User talk:Deicas

Welcome!

Hello, Deicas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zad68 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=84761896&oldid=84760741 This was most correct version, this idiot today reverted everything under umbrella of POV, which is not, go there and see what can be done to be reverted to this version.

Question

You have made 121 edits to the English Wikipedia so far.

How did you learn so much about how Wikipedia works in such a short time?

Regards. Cs32en 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made my first Wikipedia edit several months ago. How is that "such a short time"? And what is so cognitively demanding about editing Wikipedia? Do tell. And some of us learned about footnotes and citations back in the days of the typewriter.

Why do you ask? Deicas (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking this because your knowledge of Wikipedia seems to go beyond "footnotes and citations". Your answer is not really convincing. Cs32en 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing to Wikipedia more complexity than is its' due. And anyway, my training at the [Bilderberg Group] covered Wikipedia subversion almost as extensively as it did techniques of oppressing the masses. I was #2 in my "Covert World Domination" class. I have what it takes.

I repeat my question -- how is several months "such a short time"? Deicas (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by your achievements at the Bilderberg Group. Surely subversion of Wikipedia must be an important part of the tasks that have been assigned to you. Whether several months is a short time or not certainly depends on the context. How did you get to know about Wikipedia, and what were your motivations for not just reading, but also editing the encyclopedia? Cs32en 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My department in the Special Executive has traditionally been involved in counter-intelligence, terrorism, revenge and extortion, but of late we're been focusing on compromising elections to our ends. And we are *very good* at it, witness the performance of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate special election. If we can do that in Ted Kennedy's old district we can get a practicing Satanist elected pope -- which is on our schedule for 2Q2011. I don't do much Wikipedia work as the consensus at the Special Executive is that Wikipedia is too filled with kooks to be influential on the topics about which we care. But we have a grant from Trilateral Commission for Wikipedia subversion which pays for the research staff, so I don't have to spend much time on the matter. Sorry I have to go now, there is a big planning meeting to decide on the location of the next earthquake to destroy a blighted, and unprofitable, third-world nation. Deicas (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the YouTube video

Several editors have given a number of reasons why the YouTube video that you have used in the article 9/11 Truth movement is not a reliable source. There are also concerns about a possible copyright violation. An inquiry a the Reliable sources noticeboard has been closed as resolved, concluding that the video is unreliable. Do you intend to remove the video from the article? Cs32en Talk to me 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the issue. Deicas (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Paul Krugman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zad68 23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not edit waring. I have *extensively* commented my justifications on the talk page, and now, BLPN. I have, also, un-reverted, an edit by a now-banned sockpuppet. Deicas (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deicas. A few points:

You appear to misunderstand the difference between discussion and edit-warring. Discussing and edit warring are mutually exclusive–you can be engaging in both at the same time. Since you have this misunderstanding, you should definitely read the links in the warning provided above so that you know Wikipedia's definitions of these concepts, which are the definitions an administrator will use when handling an edit-warring report.

Also, based on your edit summary in this edit, you appear to have another misunderstanding of Wikipedia process. Your request to have the revert explained to you in a certain way doesn't prevent the application of normal Wikipedia process when an edit is challenged via a revert. You need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, and WP:BRD.

It appears you have never received a Welcome message with a set of links to the most important Wikipedia policies, so I'll leave you one, and hope you find it useful. Happy editing... Zad68 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to editprotect Talk:Paul Krugman

Re:

As discussion of the Paul Krugman article seems to have moved/been moved here, to biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman, from Talk:Paul_Krugman -- is is reasonable & proper for me to request that an administrator editprotect Talk:Paul_Krugman with a view toward keeping all the discussion in one location? How would I go about making such a request? Deicas (talk) 9:56 pm, Today (UTC−5)

What you are requesting is the opposite of what needs to happen. The BLP Noticeboard is only for serious BLP issues that need immediate attention. That BLPN topic was covering a rather routine content discussion that needs to be resolved at the article Talk page. When an edit-war breaks out at the article, an administrator may lock the article to force discussion to happen at the article Talk page. So, you should be bringing suggested article improvements and Wikipedia policy-based reasons for your suggestions to the article Talk page. Suggestions that gain consensus may be implemented at the article. Suggestions that don't won't be applied. Zad68 03:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits -- naughty User:Deicas forgets to sign edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SineBot -- D'oh! I am aware that I should sign my posts and I Facepalm every time I forget to do so.

See above! I just did it again! As people get older we become difficult to train. Deicas (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trillion dollar coin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Who (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is extremely confusing

Your post is extremely confusing, and I don't want to distract the thread by asking for clarification there. You said:

User:Sphilbrick: If you are make an assertion that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion dollar coin does not rise to a level of signifigance sufficent to merit inclusion in Paul Krugman then why are you saying that in the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant' thread just above? This thread addresses "Article-level POV problem".

I didn't contribute to the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant'. Did you miss a "not"?

Did you miss that my response was a direct reponse to Amadscientist, who was asserting an opinion, without any evidence, that the issue deserved mention. I disagree. Amadscientist's first two sentences are related to POV, but the third is not. Please take issue with Amadscientist if you want to keep subject matter together.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you corrected the statement. My response stands, I was responding to Amadscientist who opinedThe Trillion dollar coin issue deserves a mention in my view as encyclopedic and having enough notability to mention... I disagree and said so. If you think Amadscientist should be making that statement in a different section, by all means let Amadscientist know, but do so at Amadscientist's talk page, please stop cluttering up the page with your directives. If someone goes off-topic, it only makes sense to direct your request to the person who goes off-topic, not to the person who responds.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comment just above:

1) D'oh! Indeed my RfC comment was missing a "not". I've now fixed that.

