I lost a very dear friend today. I tried not to let it interfere with my editing but I fear it may have. I will be taking some time to ensure i can come back fresh and capable. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very sorry for your loss. Losing a friend is a hard thing to go through. Take care of yourself. Ca2james (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I responded to your question at the Teahouse. Most editors use automated templates to welcome new editors. When I see someone new who shows signs of sincerity and a genuine interest, I prefer a personalized greeting. So, I am a real person, not a template or a robot program. I am welcoming you here. If you ever have a sincere question about editing Wikipedia, please ask. If you need a quick response, please ask at the Teahouse. If you want a thoughtful, in depth response but aren't in a rush, please feel free to ask on my talk page. We need new editors to this wonderful encyclopedia. Because it is so vast, it is also quite complicated. Feel free to ask questions at any time, and thank you for your willingness to.get involved . Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks!

I appreciate the welcome and the personalized greeting. I've been reading the "referencing for beginners" page, but I haven't quite figured it out yet. I hate to leave the page in it's current state while I'm learning, so, if your offer to help me with the correction still stands, I'll gladly take take you up on it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Notes_and_references - I also looked at the talk page and noticed that it's been a few years since anyone has done any edits or used the talk page. I did notice some contentious debates between some of the editors, which wasn't surprising at all. There is so much to learn, I'm glad people like yourself are friendly enough to help out. I realize there may have been some hesitancy due to my silly user name. What can I say? I have a relatively sophomoric sense of humor... Thanks again for all your help, and I look forward to chatting with you again, soon. Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Darknipples. It looks like you were able to correct the reference problem on your own. As for your user name, yes, it is a trifle risque, but I don't think it violates our policy on account names. The only concern I would have is whether it might bring unwanted attention your way, but the decision is yours. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, I don't like your user name, but that's not what brought me here. Coincidentally, I worked on the Gun show article Controversies section today and I agree that "Gun show loophole" would be a better section title. However, I think you should move your comments/question to a new talk page section. The one you used is long and hasn't been active in over a year. Lightbreather (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"FWIW, I don't like your user name" - I'm afraid it isn't worth much, as I think it's too late to change it, but I appreciate your honesty.

You've only been editing about a week. Ask Cullen328 if there's a way to change it - if you want to. He's got a lot more experience than I, and he probably knows how you could do it. But only if you want to. It is your username, not mine, and you should keep it if you want to.

But whatever name you use, remember to sign all your posts with the four tildes. Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've decided your nickname (DN) suits me well. Thanks LB!! DN 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it screws up my signature Darknipples (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been re-reading your user talk page, and I want to say that I no longer have a problem with your username. It's no more "offensive" than say "Palemoustache" or "Hairyknuckles." Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am apprehensive about sharing any of my personal information in any kind of social media format. Too many weirdos.Darknipples (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear you on that. I used to have my gender and marital status on my user page. Now it's more neutral. Editors who have worked with me regularly know I'm a woman - the cat's out of the bag, so to speak - but I don advertise it anymore. Here's a story I read just this morning re misogyny on user-based sites: "http://www.zdnet.com/quoras-misogyny-problem-a-cautionary-tale-7000030762/". Most of the editor's I've worked with here have been respectful, but there are some who have absolutely no respect for women.

Again, remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am new to wiki, so I appreciate and welcome most suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Hi DN, welcome to the fray... :) The fewest and best pieces of advice I can give you are these. Even when its intended that way, don't ever take anything personally. Taking things personally is the mother of all problems on this site. On a similar note, nothing said/written is insulting if you are not insulted by it. In other words, Wikipedia is a place where a "thick skin" is useful especially until you get to know the landscape and understand the community a bit better. That said, please do make every effort to enjoy your editing. Writing or improving articles for the betterment of the site is nice, but if you're not having any fun, what's the point. By the way, the easiest way to sign your posts is to hit the signature icon in the menu bar above the edit box, it looks like a pencil making a signature. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I look forward to learning all I can and improving the "Gun Show" page with you. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're quite welcome! I see that you're learning fast and that's a good sign. I noticed that you're already using the ((U|Scalhotrod)) notification template. One other piece of advice I'd like to offer is that "patience wins". Too often Editors force an issue (about content, a source, an image, etc.) and demand an almost immediate resolution. As much as I prefer to check things off and move on, the world is just not always that simple. Events often develop further, new evidence comes to light through investigations, or in some extreme cases the situation as its known via a prevalence of sources completely changes. Example I can think of are the people wrongly convicted and put into prison who were released when DNA evidence proved them innocent. Obviously we can't afford to wait years to properly write an article, but waiting days or weeks is sometimes far more prudent as often high quality and reliable sources emerge. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's one tip. Thick skin is useful, but it's even more useful to always, always follow the WP:CIVILITY policy (scroll down to "Avoiding incivility"). Many, many users here do not follow them - especially on controversial topics. Do not let them bait you into being uncivil. Always, always keep article talk page posts on content, not character. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't seen much in the way of activity on the talk page there. I noticed some inconsistencies and lack of references. I feel confident I could add some useful information and citations, as I have an interest in gun laws. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf Darknipples (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Darknipples,

