User talk:Nocomputersintexas
Talk: Yasuke
[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Brocade River Poems 09:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- BrocadeRiverPoems - I'd like to know exactly what content added by Nocomputersintexas to Talk:Yasuke you believed to be inappropriate, let alone inappropriate enough to leave a level 3 warning on this user's talk page, and skipping the level 1 and 2 warnings that typically should be left first... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Oswah. I left the following comment on their talkpage:
- > Don't edit my talk page, please. You're a new user, which makes me believe this could be a sockpuppet account. I can't discuss basic things with you in good faith knowing that fact. In 1 weeks time, you made a series of random edits, then immediately when your 4 day time limit was reached, you started editing controversial pages such as Thomas Lockley and Yasuke. This is highly suspect and it's obvious you are doing something malicious and using my talk page to threaten me as you may have an agenda. Thank you
- I find this user to be suspicious, I did not even interact with them before they came on my talk page.
- I am not super familiar with every single etiquette on Wikipedia so apologies in advance, I had no idea about this 3 step warning system either. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nocomputersintexas - No worries; I saw the removal here and your response. The reason I restored this message and responded to it was to ask BrocadeRiverPoems to show exactly what was inappropriate with what you added to the talk page. I didn't see anything... It was my way of agreeing that the warning message wasn't appropriate, unless the user could respond with accurate evidence. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I used the level 3 Warning because just days prior they had already been warned for the same activity, a warning which they deleted from their talkpage before they proceeded to do the same conduct they had been warned for elsewhere. Brocade River Poems 08:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- To be 100% extremely clear: neither of the links you posted were "warnings", so what you've said is wrong. One link is Gitz telling me to take my warnings on political ideology in an editor to talk page. The other is someone who came here and informed me -- not warned -- about a completely unrelated page to Yasuke that I was floating ideas on. He simply asked me not to make conversation on an talk page in a forum-like way where I was making a suggestion to add more detail to an article which was deemed not substantial. Whereas you have randomly come here accusing me of doing something completely different in a completely different context, and used some sort of escalated warning system. At this point I consider what you are doing targeted harassment due to ideological reasons. Please, for both your and my sake, back off. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You had been warned for your behavior on a different talk page, a warning which you removed before you proceeded to engage in the same conduct on Talk: Yasuke after you had been warned. Likewise, your post had been removed at the time that you had received the first warning. Despite having received the warning about not using article talk pages inappropriately, on August 3 you used Talk: Yasuke to try and discuss the conduct of another user, and when your content was removed, you went on to accuse that editor of abusing the rules and having an agenda. I posted the warning, and used the Warning Level 3, because I saw @Gitz6666 had not posted a warning to your talk page and saw that you had already been warned previously for inappropriately using article talk pages with a level 2 warning, so I used the level 3 template since your response to the level 2 warning was to erase it from your talk page and carry on doing the thing you had been notified not to do. I have not
randomly come here accusing me of doing something completely different in a completely different context
, the previous warning you received was uw-chat2, I used uw-chat3. Brocade River Poems 08:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- Please, stop using my talk page to vandalize, slander, and lie about me. The "warning" of which you speak was simply an informative mention. To be clear, here was the edit that was removed that I was "warned" about -- it has NOTHING to do with Yasuke: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADasha_Nekrasova&diff=1237497319&oldid=1237497270
- You are fighting with me on false pretenses. Gitz never tried to warn me and could have if he wanted to. You are free to check his talk page where he simply recommended me to repost my points to Symphonic Regalia talk page directly: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Gitz6666#c-Gitz6666-20240803085700-Nocomputersintexas-20240803083900. No warning was given. You escalated something using a technicality when these events are completely unrelated. I've never interacted with you before this and you are harassing me -- please, leave me alone. PS -- based on my understanding, I am free to delete things on my talk page freely and have committed no rule break in doing so. I plan to delete your slanderous comment that is dirtying up my page as well, once this is resolved by someone with more authority, as it is painful for me to read your comments. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was asked to respond by @Oshwah, an admin, and to give evidence and explanation for why I did what I did. Doing so is not slandering, vandalizing, or lying about you. I am not saying Gitz warned you, in fact, I explicitly stated that I posted that warning because Gitz had not posted a warning message after they had removed your additions to Talk: Yasuke, and when I saw that @Jdcomix had already previously warned you for using article talk pages inappropriately, I used a higher level warning. Again, I was asked to explain why I did what I did. It is not a "technicality" when you were given a warning on July 30th for WP:NOTAFORUM and you violated WP:NOTAFORUM again on August 3rd with your comment on a user's conduct on Talk:Yasuke. The original message you received on July 30th directed you to WP:NOTAFORUM in explaining why your content was removed from that talk page. You blanked your page and removed the July 30th Warning almost immediately after receiving it, and then you later went to Talk:Yasuke and left a message that was entirely about a user's conduct, which is also a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. It is the same policy, please stop making it sound as if I am engaged in some wild attempt to defame you.
it has NOTHING to do with Yasuke.