2) Per your "... [p]lease take issue with Amadscientist ..." -- yes I will do that. I have attempted to address procedural issues with Amadscientist and *I* am unsatisfied with his response, but, I am not familiar with the DRN RfC process so I don't know if my expectations are reasonable.

3) I applaud you effort to not "distract the thread".

Would you please confirm that you've read this post, with a comment here below?. I'm not certain that I have the hang of communicating via Wikipedia user talk pages. Deicas (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color me skeptical, but yes, I've read it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you view your role...

...at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman?

As a participant in the dispute, or as a facilitator in dispute resolution?

You listed yourself as an involved party, and some of your comments are clearly opinions on the subject matter, yet you are directing others to move posts to different sections, and frankly, doing a poor job of it.

If I post in the wrong section, I'd be happy if someone let me know, but it would be better to do so on my talk page, so it doesn't clutter up the dispute resolution page. Removing comments is bad form. Plus, you are 0–3. See my post above for your first error, although I haven't yet figured out whether you just said the opposite of what you meant, or something else.

Now you are alleging that my comment is about "inclusion" when in fact, it is a rebuttal of your premature and incorrect reading of consensus.

I request that you work on reading more carefully, and if you do find something that deserves a different location, post to the editor's talk page to keep clutter to a minimum.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

1) Per your question: I am first and foremost a participant in the dispute. After all, I was the the editor who made the edit that is one of, but not the only, subject of discussion in the RfC.

2) As no one else seems to be acting as to facilitate moving the discussion in a dispositive direction, I have taken, hopefully non-tendentious, actions to do so.

2a) I call your attention to my, as yet unanswered, question in the RfC "Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION?".

2c) Do you have any suggestion on how I can get the "SCOPE" question answered authoritatively?

3) Per your "I'd be happy if someone let me know, but it would be better to do so on my talk page": I have, and will, follow your suggestion.

4) Per you "Now you are alleging that my comment is about 'inclusion' when in fact, it is a rebuttal of your premature and incorrect reading of consensus" my assertion of consensus what an effort to prompt probative disagreement. Assuming that I understand you correctly: you ask, quite correctly, that I should attempt to prompt probative disagreeing responses first via comments on users talk pages and only, failing that, resort to comment with in the RfC. True?

5) You observe that I'm "frankly, doing a poor job of it". Is the assertion of "poor job" based on anything other than my missing "not" and your request that, when possible, I make comments on user's talk page?

6) Would you please specify the items on which I am "0–3"?

7) I call to your attention my comment at [1]: does this correctly comport with your request that, when possible I make comments on user's talk pages and on in the RfC discussion? Deicas (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1. I agree you are a participant. It is my opinion that participants should not try to play facilitator.

Re # 2, don't get so impatient. Amadscientist is attemtping to act as facilitator. If that doesn't happen prompy enough, we should eleicit input from an uninvolved volunteer. It is wholly inapproriate for an involved participant to act as a facilitator in this forum. I strongly dispute your contention that your actions are non-tendentious.

Re # 2a. don't get so impatient. It isn't my call, or your call to answer.

Re # 2c. don't get so impatient. Amadscientist is on it.

Re #3. Thank-you

Re # 4. my assertion of consensus what an effort to prompt probative disagreement This is not an English language statement. Please try again.

Re # 5. Yes

Re # 6. To follow, hopefully shortly.

Re #7. It is yet another example of you playing facilitator, badly.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per #2 "This is not an English language statement. Please try again." -- D'oh! Corrected "my assertion of consensus ~~what~~ was an effort to prompt probative disagreement'"

Re #7 ... your observation is duly noted. Please be assured that it will receive due attention. Deicas (talk)

Re #6. where I assert you are 0–3.

In this edit you assert every aspect of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin that is under discussion on *this* page is under discussion at the RfC. That wasn't true when I posted at the Krugman talk page.
As you now realize, you missed the word "not" in a question posed to me. While a single word, it obviously is material.
In this edit you proclaim If my reading of this part of the issue is correct, then the consensus solution would be.... Proclamation of a consensus at that time was premature, is not the province of a participant, and isn't even the province of a facilitator. A facilitator can offer straw consensus to which participants agree or disagree. And as a final straw, proclaiming a consensus when half the participants opining are adamantly opposed is not consensus. (I could count this as multiple errors, but I'll grade lightly and call it one.)
in this edit you claim my post is misplaced, but it is a direct response to your false claim of consensus. I tallied the results to show your consensus claim was off-base.
in this edit you assert that I am posting in the wrong place. Yet I am directly responding to the point made by Amadscientist. The comment by Amadscientist may be misplaced, but you should take that up with Amadscientist.
I'm an easy grader, as I didn't count the mistakes you made in connection with others posts, only mine.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N conduct

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for editors to bring content disputes before the community. Some conduct issues can and have been determined there in a limited (very limited) way. I am issuing you a warning on one now.

