User talk:Bilseric

Question

In my culture, discussions are much more emotional and attacking-like.

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Are there are articles or books you can point me to on this subject? Or this something you personally observed? If I was to make this claim about any culture, I would be laughed out of the room. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my personal observation. It's surprising to me that you haven't noticed cultural differences between people in that regard. May I ask, how many languages you speak? But, this is interesting whether that is actually covered in some literature. I'll try to find out just out of personal interest. I often felt that Wikipedia needs more understanding that people come from different cultures. I'm not a native of English. I can agree this words I have used here don't fully describe what I wanted to say. I'll try to find better words in the dictionary. For now I'll remove the second word, not to have bad connotations. The first one can stay there in my opinion. I just provided a brief description. I didn't realize anyone would actually read it, as I've been active on so small number of articles, where I'm not a stranger. I've been editing so , without any problems until recent events, which made me feel I need to state this is SPA on my page. As said, I don't like that I'm burdened with this contributions page. People change and someone reading my previous comments might get a different opinion. I would like Wikipedia to have User Contributions page as an option. I never had it as an IP and that is the was I'm accustomed to edit. Who cares I said something 7 years ago. I probably changed my opinion on that so many time that I wouldn't even recognize I said it, if someone showed it to me. Maybe that's one more opinion stemming from cultural difference. You may also note that I write long posts....and so on...I'm really surprised you wouldn't think that different cultures have different styles of discussing. Bilseric (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are describing Klingon culture. How do you like Earth? Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a fan of Star Trek. I really don't see where you see similarities with Klingon culture. Bilseric (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we have something in common. I am also a fan. The Klingons are known for emotional discussions which attack each other in various ways, the more aggressive the better. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, but that would be more "attacking" in a physical sense. Bilseric (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least describe what you mean when you say your culture is more emotional and attacking in discussion? How about an example? I’m genuinely interested. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many languages do you speak? Bilseric (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good example [1]: "Lynchings of African Americans were brought up as an embarrassing skeleton in the closet for the US, which the Soviets used as a form of rhetorical ammunition when reproached for their own economic and social failings". This logical fallacy is still often used in Russia. This is a significant cultural difference. Bilseric (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very familiar with it. But the example you cited isn’t a form of discussion; it’s a communication style rooted in persuasive, political propaganda. We have similar rhetorical strategies in the US, but this is not something the common person calls their own. My overarching, yet unstated point and implication is that there is a general baseline, a universal approach to discussion that is rooted in respect, listening, understanding, and civility. I think we have to be careful not to let our different cultural biases, which we all have, overwhelm our basic shared humanity. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it stems from the different culture, from emotions which are expressed differently in different cultures. Not to call this example is a part of any culture. It is a logical fallacy as listed on Wiki. Of course, I'm not trying to say more emotions in a discussion is better. I agree there has to be agreement how to have an objective discussion. Of course it's a personal trait as well. However, I have noticed that in some cultures people are more emotional than in others. Bilseric (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can more relate to this [2]. See how translators make D. Trump sound much different to different cultures. The change in vocabulary makes all the difference. Bilseric (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That video is what we call comedy. It’s not intended to be taken seriously. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say that to my parents who get the translated Trump and get a totally skewed image of what he said. Bilseric (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting point that I would like to hear more about. If you have any free time to expand on that idea please do so on my talk page, and feel free to write as much as you like and for how long as you like, as I don’t mind. Unfortunately, I have to go out to dinner and some activities now, but I will be back in about six hours. Thanks for your time and for attempting to answer my question. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. It's 3:20 am here and I work tomorrow, but I enjoyed this discussion. I don't know if I can expand more on this, though. Bilseric (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it just crossed my mind. You surely have heard that French is the language of love. I don't speak French so I cant attest, but I would say that emotions are expressed easier on French, just based on the saying. Bilseric (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bilseric (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've valued editing Wikipedia for years. I haven't ever been reported for any misconduct. I have actually not agreed to anything as suggested. I have said that I'm taking a break, that's all. Nowhere on Wikipedia guidelines or practices is it stated that when someone says that he's taking a break and changes his mind it should be followed by a year long ban. I was in no bounds to take a break, nor it was required of me by anyone. There was no agreement where I should take a break or be banned for