User talk:TParis

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

UTRS

Can you take a look at [1]? It's been 3 weeks since your request was answered by the checkuser. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	WikiConference North America Barnstar
	Thank you for the role you played at WikiConference North America 2016. This year's conference could not have been a success without your contributions and we hope you will continue to be involved in 2017. On behalf of WikiConference North America - Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism in the United States

I saw your comments on another user's page. Terrorism in the United States is paltry, certainly. Apparently slapped up by someone copying stuff form websites. I linked most of one section, weeding out some obvious duds as I worked. But the great majority of the incidents I looked at were actual, ideologically-motivated, terrorist attacks. Some linked to extremist organizations, others self-radicalized. The Harlem mosque article is very weak on analysis and unclear about ideology of that mosque. I don't know enough to judge motive on that one. I would be cautions about hasty deletions or mass deletions. I proceeded one by one, linking most, and deleting only after reading up. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Filth"

Hi, TP. You say on Hidden Tempo's AE appeal that "I've never seen someone sanctioned for calling an editor's remarks 'filth'". No, and if you're seeing it now, it looks like you're buying into Hidden Tempo's narrative that the "filth" edit summary was one of the things I sanctioned him for. It was not. As I pointed out on AE in response to HT's many claims that it was, I topic-banned him for "persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and WP:BLP violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages".[2] I didn't mention the "filth" edit summary in my banning rationale. I did mention it in a remark I posted simultaneously, above the ban template, but certainly not with guns blazing: for {¶\‰}¥{ sake, I barely even criticized it. I'm not that sensitive, and I don't suppose Volunteer Marek is either. I said I was "mystified" by it, given that the post HT was removing with that summary had seemed civil enough to me, and the statement VM made in it, that WP:BLP applies to talkpages, was correct. That's all. Please look at my edit for yourself: my ban rationale + remark about "filth edit summary", all one edit. An admin being mystified is not a sanction. But by now it's looking like my "sanction" for calling another editor's remarks "filth" has entered the realm of truth simply by being assiduously repeated. It may be around as a classic Wikipedia myth when both you and I are gone from here.

Altogether HT's notion of what he was banned for is IMO mistaken, not to say imaginary. Please look at the AE post where I explain this, it's the second paragraph here. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

Fair enough. I recalled you saying that in your remarks, but it'd already slipped my mind by the time I started formulating my comments. My primary concern is the civil POV pushing that I've always faced, though. I'm more apt to walk away from it than to keep arguing against a brick wall that will never move. Most people aren't. It's really easy to make someone else appear to be tendentious on this project.--v/r - TP 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, TParis. I just stopped by to ask if you could please take a minute to review my shortened and revised statement here, as it would be greatly appreciated. I misinterpreted Bishonen's statement and thought that the "filth" remark was part of my ban, since she mentioned it in the ban message on my talk page. I removed all mention of this incident in my revised statement. Additionally, I suppose it would be far too much to ask you to weigh in on my appeal on the AE board, but I think it would go a long way for an administrator to at least confirm (perhaps in your statement?) what many of us already know: that there is one standard for edits, sanctions, and WP:RS that are perceived to reflect well on Democrats (no action taken), and another for edits that are viewed to reflect poorly on Democrats (lengthy bans and/or blocks). As it stands now, the narrative appears to be that I am something of a raving gun-loving, right-wing Christian fundamentalist who listens to Rush Limbaugh all day long and is trying to infect Wikipedia with talking points from Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. The general consensus amongst regular users is that the 6-month topic ban was draconian and needlessly punitive in nature, with three or four administrators standing in solidarity to support Bishonen's TBAN. It would be fantastic to have at least one dissenting viewpoint. Thanks very much in advance, but please don't feel obligated to speak on my behalf. I'm already very grateful for the statement you've already made. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee that my opinion isn't going to be helpful. I'm also viewed on here as a "raving gun-loving, right-wing Christian fundamentalist who listens to Rush Limbaugh all day long and is trying to infect Wikipedia with talking points from Sean Hannity and Alex Jones". I really don't know what to do here.--v/r - TP 05:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, understood. Thank you anyway. I'm very curious how you managed to infiltrate the ranks of administrators, though!Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I generally don't edit political topics. Too many partisan editors there. In the past, I've been able to be impartial enough but sometimes, lately, this stuff has gotten to me. I'm not actually a conservative, anyway. According to isidewith.com, I am slightly left of American center. I just come off as conservative because I'm constantly arguing that people with shitty attitudes and POVs are given broad leeway as long as they have a certain persuasion.--v/r - TP 07:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Op Ed removal at Trumpism

Yo, amigo. There's nothing wrong with reverting an arguably UNDUE op-ed. But the issue at play is that TTAAC published a gratuitous vicious ad hominem smear against the author of that Op-Ed, thereby flouting BLP and the protections it provides for innocent third parties and the legal protection it provides WP. That is the issue and it suggests this editor is WP:NOTHERE. I'm surprised you'd discuss the trivial revert and ignore the issue raised by the edit comment. BTW normal, mature, constructive editors don't have opponents -- from time to time we have disagreements, not opponents. We discuss content. WP:Competence includes fundamental level of socialization that enables an editor to engage collaboratively with the diverse range of editors here. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We've had good discussions in the past, so please don't take this personally. But right now, I'm a bit frustrated but what I perceive to be double standards and I really don't want to talk about this. I've stricken my comments at AE. I'm not upset, but my faith in other editors/sysops in this topic area and AE is damaged. I'm feeling more division between myself and everyone else on this project than I've felt in a long time and I really doubt my words will be given any consideration by others. I've never felt more in my belief that there is a hostility toward conservatives here and that collaboration ends at political beliefs. I'm really not sure I could hold a conversation right now that wouldn't be damaging to our ability to chat about our differences. And that's not something I'd like to risk.--v/r - TP 01:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand, and that's why you are one of the editors whose wisdom and efforts I will always respect. See ya later alligator. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)