If you are interested in changing your name, please see WP:RENAME.

The senior editor badge on my user page means only that I have been active more than four years, and have more than 24,000 edits. That gives me no special powers, and my recommendations are no better than any other editor's, except to the extent that I may know the policies a bit better.

I probably won't have much more to say on the gun show issue. I rarely enjoy editing in divisive topic areas, and find this particular area polarizing. As I take a middle ground personally, I find both sides of the dispute to be inflexible.

Please be aware that gun control articles are subject to ArbCom sanctions, and I recommend that you proceed with great caution until you better understand the internal Wikipedia issues involved with editing in this area. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not ignoring you. I read everything that you wrote. It is just that I am very busy off Wikipedia and didn't have time to write a lengthy response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cullen, if I misread your actions, or was acting impatiently, I apologize. DN 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No apology needed, I was just clarifying. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DN,

I see you accumulating a long list of sources about the gun show loophole here on your talk page. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but I don't think your talk page is the best place to do it. Instead, I suggest that you use your sandbox page or a user subpage. You can have an unlimited number of sandbox pages and user subpages, for use in developing articles, research or experimenting with wikicode.

But the primary purpose of your talk page is to engage in conversation with other editors. So, please consider my suggestion, although the choice is yours in the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't sure if it was a good idea or not. I figured if someone wanted to spitball with me about the "gun show" page, they could just comment on what I've researched so far. I can't thank you enough for your advice Cullen, it really has made me feel welcome. I did have one question. I like the nickname DN, but when I add it in on the preference page, my "signature" seems to disappear, and then my comments come up as unsigned. Any thoughts? Darknipples (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you check the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did. I will keep trying. In the mean time, would you mind looking in at the "gun show (loophole)" talk page and give me some pointers? Some editors are telling me that "the page is fine as it is", but are the ratings on it good for an article it's age? One said it should be deleted because of all the negative references to gun shows, but they refuse to separate it from the "loophole" aspect that is causing their contention. There are other political/legal articles with the word loophole in the title, but they say it's WP:OTHER? They also say I have a WP:POV Bias, or something to that effect. Should a 3rd party resolution be considered? Sorry for the rant, but I do appreciate you advice quite a bit. Is there someone else I should talk to? Thanks CULLEN Darknipples (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(apparently that has been a separation and the terms are now free from each other) - Darknipples (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors of this page are encouraged to respond here. Darknipples (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I WP:SPLIT the section of the Gun shows in the United States article that had to do with the gun show loophole into it's own article: Gun show loophole. Go and make it the best article you can. I will be watching, as will Scalhotrod and Anastrophe, too, I am sure. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised and delighted. I will start working on it tonight. Need to get some (real world) work done for now. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. I look forward to seeing your work. Also, I just removed one indent from your reply. Modifying another editor's talk-page posts is generally frowned upon, but you need to work on those indents. (It seems you're remembering your signature most of the time now. Good!) Lightbreather (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two tips on your edits today. Certain, standard WP sections, when they're used, are expected to go in a certain order, per - WP:ORDER. Also, although you can link (wikilink) to other Wiki articles - see WP:WIKILINKS - you can't use a Wiki article as a source. Lightbreather (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the direction - I am more comfortable discussing changes on the talk page before making changes. Anastrophe seems to have corrected many of my mistakes. I am starting to get the hang of this. Darknipples (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, DN. Couple of things. First, you're doing OK. Feel like you're learning a bit about how to use WP?

Second, I think you might want to work on your indents and outdents on the talk pages. Please review Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration, WP:INDENT, and any links in those discussions to do with indenting and outdenting.