a year. This was stated only later on by this admin. And lastly, I'm not even "breaking" my "agreement" with my edit as I have only restored my comments which were modified by another user. For 10 years I had only positive experiences with Wikipedia and now this. First I get a warning for being SPA, when this is perfectly legal and according to Wiki guidelines, then I say that I'll take a break, but later restore one edit which modified my comments and not I get a year long ban. This seems to extreme. Everyone with just a little experience and common decency would know not to modify anyone's comments. If my statement that I'll take a break is the reason for the ban, hereby I'm withdrawing my my suggestion as I was in no bounds to make such suggestion. Doug Weller, since I was naming you in my initial report, a fair thing would be to abstain from moderating actions and leave other uninvolved admins to resolve it. They have resolved it, and then later on you come to my talk page with such "agreement" suggestion and threats of bans if I don't agree. You acting like this just seems like a retribution. Bilseric (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this request and converting this partial block into an indefinite site wide block. Don't make promises you can't keep, then accuse others when you fail to live up to these. El_C 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I really don't know what to do about an editor who has been a problem, says that they will take a break for a year, and then ignores that. Bilserice, you can't make an editor involved by naming them. Anyway, there's a relevant discussion here [3] and here[4] "It appears you have but I’d like you to affirm it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have said until 2025, but if you think a full year, ok, I can also agree. I can work and collect sources in the meantime. But this is a SPA. I'm involved in a very narrow list of topics. I asked several times whether it's possible to have SPA, but no one is answering. Instead we are debating who edited whose commentes first. Bilseric (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller , I don't have to agree anything with you. I can take a break on my own and I can change my mind. Many editors have done so. It does not warrant a ban, nor a suggestion that is "problematic". I'm not even arguing here that I have changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind. But, I have certainly not agreed that I won't restore my comments which were modified by another user (bdw, as you know, modifying someone's comments is frowned upon on Wikipedia). We obviously have some cultural or language difficulties to understand each other upon the "agreement" matter, but I'm saying it to you now and I have said it before, that I haven't agreed anything. Do you understand this? By default, I don't have to agree this with you, unless you are threating me with such actions. You haven't done so. Me stating that I'll take a break is thus just a statement. And, again, I am taking a break. On my own, not because of you. It would be better if you stopped lurking over me, as both of us are just wasting time. Please understand, that me taking a break doesn't mean I won't restore my own comments that were modified by another user. Call me problematic or whatever, but objectively this revert can hardly be called "breaking" the agreement even if such had existed in your head. To be more blatant, someone could come to my user page , modify and write anything and according to your logic, I shouldn't revert or I should be banned. Bilseric (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, please do not quote a setence where I have used a word "agree" , because the context is what I have explained above. I certainly haven't agreed to be banned if I ever change my mind. And I haven't changed my mind at all. And I have certainly not agreed not to revert if someone modifys my comments or vandalizes my user page or something similar. All this is assumed only in your head. Bilseric (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you think you should be free to return to editing the issue in question if you want to? Doug Weller talk 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting absurd. Why are you lurking over me? What's your problem with me? State it openly and we can deal with it. Don't give me this "agreement". Why would you even ask me for such "agreement". I've been on Wikipedia for more than a decade and I've never seen this kind of "agreement" so far. Why are you coming here and asking me to for some "agreements"? I don't need to make any agreements with you, nor do I need your permissions to edit Wikipeida. Are you seriously asking me if I think "that I should be free to return to editing". This is just absurd. Either we deal with your problems with me in an objective way, or please stay away from me. Of course you are free to act if you feel I'm not following any Wikipeida guideline. Your "agreement" is just so absurd. I don't even know how to explain in words my feelings. If you want to be an objective admin, cite the Wiki guideline which I'm not following , inform me and I stated already multiple times that I'm willing to improve. If I continue to go against guidelines then you can apply measures. This is my advice to you as a person to person. Bilseric (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't post walls of texs to justify my revert of vandalism to my previous edits. You obviously have some deeper problem with me. Bilseric (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand. I'm not here to make any personal agreements with you. Bilseric (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And since it was suggested to me that I should be concise, here's what it boils down to: I'm allowed to revert vandalism to my posts/talk page/user page even if such "agreement", which I would call fictional and absurd had existed or not. Bilseric (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Enough is enough. Your treatment of Doug above is not acceptable. If you continue with this, or of if you bring up your health problems again in relation to any of this, I will revoke your talk page access. No more aggression. If you're gonna submit an unblock request, you should review WP:GAB closely. Thank you.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #88954 has been declined. JBW (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]