User talk:Euglenos sandara

Welcome

Hello, Euglenos sandara, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

You seem to already know your way around, but I prefer this welcome message above the rest, and even longterm users might find help in these links. Thank you for nearly 2 years of contributions. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

NPOV/Incivility Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please refrain from making such obviously inflammatory and POV remarks. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you, "esteemed censor", if Wikipedia has neutral point of view policy, then how exactly my comments on the invading Russian forces, that are based on factual data, are considered "just wrong". And what exactly makes you special here to judge what is right and what is wrong? At least you should provide clearer argument for your point and then present me absurd threats. I am ready for dialogue. Euglenos sandara (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a very new editor, but I fail to see any incivility in the talk page post by @Euglenos sandara and the NPOV sentiment, while an opinion and not necessarily pointed towards specific article improvement, doesn't ask for or indicate any editing of the article, refs, or otherwise, in a POV manner. The editor posting this warning seems to be using it very broadly and in a heavy-handed manner. I don't think the talk page comment warrants any warnings posts like this. King keudo (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you re-read the talk page. Not only does he go on a completely inappropriate propaganda-esque tangent, on a site that is supposedly founded on the principal of WP:NPOV, he in the same statement made baseless claims of "genocide", and also referred to Russians as "orcs", a derogatory, dehumanizing slur. What about that is civil? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL and then maybe explain which editors were being attacked,insulted, or otherwise made to feel unwelcome or rejected. In fact, you might want to check your own civility level; a comment regarding a nonsensical comparison to orcs and zombies in a section about zombies, anyways, and you decide to just bludgeon people with warning templates and immediately saying they will be banned due to....not being uncivil to anyone or trying to intimidate people on a talk page. You need to relax some, friend. King keudo (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting my response from the talk page: What's going on in Ukraine might be an illegal war, but it is in no way a genocide. You should look up what actually constitutes a "genocide", it's frankly demeaning to actual victims of genocide to call it that. In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for pointless POV opinions, and derogatory, dehumanizing slurs. So I suggest you rescind your comment, Euglenos sandara, before I report you for breaching one of Wikipedia's core pillars. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is genocidal intent and there is a whole Wikipedia article on it, I simply do not care whether you support it or not, that's based just on your personal morality, if you have any. First of all, I used the talk page to make a reply and to provide my opinion on the subject matter, and by that standard you cannot impose your indoctrination over someone else's view (that is, indeed, contradicting everything you've mentioned up to this point about the neutrality). I did not make any edits to the article whatsoever. By calling my comments propaganda will not further the discussion. And by referring to the orcs I only talked about the Russian soldiers, not civilians, although they are guilty to some extent as well. Anyone with a basic understanding of semantics will get that. And how about your comment denying the Russian agression, that is way more dehumanizing and "inflammatory", as you might use. When it comes to rescinding my comment, I would gladly appreciate you explaining what do you mean by that. As far as I know, deleting archives is against Wikipedia policies and I have no obligation to do it either. Euglenos sandara (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not the place to write your personal opinions about a topic. They are for improving the article. The policy is WP:NOTAFORUM. Also see below. Mellk (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly counts as WP:SOAPBOXING so please don't do it again. In future such comments may get removed per WP:TPG. Mellk (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but it was a glorious moment indeed. Euglenos sandara (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

This 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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

This 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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. Euglenos sandara (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A song

Hi Euglenos sandara, I would like to share with you this nice song that I have found. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot_L_P-_CGw. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 22:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, cheers! Euglenos sandara (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Україна переможе! -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

До кінця, до перемоги! Слава Україні! Euglenos sandara (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Euglenos sandara

User:Euglenos sandara, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Euglenos sandara and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Euglenos sandara 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. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If my opinions are truly welcome, you wouldn't have issued an unecessary deletion nomination that is motivated purely by your personal beliefs (as evident by the userboxes) and usupported by like-minded biased justice warriors. Besides that, who is it that decides what content is divisive and what is not. How do you even proceed with such vague definitions? But hey, it is a public wiki, so no surprise here. Euglenos sandara (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking such a great interest in my personal beliefs. Euglenos sandara (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prodraxis For your information, if the administrator didn't present any arguments for the block and didn't even bother to counter-review my arguments I raised in the appeal, it is only reasonable to conclude that the decision may be influenced by personal bias. Euglenos sandara (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Lourdes 06:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Euglenos, you may have varied personal beliefs, but this encyclopedia is not the place to promote them. I have blocked you for expressing here that you will continue the same line of thought. Once you confirm that you will not repeat such aggressive beliefs on Wikipedia, use the process mentioned above for an unblock, and any other administrator may unblock you without checking with me in case they are satisfied with your confirmation. Thank you, Lourdes 06:23, 12 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not post my personal beliefs on any Wikipedia articles aside from my own userpage. The objectivity of my contributions to this project is independent of my personal beliefs. What I conveyed there did not indicate an intention to disseminate my personal beliefs to others; rather, it asserted my right to maintain my individual viewpoints. I am open to conceding not posting my personal beliefs on my userpage, but I am unwilling to alter my personal opinions merely due to potential offense by certain individuals.