Please stop Wikilawyering, attemping to direct the dispute or disruptive behavior of any kind on the Paul Krugman DR/N. Continued disruption will result in your being asked to refrain from further comment on the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please cite a/the specific instance(s) of Wikilawyering that you reference above? Deicas (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked, by other participants to stop directing the discussion. I have asked you to stop directing the discussion. You continue to make unqualified, off topic comments and demands of DR/N policy explanations that demonstrate at lack of understanding of the process and serious "I can't hear you" issues. Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the following:

<snip: removed format-breaking text.> --Amadscientist (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read the above referenced "Guide for participants" Deicas (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Just so there is no confusion, my request to shut down the AN/I thread was not intended to cut you off. I saw you note that you would need several hours to prepare something, but as AN/I is for requests for admin intervention related to user conduct, and you weren't looking for admin help, I didn't want you to waste your time. I do wish someone had responded to one of your later questions where you asked how to proceed, because that is a fair question.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, above.

I disagree with your assessment that "... and you weren't looking for admin help". I *am* looking for admin help and will continue to pursue this issue. Deicas (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you think you were looking for admin help, because you have a misunderstanding of admin functions. Nothing you were asking for is something that admins do.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs and links

Deicas, I noticed you were having some problems with the links on Georgeherbertwilliams' page. It can be quite confusing at first with all the terminology. It looks to me like you missed using the "Permanent link" button in the toolbox on the left. You need to go to the page, click on "permanent link", then right-click on the subsection in the table of contents and select "Copy link location" in the little contextual menu that opens. All as described in the section "How to harvest a page section link"[2] in the Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. That's how you create a link to a page section.

It may be worth knowing that it's actually simpler to link to just a diff (=a single post, which can often be what you want), rather than a section, because diffs are intrinsically permanent. For that, you use the page's History tab, see "How to harvest a diff" in the Simple guide. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 23:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. ~~I'm currently stumbling through the linking issue. I'll let you know what happens. Deicas (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have found my error. I was constructing the link as [<URL>:<text...>] when I should have been using [<URL> <text...>], I was using a colon when I should have using a space -- <facepalm>. A portion of my confusion derived from [<URL>:<text...>] syntax working on non-section URL's but not on section URLS.

Crazed with delusions of competence I went to my comment at User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert and successfully fixed the links.

Thank you for your assistance. Deicas (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it has to come to this.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban imposed

Per the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as reflected in this discussion, you are topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article and related subjects broadly construed, indefinitely. Indefinite does not mean infinite; in the event that the community believes you are capable of constructively and collaboratively contributing to the article in the future, you may request, after an appropriate period of time has passed in which your editing has not been the subject of community concern, that the topic ban be reviewed at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal the topic ban, however be advised that it was imposed per the broad consensus of the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next procedural step to appeal the ban? Deicas (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee. Complete information on how to appeal a topic ban can be reviewed here: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions.

However (and this is purely my advice to you only), as a practical matter, it would be a terrible idea to try to do this right away. The WP:ANI discussion resulted in unanimous agreement that editing sanctions were warranted, and there was near-universal agreement that a topic ban was appropriate. The discussion included several uninvolved, experienced editors and admins. Even the editors at the article who agree with your proposed content changes did not voice disagreement at the WP:ANI discussion that your editing behavior is problematic. An immediate appeal would probably be seen at best as a waste of time and and at worst provide further evidence that your editing behavior might be so problematic that your topic ban deserves be extended into a full indef block--an idea that was raised during the WP:ANI discussion, and which started to get some support. However, it's your choice as to what to do next. Your best course of action would be to start developing totally new content in some topic area entirely unrelated to economics. After maybe six months of problem-free, collaborative development, only then consider starting a public discussion to remove the topic ban. I'm hoping you find this advice helpful... Zad68 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deicas. I'd like to offer you some friendly words of advice, if I may.

As Zad68 points out, there are ways for you to appeal your topic ban, but to do that right now would not end well for you. The best way to get the topic ban overturned is to demonstrate that you can contribute to encyclopedia-building at Wikipedia without causing the type of disruption that led to this topic ban. Please read the advice you've been given by many editors, think long and hard about it, and then try to put in into practice at some entirely unrelated articles. If you're successful at that, then in six months or so you'll have behavioural evidence that the topic ban is unnecessary, and editors who are happy to support you in overturning it.

The reason that you only have a topic ban right now, is that the community sees some potential in you to turn this around. If you persist in pursuing an appeal now, if you continue to skirt the bounds of your topic ban by forum-shopping, or if you exhibit the same disruptive behaviour at other articles, I predict that an indefinite block will follow. It's much harder to come back from that, because you will have squandered your opportunity to prove that you can do better. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation Discussion of topic ban

Deicas (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Hi Deicas, your discussion here of the article specified by your topic-ban, and especially where you wrote If time permits, would you please have a look at Talk:Paul Krugman starting at timestamp "19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)". I'm interested to hear what you think of my reasoning and argumentation. is a clear violation of your topic-ban, which applies to discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, including User Talk pages. See WP:TBAN. It's not uncommon to misunderstand the range of a topic-ban at first so please consider this a warning against future violations, which will most certainly result in blocks. Zad68 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) struck out as requested[reply]

:: [User_Talk:Zad68]]: I have learned, in the past 15 days of disputation over the content and editing of Paul Krugman, that accusations of WP:GOODFAITH violation need to be rebutted immediately and clearly. Your accusation, just above[3], that my question to User:Charles35]] is "a clear violation of your [Deicas's] topic-ban" is clearly an accusation that I have violated WP:GOODFAITH.

