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)[reply]
This is backwards. If you want to ask that your ban be lifted, you need to explain why it should be, i.e., what's changed since it was imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. My error.
Well, to start with, I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive to the continued development of articles in the encyclopedia. I believe I am a good editor, have a lot to offer in the way of attention to detail, a good instinct for copyediting, and am a decent wordsmith with a good eye for what needs to be "Wikified". I'm also good at adding meaningful photos to articles, having added to and edited hundreds of images for Wikipedia purposes via Commons over the last half-dozen years (give or take). That's the good.
The bad: In my past editing, too much attention paid to the actions of others, which clouded my judgment and created bad relations between me and other editors as well as a bad reputation. Being unfocused on my real purpose for being here (improving Wikipedia) allowed me to make grave errors (which ultimately became my demise with the community ban) that hurt everyone in my path. Moreover, such behavior was detrimental to doing the things in Wikipedia I'm good at (article editing, adding content, improving the encyclopedia). Which ended up being a burden on pretty much everyone - even those who didn't realize it, because by becoming the focus of too many AN, AN/I, and 3RR discussions, I was taking admins and editors away from doing what we are all supposed to be focused on: improving Wikipedia content.
What's changed: My entire attitude toward editing, what I want to edit, what I want to be involved with. My attitude is this:
1 - Just edit/add content/create articles.
2 - Stay away from personality conflicts and avoid dissention/irritating other editors at all cost.
3 - Don't get bogged down or distracted by Wikipedia politics. Unless you're an admin or a 'crat, it really doesn't matter to small-fry such as myself. Editing is the thing, not the other stuff.
What I intend to edit: happy, meaningful stuff. Celebrity articles (happy stuff), destination articles (happy stuff), history articles (meaningful), military-related articles (meaningful), music articles (meaningful and happy). There are likely other "happy/meaningful" article categories I haven't mentioned here, not trying to limit myself by not mentioning them.
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.
From what I can tell, that covers it. If anyone feels I've left something out that I need to address, let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who has witnessed the drama surrounding Winkelvi in prior years, I welcome his candid approach to articulating what went wrong, and would support his return to editing. I would further advise Winkelvi, if he is allowed back, not to restrict himself to arbitrary topics, but to apply his renewed non-conflictual approach to any topic he feels like contributing to in the future. The small print: I seem to remember Winkelvi being male, and thus I addressed him this way, but if I have made the wrong assumption, I apologize. FWIW I'm male. — JFGtalk 00:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive"
We don't care. Reassure us that the negatives will have gone away. That's the bit we care about.
Otherwise I'd support an unblock, per WP:ROPE. I'd also point out that your indef block actually links to a dispute at a "happy stuff" celebrity article. It was an editorial dispute, not a content area dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see you don't care why I want to return - fair enough. I made that statement because I want the community to know the only reason I want to return, that there's no desire or plan for disruption, vendettas, revenge, anything like that. Which, if memory serves, ends up being something editors express worry over when lifting a community ban is considered. In other words, I stated my reason for wanting to return first in order to allay anyone's worry that I might be harboring a grudge and have some secret plan to settle scores, play games, or cause havoc of any kind. I've seen returning editors do that - I think we all have at one time or another. As far as you wanting to make sure the negatives have gone away, I believe I did address the negatives. If you need something more specific, please let me know what that specific is. As far as the indef, please take a look at the block log where it clearly states the indef was due to an interaction ban, not an editorial dispute: "03:25, November 1, 2018 Ritchie333 talk contribs blocked Winkelvi talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violation of interaction ban : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=715333046https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=866635941)" -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 01:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By "editorial dispute" I mean a dispute with an editor, and a particular editor, over the expression of material in an article. i.e. an article that's not in a political or contentious area. So even within "happy stuff", there's still that risk.
I have no wish to weaponise ROPE. But it's a safeguard for the rest of us that if you return to editing, and this were unfortunately to editing in a past and problematic style, then the block could be restored before there was too much disruption caused. It would be up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good editor, no reason to think he won't fulfill his pledge. The "Rope" bit gives me pause because of its potential to be weaponized. Just lift the block and let's move on. AtsmeTalk📧 02:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor should not be allowed to edit again. Besides being completely incapable of applying Wikipedia policy on issues in American politics and showing an inability to distinguish fact from fiction (it's still glued in my mind how Winkelvi refused to accept the basic uncontested-outside-of-rightwing-la-la-land fact that Trump had implemented a family separation policy, countless RS were thrown at him/her which stated it and explained, and MelanieN actually bothered to painstakingly explain it to Winkelvi step-by-step[1], and none of it without any success), the editor stalked those who he brushed up against in American politics editing and sought to sabotage pages unrelated to American politics that those editors edited as part of a harassment campaign. The editor made suggestions his/her editing behavior would improve after getting blocked and warned by admins[2], yet was immediately back to his/her bad ways.[3] So, not only was the editing horrendous (I can only comment on this user's edits in American politics) but there were serious behavioral problems. Judging by the history, if allowed to edit again and despite the promises of good behavior, the editor will undoubtedly get riled up about something on Sean Hannity's show, try to correct the fake news media content on Wikipedia, and hound editors when he/she inevitably ends up in the fringe minority on every content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about tuning down the vitriol and giving peace a chance? — JFGtalk 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a concern, certainly (and I know even less about US politics, so I haven't been watching this). Do you think that there's a credible path here where Winkelvi manages to: 1. avoid disputes with editors and 2. avoid US politics beyond the bounds of their knowledge, where we could all be happy?