The specific targeting of me as a 'genocide-denialist racist' by the majority of participants in the MfD process is unjust, as I do not promote racial superiority or deny any genocides. If you are confused about my beliefs, kindly request additional information from me instead of resorting to outdated 'Nazi' clichés.

Nowhere on my userpage have I stated explicitly that I believe in racial superiority of any sort. The one cherry-pick you are particularly fixated on, 'preventing miscegenation by federal law,' isn't inherently racist in any way. My perspective is that, in an ideal state, local genetic pools should remain unaffected by non-local pools. Racism, however, involves prejudice and discrimination against individuals based on their membership in a specific racial group. Nowhere in my statement have I singled out or targeted a particular race or endorsed any racial superiority.

As a result, my updated philosophical beliefs on Landian Accelerationism and Universal Antinatalism, which were referred to by users User:Prodraxis and User:Snow_Rise as another form of racism or genocide denial, clearly stem from personal ignorance on the topic. Neither Orthodox Landianism nor Antinatalism advocates for any form of racism or genocide. I'm not willing to engage in further debate on this matter, as it's becoming increasingly absurd.

Regarding the matter of the Uyghur genocide, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I am not denying the possibility of human rights atrocities in Xinjiang; instead, I am advocating for a more comprehensive evaluation of the matter. Specifically, I am seeking a more thorough assessment involving citing more non-Western sources. It is important to consider that there are sources explicitly denying the occurrence of a genocide, which currently lacks substantial representation, potentially contributing to a biased narrative. How is it even a definite reason for imposing a block?

Having addressed the majority of the criticisms in my response, I request a reevaluation of my case with fairness and impartiality. I am prepared to provide additional clarifications if they are deemed necessary.

Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no cause here to remove the block, and furthermore think that Wikipedia is better off with you blocked. Maybe another admin will see it differently. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2023 (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.

331dot You have not provided any arguments at all. Furthermore, the assertion that 'Wikipedia is better off with you blocked' seems to be driven solely by personal bias, which is highly unprofessional for an administrator of any website. This contradicts the impression given by your infobox, as you do not seem to be assuming good faith in this specific situation. As I mentioned, I am open to conceding not posting my personal beliefs on my userpage and I respectfully ask to reevaluate my appeal with a neutral perspective and present a reasonable rationale for the suggested block. User:Euglenos sandara (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not based on "personal bias" but simply what I read in front of me. As I noted, perhaps another admin will see it differently. Believe it or not, someone making a decision that goes against you does not necessarily mean "bias" is involved. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read what was in front of you, you would have at least explained the reasons for maintaining the block instead of resorting to personal comments. No offense. Euglenos sandara (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Euglenos sandara, please post your fresh unblock appeal below as the above one has been closed by the earlier administrator. I will suggest that you simply stick to the last part that you wrote (about agreeing not to write these beliefs further on your pages or anywhere on Wikipedia). I will also suggest not to berate administrators coming here to assess your request. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Lourdes 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't see this comment, so I sent you an email. Thank you, I will. Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

This serves as my second appeal. I will try to keep it brief to ensure the clarity of my concessions. In my original appeal, I committed to abstain from sharing my contentious viewpoints on my userpage or anywhere on Wikipedia for the benefit of all parties. I am open to receiving any critique and am prepared to accept additional compromises, should they be deemed necessary. I respectfully request a reevaluation of my appeal from an unbiased standpoint.

Based on my understanding, the primary reason for this block was my posting of personal beliefs on my userpage that offended some of the users. Now that I understand the potential divisiveness of such content and its potential to create issues for other users, I am committed to refraining from posting such beliefs, both on my userpage and anywhere else.

While my interests on Wikipedia are quite extensive, my primary focus revolves around theoretical sciences and philosophy. However, in practice, I mostly contribute to articles related to Baltic countries and their history, with a special emphasis on Yotvingia-related topics.

Update: As noted in the ANI thread, an additional reason for my block was my interactions with users who were in favor of the MfD. I did indeed accuse some users of supporting the allegations due to personal bias. In my perspective, certain comments seemed to focus on matters that, in my view, didn't warrant a block, but rather reflected their personal offense towards my openly expressed opinions on my userpage. While I recognize that my viewpoints aren't widely shared, I believe that the entire process should have maintained the same level of transparency as observed in other cases. Furthermore, I recognize that certain comments I made could have been perceived as rude by the majority of participants. This includes my remarks about 'majority privilege' and referring to the MfD participants as 'likeminded justice warriors'. It is worth noting that these comments did not accurately represent my personal attitude or an intention to provoke any users. Instead, they were a manifestation of my frustration regarding the absence of impartial discourse on the subject matter by other users. Considering the additional criticism regarding the insensitivity of my responses, I intend to make an effort to ensure that my comments are clear and straightforward for the majority moving forward.

