TBAN as long as it doesn't spill over into other talk pages and there are no personal attacks or BLP violations. I'll be the first to call out a violation on any other talk page, but not this one. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The initial bout of talk page venting is a violation of the ban, but it's something admins often choose not to strictly enforce. Kind of an unofficial grace period. Bus stop, I realize it sucks that this happened to you, but the other people commenting here are right. I recommend removing the banned articles and talk pages from your watchlist so they aren't constantly tempting you. Even accidental violations will make things harder if you eventually decide to appeal. ~Awilley (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll echo the above comments, as I have at the AN/I thread -- there is absolutely no way you are going to come out on top of this one. Please quit while you're ahead. jp×g 09:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• And again? Really? Many admins might have blocked you for that, and I will do if you repeat it. Please let the issue go and edit elsewhere; if you want to appeal it, you know how to do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite—compare the ledes of the Twitter article and the Parler article. The Parler article's lede consists entirely of criticism. The Twitter article's lede contains no criticism at all, in fact it is a glowing review of that entity's accomplishments—even though Twitter and Parler are very similar companies. Given the political implications, this is a serious WP:NPOV violation. Users get banned from Twitter and they go to Parler. This does not make Twitter angelic and Parler demonic. Reliable sources clearly criticize Twitter too. I've conceded that my argumentation on Talk:Parler was too vociferous. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I am aware that you have this opinion regarding that article; and I am sure you are not the only one. However, it is an article covered by your topic ban and therefore you will need to leave it to others to discuss for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate the rather odd mercy shown you to allow for some venting, any venting should be constructive appeals of the topic ban, not mentions of the subject which you are not allowed to mention. The topic ban includes any mention of the subject everywhere on Wikipedia, including this talk page, so please stop mentioning the topic in any manner. Get amnesia. Do something, or the next step, which you have already earned right above, is a full ban. -- Valjean (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Bus stop - as a wikifriend who can relate to what you're feeling, please try really hard to get past the anger. What's done is done, and nothing you can say or do at this point will change it. Knee-jerk reactions are expected, but continuing will not help. It's certainly not worth getting site banned over. In retrospect, Bishonen did you a favor with what may have felt like an ambush-style t-ban at the start of that ANI but think positive - your case may have ended much worse, and I'm concerned it still may if you don't change course. Take a wikibreak - find a Netflix marathon to keep you entertained; anything other than WP. Come back after the emotion has subsided, and use your editing skills to contribute to other topics. Remain cautious to not inadvertently violate your t-ban. Six months will pass quickly, and then you can appeal. Hopefully by then, we'll have 7 new arbs in place, and the DS-AE nightmare will either end or be modified once and for all. Atsme 💬 📧 12:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's really good advice. This too shall pass. I can also recommend Normal People and The Queen's Gambit. -- Valjean (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This too shall pass - a bit of smile time. PS - ❤️❤️❤️ for The Queen's Gambit but haven't seen Normal People. Atsme 💬 📧 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)