The fact that the first time you received a courtesy warning about the policy it wasn't about Yasuke doesn't negate the fact that you had been warned about the policy beforehand. Brocade River Poems 08:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- I sincerely hope this is your last post on my talk page. I've lost track of how many times I've asked you to stop trying to justify your random drive-by accusation of me. You could have just retracted it, instead you've dug your heels in. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the technicalities of patrolling but when I reverted this user on the Yasuke talk page I pointed out WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPA in the edit summary [1]. When they asked for clarification on my talk page, I gave it to them. I don't know if this counts as a "warning", but I think they should have learned by now how (not) to use a talk page. Their last comment on Yasuke [2] is on-topic but factually wrong and WP:POINTy: Thomas Lockley's work has not been
discredited
at RS/N (see thread) or elsewhere. This article by Lockely [3] has never been questioned by anyone and is currently cited extensively in the Yasuke article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the technicalities of patrolling but when I reverted this user on the Yasuke talk page I pointed out WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPA in the edit summary [1]. When they asked for clarification on my talk page, I gave it to them. I don't know if this counts as a "warning", but I think they should have learned by now how (not) to use a talk page. Their last comment on Yasuke [2] is on-topic but factually wrong and WP:POINTy: Thomas Lockley's work has not been
- I sincerely hope this is your last post on my talk page. I've lost track of how many times I've asked you to stop trying to justify your random drive-by accusation of me. You could have just retracted it, instead you've dug your heels in. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was asked to respond by @Oshwah, an admin, and to give evidence and explanation for why I did what I did. Doing so is not slandering, vandalizing, or lying about you. I am not saying Gitz warned you, in fact, I explicitly stated that I posted that warning because Gitz had not posted a warning message after they had removed your additions to Talk: Yasuke, and when I saw that @Jdcomix had already previously warned you for using article talk pages inappropriately, I used a higher level warning. Again, I was asked to explain why I did what I did. It is not a "technicality" when you were given a warning on July 30th for WP:NOTAFORUM and you violated WP:NOTAFORUM again on August 3rd with your comment on a user's conduct on Talk:Yasuke. The original message you received on July 30th directed you to WP:NOTAFORUM in explaining why your content was removed from that talk page. You blanked your page and removed the July 30th Warning almost immediately after receiving it, and then you later went to Talk:Yasuke and left a message that was entirely about a user's conduct, which is also a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. It is the same policy, please stop making it sound as if I am engaged in some wild attempt to defame you.
- BrocadeRiverPoems - Wait... wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... I wasn't necessarily concerned about the warning level you used. I stated in my original response to your message here that "I'd like to know exactly what content added by Nocomputersintexas to Talk:Yasuke you believed to be inappropriate". The warning itself, while - okay, sure... might be up for interpretation as to why you left a level 3 warning... wasn't my main concern. I wanted to know exactly what content added by Nocomputersintexas to Talk:Yasuke you believed to be inappropriate. Do you really believe that this edit that Nocomputersintexas made is inappropriate? Without going beyond context, and with the assumption that the information was relevant and true, I don't see how this is inappropriate. The information is not uncivil and it complies with the principle that users should talk about content and behaviors, not about the users themselves (meaning that they call them names, insult them, cast aspersions, or use straw-man arguments to cast doubt on the user's edits vs theirs). I kindly ask again: what exactly was... inappropriate? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it was inappropriate and I still think it is. I've given my reasons here. This is exactly the kind of comment that prompted admins to semiprotect that talk page following this discussion at AN/I (if I'm not mistaken). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gitz6666 - Hmm... okay, fair enough. I understand. The only thing I'd comment regarding your response and your reasoning is that what certain pages are for and not for are not always 100% strict guidelines. I've seen plenty of talk page discussions that (for example) led to the creation of an SPI report (which led to a large blocking of LTA sock accounts) because the participants discussed true and reasonable information regarding the behavior of another user there. Not everything has to start and do so strictly within the correct venue. The important part is that they finish in the correct venue. ;-) But, of course, this is my response without reading into the... very... lovely... ANI discussion that you linked to. Eh, I'll kindly step away... :-) Anyways, I'm not here to dive into behaviors, nor go through every edit made to the talk page in question, or nag, point fingers, or find out "who's right or who's wrong". I saw the warning, looked through the talk page, and wanted to understand what was going on. :-) Thank you, Gitz6666, for responding with your input. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Oshwah I issued the warning because someone else had removed the content for WP:NOTAFORUM. The inappropriate discussion which the warning links to goes to WP:TALKNO which states
Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it.
