User talk:Sleyece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your Conduct[edit]

Resolved [1]}} See Wikipedia:IPs are human too

January 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston — note this user was blocked for 7 days for edit-warring on Dick Cheney. He immediately began edit-warring again once the block expired. In that first block I suggested not applying a indefinite block. I urge you to consider whether it may be worth it at this point. 31 hours seems rather short and somewhat arbitrary? Did you mean 31 days? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on the users reverting their talk page as well and keeping this strange list of "Conduct Friends", I suggest a further block and TPA removal as well. Clearly WP:NOTHERE behavior. -- Dane talk 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Katietalk 23:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sleyece (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17290 was submitted on Jan 07, 2017 23:22:42. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access
As you were informed in response to your UTRS appeal, in which you have given clear assurance as to your future editing behaviour, I have decided to enable access to your talk page to allow you to appeal here and enable Community input into the appeal. Please post your unblock request here for Community review. You can follow the instructions at WP:GAB. If you use this talk page for any purpose other than an appeal in the terms of the UTRS appeal then I, or another Admin, will immediately indefinitely remove access to your talk page again, and that will most probably be that. Just Chilling (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result is Unblock. Sleyece has answered all the questions put to them and there has been no opposition to an unblock. Sleyece will be aware that their edits will be closely scrutinised and that no latitude will be allowed in the event of future issues. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Dane, CFCF, KrakatoaKatie, Kuru, EdJohnston, and Just Chilling: I wanted to take time and think of a proper response before an appeal. I apologize for causing any disruption, as it was not my intention. I have been editing in the exact opposite way of the conduct of Wikipedia. I thought, leading up to the indefinite block, the "bold" editing means that you change a page and then go to the talk page to explain what you did and why you did it. The fact that users would almost always revert edits or report me only added to my confusion and frustration. Also, I thought I had complete control of my talk page, but I have been studying the techniques to set up a bot for automatic archival, and I will not blank future information. In conclusion, if I am allowed to regain user privileges I will build consensus with other users with the goal of building an accurate and thorough encyclopedia before making any edits or changes to the site. -- Sleyece 18:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sleyece: I would like some information about what you were doing here? This list has been taken very seriously as some sort of potential declaration against these users and there is no apparent explanation for it yet. What specific policies have you reviewed that will prevent you from participating in the same conduct that you did previously? And how would you respond to Sunshineisles2 who you were involved in an edit war with, declaring your edits "OFFICIAL"? I would need answers to these questions before I can give my further input regarding your block. I do not mean for these questions to seem harsh, my focus is on ensuring your return would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Dane talk 04:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dane: I reviewed these policies
. Did I miss any? If so, I will promptly review them. In response to Sunshineisles2 as well as Motsebboh, I'm sorry for labeling my edits as "OFFICIAL" and edit warring. They were obviously not official, as that makes no sense. I was just confused as to why my edits were so instantly reverted, and I was warring as a result. As for the "Conduct friends" portion of my talk page. I had been keeping a list of users who I had been involved in conduct issues with. I had hoped to contact them for advice so as to end my ignorance as a user, but that obviously backfired spectacularly. As stated previously, I now know that is inappropriate use of the User's talk page. If I have left out any information in this appeal, please don't hesitate to inform me. Thank you. -- Sleyece 01:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sleyece and Just Chilling: Given the above explanations and apologies as well as the review of policy, I would personally support an unblock of this editor. They have adequately responded to all of my questions, in great detail and explained what steps they will take to prevent the behavior from recurring. This to me shows a commitment to working collaboratively and accepting feedback that was not present when the block was initially set. A second chance may lead to a productive editor -- so why not give it another go? -- Dane talk 03:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree Adotchar| reply here 12:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF, KrakatoaKatie, Kuru, EdJohnston, and Just Chilling: Were there any other questions regarding this appeal? -- Sleyece 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would personally like to thank all users for considering this appeal. Is it still currently being considered? An update would be greatly appreciated. -- Sleyece 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It is normal to allow a clear week for discussion and I currently plan to close it tomorrow. Just Chilling (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sleyece, can you explain the edit warring complaint about your actions at Edith Wilson? She was President Wilson's wife, who helped him when he was ill. You insisted that she be referred to by Wikipedia as the 'de-facto President of the United States'. At the time I thought this was so outlandish that you must have been trolling or intending to provide a response. (Such wording would surely have to come from scholars and be well-supported, which it was not). Can you explain? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: that is an excellent point, and I forgot to mention that I will not make edits without proper citations. I did here Talk:Warren G. Harding, but I did not understand Wikipedia's conduct. Therefore, my edits were inconsistent. I have a much firmer grasp of policies and expectations now. As for Edith Wilson, I edited based on a personal opinion and an overestimation of the remainder of the data on that page. I failed to seek consensus with other editors, which I will do in the future. - Sleyece 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I will seek consensus with other editors in the future - Sleyece 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Just Chilling: Has the discussion on this appeal currently closed? I am eager, hopefully, to have the opportunity to improve as an editor. - Sleyece 17:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I know that you are anxious for this application to be closed but questions are still being asked and answered. It is important that everyone has the fullest opportunity to discuss their concerns. Having said that, I note that no-one has yet expressed opposition to lifting the block and I hope to be able to close soon. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sleyece, can you explain what the "Conduct Friends" section was that you added? Thanks, Adotchar| reply here 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adotchar: (Stated previously in response to Dane (talk · contribs): "I had been keeping a list of users who I had been involved in conduct issues with. I had hoped to contact them for advice so as to end my ignorance as a user") Of course, there seems to have been a lot of confusion as to my intentions with "Conduct Friends." I thought I had unrestricted control of the user's talk page, and I was trying to keep a convenient list of users/admins that I had been involved with conduct issues with in my short stint on Wikipedia. I had planned to use the list to get advice from other users about how I should conduct myself on Wikipedia, so I could avoid issues in the future. I now understand that the list was itself a violation of Wikipedia's policy, and that behavior will not be repeated if I am allowed to continue as an editor. - Sleyece 01:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are further questions, I will await a consensus from administrators on my potential to be a successful Wikipedia editor in the future. - Sleyece 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States[edit]