Also, remember to sign with four tildes (or place your cursor where you want your signature - at the end of your posts - and use the signature icon at the top of the text box). Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to edit the article Gun show loophole. I am flattered that you appreciate my edits on other articles. I had a quick look at the article and its talk page, and I can see why you are looking for additional experienced editors. However, I don't think I'm the editor you're seeking, for several reasons. First, I think I agree with the editors who view the title itself as POV. Although the basic controversy is a legitimate one, I don't think a title for an article should be POV. The same material could be covered in a section of the Gun shows article or a separate article on controversies arising from gun shows. Second, my efforts in editing controversial articles are to try to bring balance to those I think are unbalanced. Articles can be unbalanced in several ways, but I think the most serious is by pulling the punches of one side of the argument, so that that side is represented by an easily-discounted straw man. When that happens, the article has a superficial appearance of balance, but it actually is POV. It takes a lot of work to get balance under these circumstances. I would urge you to focus your efforts, not on one side of the argument, but to try to get true balance. Finally, this article would be a real challenge because it is lengthy and the talk page is already voluminous. Because I have other unfinished projects, I need to decline. Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you seem to have added a number of external links to Wikipedia which could be stated as internal links. As an example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#What_about_article_x.3F

should be replaced by:

WP:OTHERSTUFF#What about article x?

(even though it appears irrelevant in the context you added it). This is a technical comment only, although I do not agree with what you have written in Talk:Gun show loophole, I do think you are writing in good faith, and your arguments could be more convincing and easier to read if you applied standard Wikimarkup conventions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We would love you to join the Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with editors who are addressing the effect of the gender gap on women on Wikipedia – whether as article subjects, editors or readers. If you would like to help, please sign up or visit the talk page. Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where have you been? Come back, woman... and bring a lady friend! ;-) LB

Times are tough. I am working 2 jobs and trying to get back in school. When you were banned from "gun politics" I felt alone, so I just kept an eye on it. Luckily, the "loophole" article has managed to survive and even improve a little. Did you see the anonymous message someone left me on the talk page? Darknipples (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently, IP editor 172.56.9.123 (talk) thinks you are my puppet. He started a sockpuppet investigation (SPI in WP jargon) about me and named you as a suspected sockpuppet. I don't think it will go anywhere, but you ought to know.

If you want to respond (I can't say whether it's better to respond or not to respond), read SPI Guidance, especially the section Defending yourself against claims. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Booyah - The accusers are full of shit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lightbreather#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do appreciate the invite, and I'm flattered, but I do not wish for people to identify me as a woman or a man. As it stands, no one has any reason or evidence to label me. I need that in order to continue my work here. Darknipples (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  03:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of H. Sterling Burnett, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ncpa.org/about/h-sterling-burnett.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you restate it here? Capitalismojo (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Capitalismojo:: With regard to your point that it is "ref'd to a non-RS". Removal of the citation that is from the New England Journal of Medicine while leaving the NRA material seems like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The NEJoF citation seems solid by WP standards. If you have an issue with the RS of this material why not create a section to discuss it on the GSL talk page before deleting it? The page is under heavy scrutiny as it is. This is a very controversial article and it has been very difficult to improve it from both sides of the issue. With all due respect, you may not have noticed that I have been (personally) harassed on this article's TP by an IP editor for trying to maintain WP:WEIGHT, and I am still having to deal with WP:HA as we speak. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGun_show_loophole&diff=644652445&oldid=644652185 - What I have learned from this, is that it is important not to make changes to the article without discussing them with other editors on the article, and making sure my changes are backed up by WP policies and quality citations. If this helps you, please post your reply to my question on the GSL talk page. If you need further clarification I'm willing to keep discussing this with you, but please understand that I am seemingly being targeted by random editors for trying to improve this article. Put yourself in my shoes, if you will. Darknipples (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am requesting action at WP:AE regarding a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which you edited. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please remove your recent edits at WP:AE. The admins there hate bickering, and the request is now closed so adding stuff is not helpful. There are lots of IPs interested in guns and it is no surprise that there are still IPs posting on the article talk page. The admin blocked the IP who restored the section because that IP is an open proxy, but other IPs are free to comment. If someone restores the talk page section, I will notify the admin who will attend to the matter. It's best if you ignore the issue. If I don't notice a problem, please bring it to my attention although I might be slow responding (but I will respond). Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Consider it done @Johnuniq:. Thank you for your guidance. Darknipples (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous comments at WP:ARBCOM -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#67.163.88.57 -- is moved here...

