User talk:Winkelvi: Difference between revisions
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
{{U|Objective3000}}, you wrote: {{tq|"The request may have enjoyed better reception had it included a voluntary AP2 TBan"}} It did/does: "What I'm no longer interested in: Current politics. It's just so divisive and creates ugliness all around. I have no stomach for it any longer. It's a trigger for people. Triggering = stress. For everyone in the vicinity. Just not interested in going there any longer." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=909840618&oldid=909824157] I was saying I don't want to and don't intend to edit articles on AmPol ever again. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
{{U|Objective3000}}, you wrote: {{tq|"The request may have enjoyed better reception had it included a voluntary AP2 TBan"}} It did/does: "What I'm no longer interested in: Current politics. It's just so divisive and creates ugliness all around. I have no stomach for it any longer. It's a trigger for people. Triggering = stress. For everyone in the vicinity. Just not interested in going there any longer." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=909840618&oldid=909824157] I was saying I don't want to and don't intend to edit articles on AmPol ever again. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Saw that. It's not a formal, voluntary TBan which would include sanctions if violated. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 16:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
:Saw that. It's not a formal, voluntary TBan which would include sanctions if violated. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 16:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
::You claimed I did not offer to stay away from AmPol. Your claim is untrue. I did voluntarily offer to stay away from editing such articles and meant it when I said it. Any further formalities to solidify the voluntary tban would be instituted by the community, not me, correct? '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|JFG}}, if you have the time, I'd appreciate you moving these comments as well. Thank you so much for your assistance. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
{{U|JFG}}, if you have the time, I'd appreciate you moving these comments as well. Thank you so much for your assistance. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|-- ψλ]]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 9 August 2019
This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Request return to editing
Would like for the community to consider an overturn of my site ban. Since I know many have watchlisted this talk page, would appreciate comments (from legitimate accounts) re: the request from any and all so inclined. This includes editors I may have previously requested to not post in this userspace. Sincerely, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Responses:
- For Bishonen:
"Further, I'll remind you and others of my own proposal, pretty much exactly a year ago, for an unofficial, voluntary undertaking by you to behave better in some particular respects,[121] to which you responded with a comparison of yourself, as the victim of me and my intolerance, with the victims of the Jim Crow laws."
Yes, I did compare myself in such a manner. Anyone know why? Because (surprise, surprise!) I'm not white. As a matter of fact, I've been experiencing racism since before most of you were likely born. Watching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted and actually being one to march with MLK gave people like me hope. I've never mentioned race in relation to myself before in Wikipedia because it didn't seem pertinent. But because I know what discrimination feels like, intimately so, and still experience it in face-to-face interactions, when I see folks in places online -- people who are likely not white -- get huffy with anyone they think is not white. I laugh. A lot. Want to talk Jim Crow? I know what it was about. In a way you never will. My discrimination radar is quite well tuned, my outrage is legitimate.
I will only (and even then with some hesitation) support an unblock on condition of an indefinite TBAN from post-1932 American politics, where Winkelvi's editing has been by far the most problematic. A real, broadly construed, strictly enforced TBAN. Not a pious hope that he'll behave better in the area, or that he'll remain uninterested in it (as he has told us that he now is), or an encouragement to him to unwatch American politics articles. An actual TBAN.
Would such a ban keep me from editing articles on US presidents who served prior to 1993? If so, I don't know how I feel about that. I have a strong interest in US Presidents and was hoping that if I were unblocked, I would be able to edit pre-1993 presidential bio articles. If specifically just politics: no problem. As I already stated more than once, I have no interest in continuing to edit AmPol articles in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- For Dlohcierekim:
"Prior IBAN(s) in place. Would need to agree to 1RR.
Prior IBAN, no problem. 1RR? Why? At the time of the indef, I hadn't had an issue with 3RR for quite a long time. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- For J. Johnson
"His invocation that :those with disabilities actually are protected by the [U.S.] Constitution" shows a profound misunderstanding: his ban was not for having a disability, but for extensive bad behavior. Which the Constitution does not protect."