THEREFOR: I ask that you either:
1) Repeat your accusation, here below, addressing User:Sphilbrick's "It is my opinion that the edit is not a violation of the topic ban" and quoting those portions of WP:TBAN that you claim support your accusation OR;

2) Make a filing at AN/I asserting that I am in violation of my topic ban OR;

2) strike out your accusations, above, that I have violated WP:GOODFAITH and the terms and conditions of my Paul Krugman topic ban.

~~In any case, be it I #1, #2, or #3, I ask that you please respond directly. Deicas (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck out as requested. It was probably very unwise of me to think my comments here at this time would be beneficial, and I hope you accept my apologies. I will use this as a learning opportunity for myself to change my behavior if I find myself in a similar situation in the future. Good luck and take care... Zad68 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Deicas (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the edit is not a violation of the topic ban. An editor subject to a topic ban is entitled to try to address that ban, and asking someone else to look at the discussion is very much a part of the process. Noting that they have been banned should not be prohibited. I grant that the intended plan to discuss " what I've learned" from the experience is almost certain to be a violation, if it occurs on-wiki, but that hasn't yet happened, and a statement that one is considering doing something is not itself a violation of the ban. I think Deicas should be encouraged to get input from established editors, although it would be better if the request itself, and especially the discussion, were to occur via email or somewhere off-wiki. Of course, no editor is required to be involved, but if Deicas finds someone willing to look at the exchange and comment, it should be not just acceptable, but encouraged. (I do hope that Charles discoruages Deicas from attempting to contribute to Wikipedia:CRUSH, as I think that will almost certainly be a violation, not to mention that one ought to find out what one is doing wrong, before presuming to lecture others one what theya re doing wrong.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree: note that Deicas does not ask for an opinion on nor point to the specific discussion of his behavior on the Administrator Noticeboard, but rather to his battleground (Talk:Paul Krugman). In other words, it's an attempt to game his topic ban by trying to enlist a potential ally into arguing his points for him.

And to pre-empt the bogus copy-and-paste talking point he's about to use: WP:AGF is long past its sell-by date, as has been noted many times before. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calton: as I wrote to User:Zad68, above, I have learned, in the past 16 days of disputation over the content and editing of Paul Krugman, that accusations of WP:GOODFAITH violation need to be rebutted immediately and clearly. Your accusation, just above[4], that my question to User:Charles35]] is "it's an attempt to game his [Deicas's] topic ban by trying to enlist a potential ally" is clearly an accusation that I have violated WP:GOODFAITH.

THEREFOR: I ask that you either:

1) Repeat your accusation, here below, addressing User:Sphilbrick's "It is my opinion that the edit is not a violation of the topic ban" and quoting those portions of WP:TBAN that you claim support your accusation OR;

2) Make a filing at AN/I asserting that I am in violation of my topic ban OR;

2) strike out your accusations, above, that I have violated WP:GOODFAITH and the terms and conditions of my Paul Krugman topic ban.

In any case, be it I #1, #2, or #3, I ask that you please respond directly. Deicas (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to heart

If you paid any attention to all the various objections to your editing raised in the many places you set out these kinds of arguments, you would be aware that your style of response is a big part of the problem people have with your editing. As Forrest Gump's mama said, "Stupid is as stupid does", and one of the things that stupid does is repeat endlessly something that doesn't work. The way you are arguing isn't working, so if you are smart, you'll stop arguing that way.

Everything about what you are doing right now says that your only purpose in being on Wikipedia is to get back on Krugman's article and try to get your pet text included. That is never, ever going to happen the way you are going about it, and if you persist, eventually you will get indefinitely blocked because everyone's patience will be finally and totally exhausted. You really need to find something else to do, either here or elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe: Please be assured that my interest in the editing of Paul Krugman, and Wikipedia more broadly, extends beyond having my "pet text included". Have a look at many of my edits at Talk:Paul Krugman that do not bear directly on the Gary Becker quote if you don't believe me. I suspect that Mama Gump will support me in this matter. Note that citations to "many of my edits", above, are available on request. Deicas (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deicas, please stop and reflect. Zad68 is not attacking you, or questioning your good faith. Zad68, Sphilbrick, Mangoe and I are here talking to you because we're trying to help you. Nobody here wants to see you blocked. We're simply trying to help you find a way to contribute here without the accompanying disruption.

When Zad68 pointed out that the linked discussion could be construed as breaking the topic ban, they were not doing so as a gotcha, but to help you steer clear of that borderline in future. If your immediate response to such assistance is to lay out a false choice in aggressive pseudo-legalese, it makes it very hard for anyone to help you.

Even if an administrator were to see the discussion Zad68 links to and decide that it is a sanctionable violation of your topic ban, it is our practice to give recently sanctioned editors a little latitude to vent, but that is isn't guaranteed and the grace period won't last long.

Please, please stop and say to yourself "I might be wrong." Try to understand what people are saying to you. We want you to be a productive editor here. That involves being able to work with others and accept criticism.

We're trying to help you. Please accept our help before it's too late. Bovlb (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bovlb: Thank you for your comment, just above. Be assured that I am listening and not dismissing your suggestions out of hand.

Per your "please stop and reflect" and "say to yourself 'I might be wrong.'", I have given these matters much consideration and I am confident in my judgement.