I'm not sure what the "block" was supposed to do but this editor is still participating on the talk page which does not make sense if he is "blocked"

Oppose this article is currently not about "background checks" in general, it is about the specific instance of background checks in relation to gunshows. The proposed much broader scope is something for a new article to cover. I see no reason for it expanding the scope of the current article, as it is a tightly defined topic that is notable and in the news in and of itself. If this article needs renaming, then Background checks at gun shows for firearm sales in the United States would solve that problem. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood what this means... - respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a new one on the article now... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=644671564&oldid=644670329 -- Darknipples (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it gets confusing because people use different templates and some use bullets and some don't, but the basic indenting (and outdenting) is used mostly the same by everyone. And some people take it personally if you fail to do it right most of the time. Here's a review: WP:INDENT. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. I saw your question at The Teahouse concerning "WP:CRUSH". What is that? I tried searching for it but found nothing. I know this is wired. I don't think it was worth asking at the Teahouse so I asked you. DangerousJXD (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About article talk pages: Unless they're articles with no or few disputes, older talk-page discussions are meant to eventually be archived. Also, you need to be careful about renaming sections and subsections, because sometimes they're linked to from other pages, and if you rename them a person trying to find them later via such a link will come up empty handed and have to do a manual search.

I do sometimes add "Sources" sections to article talk pages, but I try to limit them to a bulleted list of sources, and not a lot of text pulled from the sources, cause it causes the page to get awfully big really fast.

That's not to say that I don't sometimes give bits of text and a source or two to support an argument.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotta love that one of the longest discussion threads on the GSL page revolves around a single word, involves vehement disagreement, and is entirely in good faith. Wikipedia is a bit strange. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faceless Enemy Ha. Yes, it's too easy to get wrapped up in it sometimes, and it can be difficult to figure out communication issues. I assure you it's not the first time there has been such a debate over a single word, and chances are it won't be the last. But we will get through this together. Cheers! Darknipples (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not restore that image again. They are trying to bait you into edit warring. (Someone obviously alerted Y.) Let's let the WP:NPOVN discussion collect some feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lightbreather: I'm aware of 3RRR. Baiting is very unethical. What options do I have? Darknipples (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's called tag teaming. Not a lot of options. Wait and see what happens at NPOVN. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems possible...

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• WP:NINJA editing – terse comments, little talk page justification
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's tendentious, disruptive editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus. Darknipples (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an essay, so keep that in mind. I don't cite essays a lot, but it's apropos here. I didn't know it at the time, but what happened to me soon after I started editing GC articles is called POV railroading. Every one of those items - false narratives, policy misuse, pile-ons, incivility, and "brand, discredit, ban" - were used on me. The first and the last are still used, in fact. The others, not so much. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it's called sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf‎ Felsic (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  01:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).Reply[reply]

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You come up with some of the more interesting questions at the Teahouse!   Bfpage |leave a message  01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Over at WP:NPOVN#Image_at_Gun_show_loophole you said I guess I will have to obtain an image that encompasses "the needs" of all of these editors that object, at my own expense. It will be of a private sellers inventory. Please feel free to make constructive suggestions in this regard on my TP. That's why I'm here.

Reading over the discussions at WP:NPOVN and at Talk:Gun show loophole, it seems to me that you're operating under the premise that the article deserves or needs an image. I haven't seen anything that says that an article must have an image but I might have missed something. Are you aware of something that says images are needed in articles? What I've read at MOS:IMAGES is that images are good, and there's lots of information about how to place an image, but I didn't see that images are required. Even for Good Articles, images just have to represent the subject but again aren't required.

Moreover, some articles don't lend themselves to images because there's no image that would represent the article subject, and I'd argue that the gun show loophole, like other articles about legislation, laws, or deficiencies in the law, is one such article. My reasoning is that it is next to impossible to show a private seller not performing a background check on a private buyer. Showing a private seller's inventory might possibly be suitable but I'm not convinced of that, because again such an image doesn't represent the loophole itself.