Could you please re-read those comments for context? If you do, I hope you note I was NOT saying I ever thought my ban had anything to do with my disability nor was I saying I'm protected by the US Constitution in Wikipedia because of my disability. In fact, I thought I made a point to make sure it was understood I wasn't saying that at all". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- For Cullen328: I'm going to repeat what was already said to you at my talk page, what was copied and pasted here, but is now lost apart from your second oppose !vote: Cullen, my comments in response to Mandruss were driven by my misunderstanding of what he was saying. We seem to have that now worked out -- and that's a good thing. Something that can only happen through discussion. I don't see argumentativeness, I see discussion and an attempt to understand. On the other hand, when I see what seems to be someone making an unfair and inaccurate commentary about my character and motivations (whether past or present), I don't think it's wrong to defend oneself against what is seen (at the time) as character assassination. As I mentioned above to Mandruss, if you had been subjected to as many inappropriate comments and personal attacks about my Asperger's as I have over the years (like I also said above, lobbed by editors as well as anon IP vandals), maybe you could understand why once again seeing someone claim I use Aspergers as an excuse is not just triggering but hurtful. His comments were - and I am quoting him directly - "WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse". Of course I'm going to respond to that kind of thing. Is it reasonable to expect someone to not defend oneself under such circumstances?" -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I only stated my formal, bolded opposition once, at AN, the proper venue. Your behavior today simply strengthens my conclusion that Wikipedia is not the right place for you. As for an AP topic ban, that would apply to every president since Herbert Hoover. I hope that you are able to find another hobby and less tumult. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
JFG, since you copied and pasted from this page to AN earlier, would you mind doing the same now? Thank you, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done
Responses part deux:
Drmies, you wrote: "Did I see Winkelvi quote someone on their talk page who said "Welcome to the new Jim Crow days"? That's revolting--someone who was severely disruptive gets blocked by their peers on a private website, and that's JUST LIKE African Americans were treated since Reconstruction?"
I'm assuming you missed the entire conversation as well as the comment from Bishonen with my response to her. I'll summarize: You are a very, very white man who wasn't even born or living in the United States when I, a very non-white man, was protesting with MLK in the southern city where I was residing at the time. This very non-white man is amused by very, very white men who do not have the right to lecture men such as myself on how they should speak about the Jim Crow they actually experienced. I hope that clears things up. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Sladen, you wrote: "Would the user of your account be willing to eg. (a) use a normal signature (suggestion of others above), (b) demonstrate ~six months of reduced conflict editing without using revert (eg. on commons; (c) subscribe to WP:0RR (ie. no reverts from your account), enforced by (d) a series of escalating blocks, eg. 1 month, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months… for infractions?"
I can't say I understand why 0RR is being proposed when edit warring had long been put behind me at the time of the indef. In other words, it hadn't been an issue for quite some time. Can you explain why that point is in your proposal? Signature - I'm still unclear why it's such an issue for a handful of users. There are plenty of signatures used in WP that are similar to my own. But it's really not that big of a deal for me to keep it as is, then I'm fine with changing it. As to Commons - I'm confused about this. Commons, for me, is a place where photos are uploaded. My time spent in Commons (without looking at actual statistics) has been 95% image uploading and the remainder discussion. If I do what you are asking, I would have to force myself to get involved in discussions at Commons, and that seems to me to be the opposite of what people are looking for. Shouldn't I be less "talkative" and more productive edit-wise? There is no editing at Commons apart from uploads. Can you explain further your rationale? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Objective3000, you wrote: "The request may have enjoyed better reception had it included a voluntary AP2 TBan"
It did/does: "What I'm no longer interested in: Current politics. It's just so divisive and creates ugliness all around. I have no stomach for it any longer. It's a trigger for people. Triggering = stress. For everyone in the vicinity. Just not interested in going there any longer." [4] I was saying I don't want to and don't intend to edit articles on AmPol ever again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Saw that. It's not a formal, voluntary TBan which would include sanctions if violated. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- You claimed I did not offer to stay away from AmPol. Your claim is untrue. I did voluntarily offer to stay away from editing such articles and meant it when I said it. Any further formalities to solidify the voluntary tban would be instituted by the community, not me, correct? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
JFG, if you have the time, I'd appreciate you moving these comments as well. Thank you so much for your assistance. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)