I take pained exception your "pseudo-legalese" characterization and am looking forward to proving otherwise. In the interest of not appearing to ungratefully rebuff your attempt to be helpful, I will refrain from commenting on "[p]lease accept our help before it's too late." Deicas (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try one more time here. You seem to exhibit a fairly consistent response to the mildest criticism: Make an unfounded counter-accusation (e.g. "accusations of GOODFAITH violation"); present a false choice in pseudo-legalese formatting ("THEREFOR", etc.); include aggressive and unreasonable demands; and altogether fail to address any points actually raised. Do you find that this approach actually works for you? How many times do you need to see it fail before you try something else? Do you understand that Wikipedia is based on collegial co-operation and is not supposed to be a battleground or a courtroom? Everyone you're interacting with here is asking you to stop. How can that leave you confident in your own judgement? If you don't believe us, then I suggest that you show a printout of this page to someone you trust and respect in real life, to see if they agree with you. If you have any interest in not getting blocked from editing Wikipedia entirely, please understand that you need to change the way you interact with us. Bovlb (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I you truly believe that I have engaged in making "unfounded counter-accusation" then please point to an example and I will discuss the matter with you.

2) Be assured that I *am* sharing these discussions, or at least the juicy parts, with "someone [persons] you trust and respect in real life". The "pseudo-legalese formatting" description just produced some eye-rolling from one of them.

3) Do you understand that the issue we have before us is an issue of rampant POV-pushing? Deicas (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with the edit of a BLP for a person associated with a very controversial topic.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with a BLP edit that may create significant controversy. I'm hoping to get it right the first time. I'm going to edit the article on person B. B is a living person. B is associated with issue L. L is a controversial topic. Wikipeda general sanctions apply to topic L.

B's biographic article already includes "B did X. X is a bad thing." At the moment, arguably in violation of NPOV, B's article soft-pedals the seriousness of X and B's commission of same.

I plan to add to B's article something like:

The writer at the The New York Times that covers topic L says that B was responsible for X and X may have devastating effects on B's career.[1] B is a member of PrestigiousOrginization and has served as the chairman of the organization's <mumble> committee[2]. The the president of PrestigiousOrginization says "B's actions in committing X have betrayed his profession".[3]

[1] nytimes.com: "B's commission of X will devastate B's career"

[2] prestigious.org: "until <date> B was chairman of <mumble> committee."

[3] prestigious.org: the president of PrestigiousOrganization says "B's actions in committing X have betrayed his profession"

Does the outline above meet the BLP criteria? I'm particularly concerned about being in compliance with NPOV. I hope to get the edit right the first time and preempt as much of the time-consuming firestorm that will follow from the edit.

-- Thanks Deicas (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, context is important, particularly for BLPs. I rather doubt you'd be happy with an answer that said, "X <mumble> prestigious B", and I'm not particularly happy with such a question.

What you propose to add seems to be largely based on primary sources, effectively self-published by the president of "prestigious.org". WP:BLPPRIMARY urges utmost caution for using such sources in a BLP, particularly self-published sources used to add commentary on someone other than the author. If the New York Times had reported on the president's comments, we could summarize what the NYT says. If no one but the president himself has reported on that aspect of the reaction to whatever the person did, it should not be added to Wikipedia. Use of reference [2] is similarly problematic, and there may be issues of original synthesis since it's apparently to be used in the context of the committed act, which it does not mention. That leaves us with the New York Times, which (assuming we're not talking about an opinion piece here) clearly is a reliable source but offers a mix of facts and predictions. I'm rather skeptical regarding the latter. The committed act may have devastating effects? Sounds like unfalsifiable speculation to me, and even if it's speculation by the New York Times, I rather doubt it's appropriate in a BLP. Huon (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will be suitably careful with my sources.

Deicas (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Deicas, I removed the old AFD tag from the article you copied to your sandbox. Since the AFD was closed, and doesn't apply to your copy of the article anyway, it did no harm - but it did show up as an overdue AFD, and tricked the bots into thinking it was still the article. Didn't want anyone to delete it accidentally. No worries, just an FYI. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JournoList

I would be very careful with your Sandbox. As I mentioned in our earlier discussion, that version of JournoList was reverted as a BLP violation, per Talk:JournoList and BLPN. Restoring it to your Sandbox is not only a BLP violation itself—remember that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including in your Sandbox—but cut-and-paste moves are copyright violations. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Deicas/sandbox

User:Deicas/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deicas/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Deicas/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman

Deicas, you had been topic banned from this subject. Was the ban lifted? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The topic ban was lifted several years ago. Deicas (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still listed at WP:EDRC and there hasn't been an appeal at WP:ANI. Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's been 8 years. My clearly imperfect memory was telling me that the ban was for 6 month. I shall file an appeal at WP:ANI. Deicas (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear, @Woodroar, where I should file this appeal and in what form the appeal should take. Can you point me to documentation of same? The description of WP:ANI suggests that it is not the appropriate venue. Deicas (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNBAN. The place to appeal it would be WP:AN. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now Deicas is editing disruptively at Brookings Institution and its talk page. Looks to me like WP:NOTHERE. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Please provide evidence for your claim of "Now Deicas is editing disruptively at Brookings Institution and its talk page" or strikeout, just above your evidence-free accusation of "editing disruptively". As you have made a number of evidence-free claims of late, I remind you of you obligation[1] to respond to my request that you provide evidence.