Before you go to the effort and expense to take a picture (which might end up not being suitable), I hope you'll consider what I've said here. Good luck. Ca2james (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: The image used here could be a good model. It's a private sale, taking place at a gun show, with nothing in the image that could unintentionally mislead the viewer. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a proposal here that I'd like your opinion on. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very interesting read, thanks for the pointer. I am kind of new to this little corner of WP. Wow. I believe we may have encountered many of the same usual suspects. They will be the ruin of my article space percentage. Thank you for your contributions on guns. I am a Chicagoan and we had our first warm day of Spring this week, sigh. Keep in touch! Hugh (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added some stuff on my talk page about this stuff, but this is probably a better place to go and learn:

• Help:User contributions
• Help:Watching pages

Also, FYI, the way you order your talk page (and frankly, article talk pages) is really confusing sometimes. You might want to revisit WP:TPG, and I see you tried to put some sort of header on this page, which there are templates for... I will see what I can find. Have you archived any of your talk page yet? That might be worth a look, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I added template:editnotice to the top of your talk page, using your text that you'd apparently written for that purpose. Hope you don't mind. I would suggest that you make it a little shorter. I also created this: User talk:Darknipples/Editnotice, which will be displayed when your talk page is edited. It too could be briefer, and probably using both is overkill. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have proposed that Iron Pipeline be merged into arms trafficking. Thought you deserved a heads up, especially since you obviously went to quite a bit of effort to source the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please email me? I was going to email you, but you don't have that preference on. There are some things about my current personal/health situation that I would like to share but not broadcast to your every watcher or mine. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check your junk box, that's where yours went Lightbreather -- Darknipples (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you change your name to something which is not like Nipple . You can become Darknostrls :: Darkfountain :: Darkswordsman :: Darkharpoon. --C E (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CosmicEmperor, to answer your question, yes, I believe I can... Darknipples (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks , I never wanted to block you . I had reported it in another forum , and I was asked to discuss here . I first saw your name in some sockpuppet investigations page , and that's the main reason why i was suspicious . But as others said you are an established user , so I hope you will find a pleasant name for yourself. --C E (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CosmicEmperor, would you mind directing me to the report? A hyper-link would be best. I am anxious to read it. Darknipples (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:UAA read soon before it gets updated.

And this is sockpuppet case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darknipples/ArchiveC E (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's up to you, Darknipples. It's a really distracting username and might put attention on you rather than on your edits but the admins made it clear that it's your choice. By the way, I changed my username and it's a simple, painless procedure should you choose to go this route. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used to think this, but then I chose to get past it. There are so many other far more worthwhile things to discuss on this site than a moderately edgy User name. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back! :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your fortitude and patience in dealing with people determined to introduce POV to Wikipedia. — GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for first suggesting that I would summarize and close the discussion, and then not closing it. I hope you understand my concern about (me) possibly being too involved in the discussion. I have completed a non-admin closure of precisely one other discussion; in that case, I had nominated some articles for merge, but the brief discussion that followed showed there was no real consensus for the merge, even though by straight vote counting it would have appeared otherwise. In other words, I closed one that went against my own nomination, and so indicated. Unlikely in that case that anyone will feel I was not being impartial. In GSL, however, I think a more experienced and less involved admin should close. I really, really, would like to see the issue put to bed, and I don't think that other editors will ever be willing to do that until the article title is changed. When I found the policy WP:NDESC, I realized that we had all been assuming that any title absolutely had to be supported by RS (I had certainly been making that assumption) -- this policy which we had not ever discussed (I checked) said otherwise, and it would be premature to close without considering it, especially if it might provide a long-term way out of this dilemma. _{Due to wikibreak, please ping me if you reply here or I may miss it.} Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etamni This issue is about WP:POLICY, and the fact that certain editor(s) are trying to find a way to subvert it. They're looking for a LOOPHOLE in Wiki policy. IMO it's WP:POVPUSHing. They have done very little to improve the article outside of their own AGENDA. For the record, I never asked you to close the discussion, just if you had any experience, so what you did was on your own accord, not mine. Darknipples (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

//The editor responsible has had multiple blocks, I have reached out on their personal TP and asked for a discussion prior to further edits.//

what??? my block log says I have been never blocked. only one time I logged in using internet.org app, which uses ip ranges with face:b00c in them, so got caught in some autoblock thing for a user who is not me.