Decline reason:

With language such as "I believe that the entire process should have maintained the same level of transparency as observed in other cases." and "could have been perceived as rude" gives me the impression that they are apoligising for how others feel, rather than apoligising for their behaviour. I am concerned that the user plans to "ensure that my comments are clear and straightforward for the majority moving forward." This does not address how they will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720 I do not understand your decline reason in the slightest. What role do semantics play in this context? If you wish, I can rephrase my reply in another way, but how would that change the situation? You do realise that there might be individuals who struggle with effectively expressing their thoughts through words? I was never apologising for how others feel. The thing I wanted to convey is that I acknowledge the potential rudeness of my comments, and by confirming to being more careful with language was my way of aplogizing and the acknowledgement not to make the same mistake.

Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2023 (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.

Euglenos sandara, please outline why the edits that led to this block were wrong, what you will do in the future to avoid these mistakes again, and which specific articles do you intend to edit if unblocked. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, I will update my appeal. Euglenos sandara (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your answers below as it will help me keep track of your responses. You were also blocked for your comments towards editors after they reported your user name and expressed their concerns. Some of this behaviour is outlined in the ANI report linked above. Please address that issue, describe why it was wrong and what you will do in the future to avoid that mistake again. Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't report Euglenos' username or anything. I rather tagged their user page for MfD due to it containing quite a bit of polemical content and they appeared to be inactive for several months. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear with my language. I was referring to the ANI thread above, when you reported their user page and Euglenos sandara's responses, as indicated in that ANI. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I proceed with the update, I need some clarifications. What specific answers do I need to include in my response? Also, this is the first time where I've been informed that my account was blocked partially due to comments towards editors. My intention was to express concerns about potential bias within the allegations, rather than to offend anyone. However, I am puzzled as to how such an expression could lead to a blocking action. Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the ANI thread that was opened about your edits on your user page and at the MfD. It can be found on this archive page. These edits also contributed to the disruptive edits that led to your block. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, I have updated my appeal. Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to submit a new appeal, or is it sufficient to update the existing one? If you have any suggestions on how to make my message-apology clearer, I would welcome your insights. My goal is to ensure that my message is easily understood by you and anyone reviewing the appeal. Euglenos sandara (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit a new appeal instead of adding to your old one. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it looks desperate enough even for a practical nihilist, but I will try. Euglenos sandara (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

This marks my third appeal, and I genuinely wish it to be my last. The arguments I presented in my prior appeals remain unchanged. For the sake of clarity, I won't reiterate everything but will proceed from the point I raised in my second appeal. In the update, I was never apologising for how others feel. I apologize for the ambiguity of my message; it has never been my strong suit. The thing I wanted to convey is that I acknowledge the potential rudeness of my comments, and by confirming to being more careful with language was my way of aplogizing and the acknowledgement not to make the same mistake. If you'd like my message to be paraphrased in an exceptionally clear manner regarding how I will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, here you go: I will engage with others in a civil, composed, and cooperative manner. I will refrain from using insults, harassment, or intimidation when disagreeing with someone. Instead, I will approach the situation thoughtfully and engage in respectful discussions. Even if another user acts uncivilly, uncooperatively, or resorts to insults or intimidation, I will not use that as an excuse to respond in a similar manner. I will focus solely on addressing the factual aspects presented and will disregard inappropriate comments or the user altogether. If needed, I will kindly point out my perception that certain comments may be seen as uncivil, and emphasize my intention to move forward and concentrate on the topic at hand. If you feel that the message is insufficient or if you believe that further clarification is necessary, I would appreciate any suggestions you might have. My goal is to ensure that my message is easily understood by anyone reviewing the appeal. Euglenos sandara (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Euglenos, thank you for your message. I am going on a good faith assumption and hope that you keep your word on this. Wikipedia is supposed to be a project where contributors can interact productively (and in peace, for the lack of a better word). What Wikipedia is NOT, is something you should take time to read. This is not a place where one has limitless freedom of expression (this is not the free world space, this is a regulated, protected, deeply curated community, which is not a democracy; not saying this negatively, but to impress the point that we have to go strictly by the rules, and the civil nature of inclusivity). That said, I hope you've understood our one-minded effort to ensure happy interactions between fellow editors. Thank you for not crossing this line again. Best, Lourdes 04:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:TLE

Template:TLE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]