Ref.

[1] an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Deicas (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico's disagreement with you over BLP is not a license to launch personal attacks. Stop treating other editors as enemies. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote my specific statement that you believe to be a "attacking other editors [ie. @Specifco]" and explain your reasoning or strike out you accusation, just above. Deicas (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you, you have directly accused Specifco of acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you over the interpretation of BLP at the discussions concerning the Brookings Institution. That is a personal attack. Stop focusing on your perceptions of other editors' motivations and address content. Neither of you are acting in bad faith, you just disagree. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Your claim that "[I] have directly accused Specifco of acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you over the interpretation of BLP at the discussions" is FALSE. Specifically, per my prior comment — "@SPECIFICO's claim that mention of Danchenko's indictment is a "BLP smear" is false and a violation of good faith"[1] . A factual statement cannot be a "smear".

Characterizing accurate mention of Danchenko's undisputed indictment as a "smear" is clearly FALSE. Pointing out a FALSE claim is not a "personal attack". Making FALSE claims is a violation of the obligation to comment in good faith. Now please strike-out your comments, above, accusing me of " launch[ing] personal attacks" and "attacking other editors".

Ref.

[1] Talk:Brookings Institution#Former Brooking analyst Igor Danchenko was indicted for lying to the FBI Deicas (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating accusations of bad-faith editing is not an appropriate reaction to a warning about personal attacks on other editors. You can make your point concerning content without the personal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see above my extensive refutation of the claim that I have engaged in "personal attacks". Pointing out a FALSE claim is not a "personal attack". 06:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Deicas (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've not addressed your disruptive behavior that led to this block. Yelling at fellow editors, engaging in tendentious bickering, and POV pushing are all evident. Please review WP:GAB. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2021 (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 see that a block has fallen from the sky, but I'll copy my comment from the Brookings talk page: Maybe instead of calling it a BLP violation HERE at this article (Brookings), let's just admit it's an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct has not changed following the expiration of your block - if you continue to focus on the perceived misconduct of others while maintaining that you've done nothing wrong, there is a high likelihood that the developing consensus at ANI to permanently remove your editing privileges as a community action will be carried out. This pattern of behavior appears to have persisted since 2013. You have repeatedly been advised to stop focusing on other editors, and to deal solely with content. You will need to show that you have taken the advice of other editors to heart, rather than repeating tendentious arguments that others are to blame, or demanding that editors respond to you only on your terms and on your demand. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Per the block that you placed on my account [5], would you please quote and/or diff my specific comment(s) that you believe justify the block decision and your assessment that "there is a high likelihood that the developing consensus at ANI to permanently remove your editing privileges as a community action will be carried out"? Deicas (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You returned to Talk:Brookings Institution to continue your campaign against SPECIFICO immediately after your first block for attacking SPECIFICO ended [6]. That kind of persistent battlegound conduct is disruptive - returning to fight some more will get editors blocked. Do you really not understand why that was problematic? As for AN, look at the comments - two admins have already suggested an indefinite block for not having changed your approach to editing or to other editors since the topic ban in 2013. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Do I understand correctly that you are asserting:

1) your block decision was based on my comment to @Valjean [[7]

2) And that my prior assertion, to @Valjean, that "Pointing out false claims (e.g. "BLP smear") is not a 'personal attack'. Pointing out, with evidence included, an editor's violation of WP:DE[1] and associated failure to assume good faith is not a 'personal attack'." is false?

3) And that my interpretation of the "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" provision of WP:DE as to require an editor to respond to questions is inaccurate or false? Deicas (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for coming back for more argument. Your pseudo-legalistic cross-examination keeps happening as well, and is an aggravating factor. Stop focusing on other editors Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Would you please answer my 3 questions [8] just above? Deicas (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to the courtesy of a reply, which I have made. You are not entitled to demand responses according to your specification, to be the sole judge of their adequacy, or to treat other editors as witnesses in a legal proceeding. This is a consistent problem with your editing behavior and treatment of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Your refusal to answer my questions, above, is noted.

Do you have a suggestion as to where I should ask about clarification on what you seem to think is my misunderstanding of the "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" provision of WP:DE? Deicas (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Your misunderstanding" is the notion that I will support you or answer what you imagine to be a pseudo-legalistic rebuttal in your quixotic demands to build a deposition against other editors, for a dispute that you should have dropped a long time ago. I am acting as an administrator,dealing with your behavior, which has been under sanction for eight years. Your demands are a continuation of that behavioral problem, which is disruptive. You are not entitled to ad infinitum patience. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I note that have not answered my questions, asked in good faith above. You have dismissed them as "pseudo-legalistic cross-examination". Your response is inconsistent with what I understand to be your obligations as a Wikipedia administrator, nb. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions" Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.

I'm now going to write up my concerns more completely and will post them to your talk page.