copied the lines inbetween // from your edit summaryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is one of Wikipedia's oldest awards, going all the way back to 2003. Yes, it is kind of plain in appearance, but to me, it represents what this project is all about: creating good encyclopedia articles, free to all of humanity. That is what you have done, on a highly contentious and difficult topic. For that, you deserve a lot of credit. Congratulations! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for offending you last year. I can be abrupt and impatient. Hope you stick around. Felsic2 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me for volunteering your efforts here. This topic seems to be of more interest to you. Plus, it'll take some work since there's a whole book to get and read! (If you don't want to, then I can find the time I suppose.) Felsic2 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I tried to explain, the second sentence introduces "Bauman" without explaining who he is or in what way he's connected to the Rich family; this is the first mention of Bauman in our article. Rather than write my own description I copied our description from later in the article: "Brad Bauman, a communications professional and pro bono spokesman for the Rich family." I can't see why that's objectionable or POV unless the description itself – which again, is in the current article uncontested – is also POV. The only real content modification I made was to remove "financial advisor" but I honestly don't see the relevance. What's relevant is that he's Fox-affiliated like Wheeler. VM reverted my edit because he stalks my edits and reverts but your contributions seem genuine so I'm struggling to understand the objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Whilst I was attempting to fix this in the spirit of consensus, there was an edit conflict, as VM has made this edit [1]. Let's continue this discussion on the Article Talk Page, where it belongs...DN (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Aftermath DN (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to have to ask you to stop personalizing disputes and making repeated references to other editors' bad faith, before we end up on the admin noticeboards. If you have an accusation to make, make it on users' own talk pages and save the article talk pages for explicitly stating and justifying your positions on content. In Murder of Seth Rich#Intent to distract, you have make a whole bunch of backhanded accusations, but I believe you never actually stated your position on the content dispute. If I were to assume bad faith, as you like to do, I would accuse you of stonewalling. But I don't do that, so I am politely asking you to discuss the content in a more constructive manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

And an additional note, these sanctions apply to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. Just a side note, I can't speak for TFD, but I think if you were to investigate my edit history with a little depth it might ease your personal concerns. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Nip. I'm surprised to see you add more on the outdated critics of the public intelligence report. I think the talk page discussion is moving in the direction of eliminating all this stuff, which is now very much superseded by additional factual reporting and by the irrelevance of that report to the core topic of Russian interference, regardless of whether that report, on its own, convinced every last skeptic. Please consider undoing your edit until a conclusive consensus favoring it should emerge on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPECIFICO I think I understand why you feel it is UNDUE, and you may revert it if you so choose. I feel confident that this relatively small addition is warranted for now, per talk page discussions and WP policy guidelines. If you are confident that it will eventually be eliminated by consensus then be patient and let time do it's work. I will respect the consensus if that is the decision. I assure you, my decision to add that part is not merely on the basis of appeasing skeptics, and I have sincerely mulled over your arguments. The article would not be as good as it is without your input thus far. Feel free to reach out to me any time, as you are most welcome here. DN (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I think it's important to recognize that the pundits who were cited in the press are not particularly notable experts on cyberwarfare, international relations, and other defined areas of knowledge related to the subject of Russian psy-ops and cybercrime. Journalists "smile and dial" to get quotes for their articles and these are the folks who took their calls on that occasion. We don't see notable retired military, academic, diplomatic, or other experts cited. Second, here is the question we must ask: What does a statement that the declassified report omits information (which is 100% deliberate and obvious by the nature of "declassified") add to the factual narrative about the Russians and their interference in the US elections? What does that add to the story? SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay will do, thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DN. The sentence that you restored on the Russia article is simply factually wrong. The ODNI/DHS did not make the claim that the sentence implies they made. It's nowhere to be found in either the ODNI/DHS joint statement or the Guardian article describing the statement. A second problem is that the sentence you restored does not attribute the statement - it sounds like it's coming from Wikipedia's authoritative voice, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV. I edited the sentence to make it actually say what the ODNI/DHS said, and to properly attribute it. I hope you'll self-revert back. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please try to keep your own personal ideology out of your edits. Please refrain from owning articles by constant editing of the same articles. Try editing something else once in awhile like Pumpkin Pie or Turkey Stuffing but please stay away from Ax Grinding. Thanks for your consideration. 172.58.83.58 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I do not know who you are, or what you are talking about, please stay off my page. Any problems you have with my edits can be addressed on the article talk pages. Have a nice day. DN (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have no clue? I'll buy that. However you are one of the most political ideologues I have seen since the ding a ling Light Breather. She got a lifetime ban so quit doing exactly the same thing (owning all the gun control articles, always feigning she's a victim, and then playing the dumb card when caught. Or just repeat the same mistakes and end up the same. Please thoughtfully consider this constructive advice. 172.58.83.24 (talk)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've come across an editor who is repeatedly reverting my edits, deletes my comments (in violation of WP:TPO), and refuses to acknowledge my comments on their talk page and instead just deletes them. Do you know what recourse I can take for this?
P.S. You're a random editor whom I've picked to ask this to because it looks like you know what you're doing lol — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more specific, User:Hafizh Ahmeed won't reply on his talk page or the talk page he is repeatedly deleting my comments on. I've come to you, a random editor, for a third opinion/any help you can offer. — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thatemooverthere, please be aware that Darknipples has only edited once in 2018, so may not respond promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for telling me. I've found the dispute resolution page (which is probably more productive than messaging random users lol) and am filling out the forms as we speak :) — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Darknipples. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(comment removed because it was a personal attack) DN (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I would like to request that you revert this change to Valereee's post in this section. It violates WP:TPO, which says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (Emphasis copied from the original.) By way of contrast, you are allowed to remove other editors' posts on your talk page, though it is presumed that you have read them. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's removal is more suitable then i will oblige. DN (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okey doke then. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—valereee (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC) t —valereee (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have fun with that. DN (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)44Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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 ~~~~)).  78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