I wanted you to know that I refactored your hatting of the talk page thread "User: Sleyece; Comments, Concerns, and Feedback". According to Template:Atop editors are not supposed to hat discussions they have been involved in. I retained your hatting comment that a new discussion should be started at the end of that thread. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Shearonink, I understand. I am now aware of that template, and I will employ it in the future.

Your signature[edit]

Hi. I don't know how you're doing it, but somehow the time/date stamps in your signatures have a nonstandard format that will not be recognized by certain software functions including archive bots. Are you signing using the four tildes as shown at WP:SIGHOW? ―Mandruss  20:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Mandruss, I have not been doing that. I have just been using a simple '-' to indicate possession. From now on I will 'Sleyece (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)' to alert the archive bots.

I have been manually filling out my signature, in case you were still wondering.
Looks much better, thanks. ―Mandruss  17:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indents at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I edited your comments here only because they broke the page. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop by and say that I see you changed the indenting, but I think you did so incorrectly, no offense. Often, where there's an edit conflict ("e/c"), two comments will be at the same indent level--because they're responding to the same original. Woodroar couldn't have been responding to my comment, because that's where the e/c came from. The way you've set it up makes it seem as if it was a neat chronological step-to-step, but it wasn't, quite. Not a big deal, just wanted to offer that thought. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Dumuzid. I reverted the edit, thanks.

Regarding the Donald Trump handshakes talk[edit]

I still have not seen any good reason in any of the talk page or deletion discussions for that article. It is clearly NPOV. Also I was not seriously suggesting making a Vladimir Putin and walking article, I was using that to make a point — how ridiculous the whole concept of this article is.

Anyway, just noticed that you closed the discussion and your rationale, and so I just wanted to let you know that my intentions are not malevolent. I am genuinely curious — again, people are saying that this has already been discussed, yet so far no good reason to keep the article has actually been presented, or how the article is not so blatantly NPOV. Just because the mainstream media, which has been demonizing Trump 24/7 for the past eight months, starts going on and on about his handshakes, that does not require Wikipedia to make an article about every single contrived scandal they come up with. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Romanov loyalist, Please do not come to my talk page to levy general complaints. If there is a specific policy you think I may have violated, you can post it here. Also, if you think I deserve a Barnstar, which, from context clues, seems unlikely, you may post that here. Thank you.

Your draft article, User:Sleyece/Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States[edit]

Hello, Sleyece. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @JMHamo:, but a consensus has already been reached on that draft. I don't need it anymore. Sleyece (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-requested block[edit]

Per your request, I have blocked your account for two weeks. ~ Amory (utc) 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Levivich 02:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis 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.

Levivich 02:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you're repeatedly changing the infobox at Bernie Sanders to list him as a Democrat (diff, diff, diff, diff). I reverted the most recent change just now. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is a discussion about this at the article's talk page. Also, editors have been reverting you and pointing you to the discussion in edit summaries. Also, there is a <!-- comment --> in the code about this that you don't seem to be noticing. So, I thought I'd post at your talk page. Note that this article is under two sets of discretionary sanctions, one for BLP and one for post-1932 American politics; I've posted both notices above. Please don't change the infobox to Democrat until there is consensus on the talk page, but please do join the conversation there. Thank you and happy editing! Levivich 02:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)