Per ROPE, as noted, I'm not too worried about an angry dispute with a single editor: we would be able to limit the effects of such a dispute rapidly and with enough containment that cleanup is manageable. But competence on a subject is more of a problem: WP doesn't measure this or regard it highly, so a subject-naive editor can erode a large number of articles in a very gradual manner and there's no way to stop them. It's very hard to sanction an editor if all their edits simply make everything a little bit worse (in my own fields, nearer to engineering, there are a couple of names which make my heart sink whenever I see them, but there's nothing I can do about it). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My years of experience in Wikipedia have shown me it's not unusual that editors working strictly with political articles will, when faced with opposition to content and wording dispute from the other side of their own political and ideological mindset, frequently pull the competency card (along with others). That's a claim pretty much standard in political arguments, in Wikipedia as well as real life, social media, and so on. The editor above who is calling into question my competency in editing would be hard-pressed to find editors outside of political editing to call that into question. I always strove for neutrality in political articles, and that was frequently the dispute SS and I tangled in - also not unusual for the American political divide. One sees neutrality the other sees bias. Even if what he is saying were accurate, I've noted in my original statement that my intent is to steer clear of political articles and I gave exact reasons why: it stirs up dissent and division. Hope this clears up the question of my competency in editing. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My general impression was you mostly argued against posting of current, oftentimes trival latest news clips in an effort to keep political articles from turning into coatracks. Since most of the Ampol articles on current issues/persons are about as fun as scrubbing baked birdshit off the roof of a car, I'd simply edit elsewhere..at least for a while.--MONGO (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as such content, in my opinion, lent itself to bias for the reader since it frequently encourages confirmation bias. Anymore, I just don't care to be involved in such tussles. Which still seem to be the focus of political article talk pages. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you want this to go out for an official discussion, ping Awilley to move it to AN.--MONGO (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban I've worked with Winkelvi on articles outside the arena of American Politics and found him to be a fair better than average contributor. I would encourage Winklevi to unwatch all American Politics articles and spend his time wisely on more enjoyable areas.--MONGO (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winkelvi has shown an understanding of the problems. If we are wrong in reversing the block I'm sure the edits will be reversed and the block will be reinstated. If we are correct then Wikipedia will benefit from having another editor. The risk-benefit trade off seems to lean heavily toward unblock. Springee (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could also support this, but the supports and opposes here won't have any effect since a wider community process is needed to overturne a community-imposed ban. Maybe this can be copied to AN? ~Awilley (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only with an AmPol topic ban in place. That could be reviewed and removed at a later date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must be a cynical meanie and Oppose. The message that we should be sending is that editors are expected to have these changes of heart before consuming hundreds of editor-hours spanning more than several years. Winkelvi had more than ample opportunity to do that. If he needed time away from editing to find his new path – if he has in fact found one – it was his responsibility to take that time off. As far as I'm concerned this is just a continuation of WV's self-centered efforts to play the system as long as the system will allow itself to be played, demanding unlimited "fair" treatment from the project that he spent years treating so unfairly.WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse even if unconsciously, and we do not have a separate set of expectations for editors who have Asperger's. Put differently, an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right. I don't care if an editor declares Asperger's on their user page, but I do object when they ask for special "understanding". If we're allowing that, I have "challenges" of my own that I would like the community to take into account when assessing my behavior. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this goes. Everybody has an excuse.Mark my words – if this unblock passes, by this time next year we'll think we've been transported to 2015. And we'll start the same arduous uphill climb again, wasting yet more editor-hours in a succession of contentious ANI debates, perhaps achieving the next indef a few years after that. Would that indef be the last one? I honestly doubt it, en-wiki being the Land of Many Last Chances.I would be far more receptive to a Standard Offer appeal if the path to indef hadn't been so long, disruptive, and time-consuming. ―Mandruss☎ 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The indef was for an interaction ban violation. How is it that a community ban can go beyond the reason for the indef? I'm also incredibly disappointed that something considered a disability is being brought into this discussion and is being used as a reason to keep someone from editing Wikipedia: "an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right." Although I realize Wikipedia is its own entity and doesn't have to abide by the US Constitution, according to the Supreme Court as well as the ADA, those with disabilities actually are protected by the Constitution. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure whether we could expect you to continue using that as an excuse. ―Mandruss☎ 16:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my intent I wasn't clear enough in my response? I wasn't trying to use my condition as an excuse for anything, but was merely attempting to clear up a misconception you seem to have about Asperger's: that it's an actual disability, and those with it have Constitutional rights because it's a disability according to the American Disabilities Act (the Civil Rights Act, too) as well as the US Supreme Court. Frankly, if you hadn't added it to this discussion I wouldn't have brought my Asperger's up at all. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has anything to do with Wikipedia editing. If you don't intend that to be considered in assessments of your behavior, you should remove it from your user page and never mention your condition in discussions about your behavior in any venue or situation. Just like the thousands of other Asperger's sufferers who edit Wikipedia. Keep the userbox if you like. ―Mandruss☎ 16:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that most userboxes editors display regarding their personal life activities/interests/groups to which they belong have nothing to do with Wikipedia editing. What I'm not sure about is why you're now using my Asperger's and the Asperger's userbox on my user page against me, as if it's a bad thing and the condition makes Asperger's/ASD editors pariahs and undesirable as Wikipedia editors. At least that's how I'm interpreting your comments -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Again, I wouldn't have even mentioned it if you hadn't brought it up. It has nothing to do with this unblock/unban request. I don't remember if I brought it up during the discussion about the block when it was all occurring nine months ago, but I don't think I did (correct me if I'm wrong about that, too). Another point of clarification for when you speak of those on the autism spectrum in the future: people with ASD/Asperger's aren't "sufferers" as a result of the condition/disability. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong, you're twisting my words, and now I'm reminded of your long history of doing just that. I'm not going to debate this endlessly with you; my !vote stands, and, barring a dramatic reversal of the trend, my !vote will remain on the losing side. Rejoice. ―Mandruss☎ 17:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm fine being wrong in my understanding of what you're trying to say. But I'm not intentionally twisting your words, I'm only giving my understanding/interpretation of what you've said. Frankly, I'm glad I'm wrong about this. But maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I would have taken your meaning as less than helpful if you understood how many times I've had my Asperger's used against me as a weapon in numerous discussions as well as really ugly personal attacks that have come from anon IPs who have claimed I use my ASD as an excuse. Because of all that, I'm pretty easily upset when someone makes that claim (whether they be an account-holding editor or an anon IP) because it's simply not true. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to comment that a number of years back, Winkelvi and I had a bad argument regarding wording in the article 2014 Oso mudslide..it was bad enough I sought admin actions against him. But this subsided...we found common ground and I have seen his other work and find it as, I already mentioned above, well above par for the course. Many years before that an editor dragged me to arbcom and ended up getting themselves site banned...they even created the bulk of the material about MONGO over at EncyclopdiaDramatica. This editor later worked at Commons where they were not banned, became an admin there then petitioned here to get unbanned and even later became an admin here. I was asked whether I objected and I know with confidence had I done so they would not have been able to get the admin toolbelt. However, I simply stayed out of it. I think the inability of others to let go of past issues reflects more on them than it does on Winkelvi...especially considering I highly doubt he's going to be venturing back into areas he previously found troublesome for him.--MONGO (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation really ought to be taking place at AN. Personally, I would lean toward opposing at AN because of the argumentative behavior right here directed at Mandruss. If consensus is to unblock, I will advocate for a formal topic ban on post 1932 US politics. I would also want a readable signature. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)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 ● ✉✓ 18:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looked like he was merely trying to reach a better understanding. Mandruss is hardly being charitable and it lools to me to be deliberately provocative to elicit a negative response, which I think Winklevi weathered amicably to be honest. I'm not impressed with vindictive baiting and goading of defendents.--MONGO (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss to imagine a thoroughly-articulated Oppose !vote that you wouldn't characterize as vindictive baiting and goading. ―Mandruss☎ 18:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi, two administrators have told you that this should be moved to AN (count me as a third). This idea of a pre-vote is not a good one. As for Mandruss, they could have called you a flaming asshole, and your response should be the same: ignore them. If you're going to let yourself be "goaded", you're going to have problems. Your sensitivity and response to these issues historically has not proved to be productive for you and often counterproductive for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, both of your points are well taken. Of course, ignoring the goading I can take charge of and actually do on my own. Moving this to AN is something I cannot. Since Awilley brought it up first, I guess he's the one I should request make that happen. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done