changing

1. Valereee did not make a personal attack against you, you made a personal attack against her, when you refactored her comment. I see you undid this, but since you did the refactoring, you should make it clear it was yourself who propogated that personal attack.
2. Valereee was acting in an administrative capacity with concerns regarding your user name.The ANI discussion has demonstrated I was in error on this point, for which I apologize. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. You've been around far too long to excuse this type of behavior as ignorant of our policies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I did was indeed a violation, however I would ask that any interested parties reading this simply look at what this editor wrote on my talk page, in addition to the administrative note that, IMO, bares a similarity to gaslighting "it was yourself who propagated that personal attack.."...How? She came to my talk page and called me ugly. I reacted with emotion instead of logic, and thanks to Mud for helping me keep civil. I accept the two week ban, and I accept it gladly. See you in 2 weeks, have fun with it. DN (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It may be worth re-evaluating your username nowadays. Are you open to discussion? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She called your username ugly, that is not the same as calling you ugly. I also find your username distasteful, note I am not calling you distasteful. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So this is what wikipedia has come to? Random users can impugn another user's username, based apparently upon nothing more than a puritanical or victorian mindset, and we wind up with the impugned user blocked, and the self-important user who doesn't like the username just traipses along happily not blocked? Seriously? So, user Valereee can just go around saying "I don't like this; I don't like that", and the the object of her dislike is supposed to be oh so civil and not take umbrage at an annoying display of misplaced privilege? Really? No, this is absurd. A ONE day ban might be okay. Maybe two. But two weeks? The transgression began with user Valereee asserting the excruciating importance of her feelings. Dark Nipples. So fucking what? Why is this distasteful? It describes a biological state. So, if someone on wikipedia had, say, a username of 'cleft palate', and the idea of a cleft palate bothers me for some reason, I can just jump on that person's talk page and talk shit about how I don't like cleft palates? Give me one fucking break. What ever happened to that old idea of having a sense of proportion? Oh gee - now I'll probably be banned for a while too, because other people's delicate feelings have been 'harmed'. Anastrophe (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if you even know what this is about. The block has nothing to do with the username, it has to do with a personal attack. If you mischaracterize it as you had of course it sounds ridiculous, but that is not what happened. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That, of course, HighInBC, completely ignores the aggressive comment, made out of the blue, by an administrator who was reported by the blocking administrator as having acted as an administrator, although she immediately denied that she was acting as an administrator. Whatever happened to politely asking an experienced and productive editor to change a dubious or questionable username, instead of immediately taking a confrontational stance? Are those old school Wikipedia values completely abandoned now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the first to admit that Valereee can have a harsh tone at times. If you think that is something that needs to be addressed then you can bring that up at the appropriate venue, I may even support such a motion. However it does not justify the comment the resulted in the block. I agree she could have handled it better. Does not change the fact that the refactoring of her comment into a self-directed personal attack was over the line. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is whether this admittedly inappropriate response to a very snarky comment by an administrator deserves a two week block for a first offense while provoked. In my opinion, no. I might have blocked for 31 hours but I think that two weeks is draconian when the administrator suffers no consequences. Not that I think that she should, but the response seems disproportionate to me for a first offense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad we both agree it is worthy of a block. I also agree that 2 weeks is on the long side. I probably would have done 72 hours to a week. I however do not think it is "draconian", just a bit long. As for consequences for the administrator, that is another issue entirely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This kind of harsh response may well be a factor in the loss of productive editors over things like one inappropriate response when