. An entire post about another editor's conduct was removed by another editor for WP:NPA and WP:NOTAFORUM, which is why I posted the warning. I figured leaving a warning on their page after someone had removed their content was a courtesy that should have been extended to them, which is proving now to be a much bigger headache than I ever considered it would be. I do not care if the content stays or goes, I did not remove it. I saw Gitz didn't post a warning after he removed the user's content, I went to post a warning, saw the editor had already received the Level 2 Warning, left the level 3 warning. I cannot speak for the actions of other editors, I just posted the warning because the content was removed and the user who removed didn't post a warning. Brocade River Poems 09:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC) - Hi Oshwah, thanks for taking the time to investigate this. I don't fully know if what I originally posted was in the wrong, I do feel I am being bullied / ganged up on by these two editors now. I know that it is not why you originally came here to do, but in reading your reply, I was wondering if you agree with them that my original talk page edit was inappropriate and deserving of deletion by Gitz. Gitz, Symphonic Regalia, and Brcade River Poems have been extensively patrolling the talk page of this article and -- in my opinion -- heavily censoring and edit warring anyone they disagree with to the point where they have bumped heads against many editors not just myself.
- That being said, if my original conduct was no good, I understand that and will comply with the rules of Wikipedia and accept that they have the right to censor/delete my original claims. But since you're here and putting your mind on it, I thought I'd ask. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Gitz, Symphonic Regalia, and Brcade River Poems have been extensively patrolling the talk page of this article and -- in my opinion -- heavily censoring and edit warring anyone they disagree with to the point where they have bumped heads against many editors not just myself.
- I have done no such thing. Nothing I have done on Talk:Yasuke flies to such lofty heights as "censoring", edit warring, or even "bumping heads against many editors"? You are outright lying right now. The extent of my activity on Talk:Yasuke has been limited to the discussion of sources and providing translations. Frankly, this is getting beyond absurd. In what conceivable world am I in cahoots with Gitz when we have disagreed publicly? The most I have done on Talk:Yasuke is offer translations, provide sources, and answer questions. My grand edits to the page include such great feats as providing a note about "sayamaki" and removing repetition and trying to attribute a source after the discussion page decided it needed attribution, as well as fixing an erroneous attribution to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript. Brocade River Poems 10:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You took it upon yourself to come to my profile and issue me a dubious warning on behalf of Gitz that an admin is now questioning . This, in my opinion, is an act of attempted coercion. I am simply asking the admin if he sees what I'm seeing, or if I'm truly in the wrong with all this. You, Gitz, and Symphony Regalia all have a pattern of weaponizing Wikipedia policies in what I believe is somewhat ideologically driven crusade behavior masquerading as Wikipedia vigilantism. Whether or not it is organized or targeted, I am not sure. And if I'm wrong, the admin is free to tell me not to. But I plan on escalating this to an incident dispute if he sees the same pattern I'm seeing. You can't seem to stop talking to me when I've actively stopped talking to you. Anyway, I rest my case. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that here you said
eventually, Yasuke's wikipedia page will be corrected with accurate Japanese sources instead of the sham being propped up there now, but it's a matter of time and effort to fight trolls like yourself
. Could you please provide at least one "accurate Japanese source" contraddicting our article on Yasuke? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that here you said
- You took it upon yourself to come to my profile and issue me a dubious warning on behalf of Gitz that an admin is now questioning . This, in my opinion, is an act of attempted coercion. I am simply asking the admin if he sees what I'm seeing, or if I'm truly in the wrong with all this. You, Gitz, and Symphony Regalia all have a pattern of weaponizing Wikipedia policies in what I believe is somewhat ideologically driven crusade behavior masquerading as Wikipedia vigilantism. Whether or not it is organized or targeted, I am not sure. And if I'm wrong, the admin is free to tell me not to. But I plan on escalating this to an incident dispute if he sees the same pattern I'm seeing. You can't seem to stop talking to me when I've actively stopped talking to you. Anyway, I rest my case. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it was inappropriate and I still think it is. I've given my reasons here. This is exactly the kind of comment that prompted admins to semiprotect that talk page following this discussion at AN/I (if I'm not mistaken). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You had been warned for your behavior on a different talk page, a warning which you removed before you proceeded to engage in the same conduct on Talk: Yasuke after you had been warned. Likewise, your post had been removed at the time that you had received the first warning. Despite having received the warning about not using article talk pages inappropriately, on August 3 you used Talk: Yasuke to try and discuss the conduct of another user, and when your content was removed, you went on to accuse that editor of abusing the rules and having an agenda. I posted the warning, and used the Warning Level 3, because I saw @Gitz6666 had not posted a warning to your talk page and saw that you had already been warned previously for inappropriately using article talk pages with a level 2 warning, so I used the level 3 template since your response to the level 2 warning was to erase it from your talk page and carry on doing the thing you had been notified not to do. I have not
- To be 100% extremely clear: neither of the links you posted were "warnings", so what you've said is wrong. One link is Gitz telling me to take my warnings on political ideology in an editor to talk page. The other is someone who came here and informed me -- not warned -- about a completely unrelated page to Yasuke that I was floating ideas on. He simply asked me not to make conversation on an talk page in a forum-like way where I was making a suggestion to add more detail to an article which was deemed not substantial. Whereas you have randomly come here accusing me of doing something completely different in a completely different context, and used some sort of escalated warning system. At this point I consider what you are doing targeted harassment due to ideological reasons. Please, for both your and my sake, back off. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
ANI Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brocade River Poems 19:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)