—— 05:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Deicas (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've not paid any attention to the first four or five times I've responded to your questions, and since you've not paid attention to anything anybody has told you concerning your conduct or editing for the past week, I doubt that anything I tell you that doesn't coincide with your expectations will make any difference. No, I will not play along with your attempts to compel testimony that you imagine will shift blame to those you perceive as opponents. I've explained why you were blocked, which is the extent of my obligation. That your questions have not been answered to your specification is your problem, not anybody else's. You are not entitled to demand depositions, or to waste the time of other volunteer editors. Acroterion (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Administrator @Acroterion is abusing his discretion by blocking me over false claims that my well-evidenced claims of WP:DE violations are personal attacks. I would like to be unblocked so I can file an AN/I on this matter. I request a new, heretofore uninvolved administrator(s) be assigned to review this unblock request. Deicas (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request should show self-reflection—did you examine the discussion at Talk:Brookings Institution and Talk:George Floyd to see why a block might have been imposed? If you were to raise this at ANI in a similar manner, there is a risk that you would end up indefinitely blocked. Discussions should focus on content, not other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2021 (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.

You are free to follow normal procedure, which is to place an unbock request on this talkpage explaining how you will address your behavior that led to your block.Another admin will look at your request. I have also left a note at the existing AN thread that you started where you requested a removal of your topic ban, to keep the discussions in one place, which notes your request. Once again, I have fixed the formatting of your unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Per your denial of my block appeal and your associated comment [9], would you please quote and/or diff my specific comments at [[Talk:Brookings Institution]] and [[Talk:George Floyd]] that you believe justify this block decision [10], your denial of my appeal, and your assessment that "If [I] were to raise this at ANI in a similar manner, there is a risk that [I] would end up indefinitely blocked"? Deicas (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not a court of law. The community relies on collaboration to build an encyclopedia. Contributors must be able to let things go and focus on the encyclopedia. You might have missed earlier attempts that made that point, so please take the time to examine WP:FOC. Your block has expired so your questions are a bit academic. I cannot do better than to repeat Acroterion's above explanation: "You were blocked for coming back for more argument. Your pseudo-legalistic cross-examination keeps happening as well, and is an aggravating factor. Stop focusing on other editors." Re ANI, that of course is just my personal opinion. A safe option would be to ask for other opinions at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Do I understand correctly that —

1) you are declining to answer my prior "would you please quote and/or diff my specific comments at Talk:Brookings Institution and Talk:George Floyd that you believe justify this block decision"?

2) you are declining to address my repeated invocation of the "[an editor we] repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" provision of WP:DE policy"?

I observe, @Johnuniq, that it is not possible to WP:FOC when editors are engaging in repeated defiant WP:DISRUPTSIGNS violations that make resolving disputed content impossible. Deicas (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I'm confused over your "... place an unbock request on this talkpage". Didn't I just post the ublock request [1] above?

Please remove the "note at the existing AN thread that you started where you requested a removal of your topic ban [from editing Paul Krugman]. I would like to treat the Paul Krugman ban and your accusation that I have committed personal attacks as two different matters.

How did I improperly format my unblock request so a to require you to "fix[] the formatting of [my] unblock request"?

Ref.

[1] Administrator @Acroterion is abusing his discretion by blocking me over false claims that my well-evidenced claims of WP:DE violations are personal attacks. I would like to be unblocked so I can file an AN/I on this matter. I request a new, heretofore uninvolved administrator(s) be assigned to review this unblock request.}} Deicas (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Deicas (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It didn’t appear as an unblock request the way you did it, so nobody would find it in the list of unblock requests. I fixed it, as I did the last time you asked for an unblock, so it would appear as the blue request and be automatically listed. I did that after seeing the improperly formatted markup while editing my first comment. You must copy the example format exactly. Look at my edit to see what I did. You did not appear to be making a block request at first sight.

Your time would be best spent in self-reflection so that you stop making demands of other editors. You may not dictate the terms of how I and other editors communicate, and your present conduct is directly germane to your topic ban, since the ban was imposed for the same conduct in 2013. I will not venue-shop for you, or split discussions. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Returning to my question, above, on "How did I improperly format my unblock request so a to require you to "fix[] the formatting of [my] unblock request"? — do I understand correctly that my *specific* formatting error was my failure to include a four tilde suffix in the block request? Do I have that right? Deicas (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't it.

You had a bunch of extraneous template prefixes, extra square brackets, and no closing curly brackets [11] You don't need all of the Template:foo stuff, just two curly brackets

And here's how I fixed it: [12] Acroterion (talk)

This thread initiated by Deicas at WP:DE may be relevant to this conversation. DonIago (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Deicas is at the wrong place with WP:DE - WP:TE is the page that covers the problems evident on this talkpage. Acroterion (talk)

Well, the D and T keys are pretty close to each other on the keyboard. Easy to get them confused. :) Given this thread, I've tapped out of the DE discussion. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Would you please explain why you are pointing to [[WP:TE]]? [[WP:DE]] is a subset of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is only "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing."The specific policy, the interpretation of which is under discussion[1], is a provision of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

Ref.

[1] WP:DE; "Does not engage in consensus building ... a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". Deicas (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting, etc.

Deicas, this is only about some formatting issues in your comments. Placing <nowiki> tags around links makes them unworkable, so please don't do that unless there is some good reason for doing so. Also, what is the "Ref. [1]" (with a line break in the middle) about? You use it in many of your comments, but I can't see any reason to add that. What's up? -- Valjean (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Sorry about my formatting error(s).

1) I didn't *deliberately* put "<nowiki> tags around links". Would you please point to a specific case where one of my comments include undesirable ""<nowiki> tags"? I suspect that this is a result of me misusing the "Link Ctrl+K" feature of the Wikipedia editor.

2) A to your "what is the "Ref. [1]" (with a line break in the middle) about?" I am attempting to footnote my comments. For example, from just above, "... under discussion[1], is ..." refers to the intra-comment footnote "[1] WP:DE; "Does not engage in consensus ...". Does that make sense?

Can you point to a more acceptable method of including an intra-comment footnote? Deicas (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a big deal, just a minor irritation. I have no doubt that you didn't put those things in there deliberately. Shit happens.

Here are just a few spots: [13][14][15][16] Most of these are the ref type. To find the nowiki ones, search the code of a whole page where you have left comments. Then you can easily hop from one to the next and delete them.

I'm not sure the idea of intra-comment footnotes is a good one. It might make things too complicated, but what do I know? I have never heard of them.

I don't see how they can function as refs of any kind, as that's not the proper code. Adding [1] [2] won't work as a code. The number of a ref is dynamic and is dictated by the software, not the editor, and the number can change as other refs are added to an article. You've been here since 2004. Haven't you used refs? Take a look at the ref codes in articles to see what they look like and how they work.

A ref is based on the code that produces the [1] at the end of this sentence (you can see all the codes in editing mode).^[1] If the same ref is used more than once, then add a name to it:^[2] That is for the full ref. All other uses of that ref are formed by a short ref that looks like this:^[2] There also has to be a reflist code somewhere below the refs or they won't work. There are variations on all this. Note that there should be no space between the ref and the punctuation. I'll add a functioning reflist code below so you can see that my refs actually work, and to make sure it doesn't apply to anything other than this section (we do this only on talk pages) I'll add a "reflist-talk" variety. I'll also add a hidden editorial note. Feel free to contact me for help with refs. I hope that helps. I have written articles with normal refs, as well as articles with "list defined" refs. They're cool but irritate editors who don't understand them.

Here is a basic citation template I like to use:

Template: <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref>

Contents: <ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | author-link=Luke Harding | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=[[The Guardian]] | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017 | quote=At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. }}</ref>^[3]

Result: Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. "At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease."

I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date.

See this citation tool: Yadkard
An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding-20171115"

Valjean (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Thank you. I will use the references template that you describe, above, next time I make a talk page post with footnotes. Deicas (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... but I note that the "References" section, below, seems to 'migrate down' rather than staying under the post in which it was created. Deicas (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the References section does move down because I placed the code down there. I don't want it cluttering up the middle of the thread. That's how we do it on talk pages (at the bottom of the thread) and at the bottom of articles, where all references appear in a separate section called the "References" section. We don't use a section header for that on talk pages. The numbers in the brackets ([ ]) stay where they were put, but the number(s) will change if other refs are added above them. -- Valjean (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Do I understand correctly that by your "[t]hat's how we do it on talk pages (at the bottom of the thread)", by "thread" you mean 'talk page section'?

I am not clear on the intended meaning of your "[w]e don't use a section header for that [what?] on talk pages". Would you please clarify? Deicas (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to a talk page section.

In articles, we are required to have a dedicated section at the bottom only for references/notes, and it has a Section header called References or Notes, and sometimes both. We don't do that on talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Content in basic ref.
^ ^a ^b Content in ref named "ABC".
^ Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease.

This is a test section.

This is a test of way the "References" section, above, 'migrates downward' *within* talk page section but not beyond talk page section.

Deicas (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is test of creating a citation to a specific version of a talk page via Citer (https://citer.toolforge.org/citer.fcgi?) ...

^[1]

"User talk:Deicas". Wikipedia. 2021-11-22. Retrieved 2021-11-22.

Deicas (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page history does this for you, plus it shows the edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean, How do you suggest that I create tidy links to the diffs of two versions of a page? -- Deicas (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page history has little boxes you can check. Experiment. -- Valjean (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I am familiar with page history's having little boxes I can check. I am experimenting with attempting to create citations of diffs that look tidy. Deicas (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I guess I missed that point. Good luck. -- Valjean (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This ^[2] is where is where the report of Danchenko's arrest was added to the Igor Danchenko Wikipedia biography.

That's a permalink of the version of the page at that time, not a diff of the actual edit. Try these (yes, two edits at 02:41) instead (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Igor_Danchenko&diff=1055135503&oldid=1055135085&diffmode=source and https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Igor_Danchenko&diff=prev&oldid=1055135575), IF that is what you want. I'm not sure. -- Valjean (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Spectific talk page version.
^ "Igor Danchenko". Wikipedia. 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2021-11-22.

Administrators' noticeboard

Please review the discussion you started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal of topic ban for Paul Krugman for User:Deicas. For a short summary, see my recent comment there (diff) which shows my opinion, namely that your response might avoid an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears to be too late for a response, sorry, but editors are expected to follow discussions they start at an admin noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 - Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for intractable disruptive editing, wikilaywering, and tendentious editing per consensus at Administrators' Noticeboard (permalink).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend that you promise to stay away from the areas you were having trouble with. Such a promise, doesn't mean an admission of guilt or some kinda confession for doing anything wrong. This approach, might get your indef block lifted. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Content in basic ref.

[ABC-2] Content in ref named "ABC".

[Harding_11/15/2017-3] Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease.

[FOOTNOTE''Spectific_talk_page_version''-4] Spectific talk page version.

[Igor_Danchenko_Wikipedia_Biography-5] "Igor Danchenko". Wikipedia. 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2021-11-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]