provoked. I hope this editor stays around. I hope an uninvolved administrator will decide, yeah or nay, whether this username is acceptable. I am not happy when I see folks saying that the administrator may have been too harsh but they were acting as an administrator (denied by the administrator) and that a harsh penalty should be overlooked because another administrator thought a penalty half as harsh might be appropriate. Whatever happened to compassion and taking a second look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is precisely what I was getting at when I reference 'a sense of proportion'. The response to this transgression is over the top. The argument that user Valereee's comments were not a personal attack are, frankly garbage, and suggests an obsequious response to an administrator throwing their weight around with truculent and confrontational comments. Valereee wrote "What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care" - this is a direct, personal attack on user DarkNipples character. "I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel" - how is that not personal? And why should the user care? Seriously? The username is a username. I don't know if they're referring to dark nipples as a function of pregnancy, or a fetish, or childish nonsense, whether they are male and their nipples darken when they tan, or whether DarkNipples is a cipher that would reveal their social security number if decoded. User Valereee is inferring a meaning in the username; that is Valereee's responsibility, nobody else's. Two weeks ban is, quite simply, ridiculous when a user is responding to harrassment from an administrator. I'd love to see the wikipedia policy that justifies the administrator's actions. Hiding behind the 'this wasn't an official administrator action' is dodgy in the extreme.. Anastrophe (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I can't believe that I'm the one to have to explain this, but...) Anastrophe, Valereee was extremely careful in her original comment to say that she assumed Darknipples is a good faith editor and that "I'm sure [the username] just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature." In other words, all Valereee did was explain how the "Darknipples" handle made her feel, which is entirely orthogonal to your observation above that "User Valereee is inferring a meaning in the username". When/if someone with a different set of life experiences comes forward to explain how your words or actions affected them, even if there was no intention of harm on your part, that is often a useful opportunity to engage in self-reflection. (As I've learned the hard way...) Ridiculing that person and disparaging their looks/appearance as "ugly" (even sight unseen, as in this case) is without question the worst possible way to respond, and, if anything, tends to validate the original concern. Also, since you seem to be conflating Valereee's statement with Cullen328's 78.26's block, please note that the latter was most definitely an official administrative action (as was Bishonen's subsequent unblock).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, it's this kind of 'gaming' that bugs me. Your 'small' text is overtly disparaging, do you not realize that? 'Oh dear, I have to explain to this sad little rube these basics civility, and how 'extremely careful' user Valereee was in (in actuality) impugning DarkNipples's character by complaining about this silly username'. Please. There is a colloquial term, that will probably generate jeers of sexism, puerility, 'ban anastrophe', 'cancel him, get him fired', blah fucking blah, but it fits: Grow A Pair. If seeing a string of letters - NOT directed at oneself - is enough to bring on the vapors, and drive one to start telling other people they need to conform to _your_ particular worldview absent any _actual_ harm - well then, this is a good time for some self-reflection as well, n'est ce pas?

Now, all that said - that I find your disparagement inappropriate - whoopdie-freaking-do. So what? It's just a little dig at me, I think I'll live. I'm not going to encourage you to strike it, or remove it, or have you banned, because, to be blunt, I have a pair. There's an actual real world i'm engaged in, and the bruise on my index finger from a slipped pair of dikes is far more annoying than this self-absorbed drivel - my own included. I don't like to see the terms 'bleeding pustule', or 'torture', or 'enslavement', or 'toxic mold', and many others, because I feel inner pain from reading them. How absurd would it be for me to start patrolling wikipedia, and telling people they need to scrub these words, or use less 'ouchy' euphemisms, because MY FEELINGS.

Lastly, I don't see specifically where I conflated Valeree's statement and Cullen328's block. Can you point it out? Valeree's statement was just an annoying demonstration of privilege. DarkNipples's response was stupid, but did a neat job of pointing out the idiocy of the whole affair. The conflation I see here is the horror - shock I say - that people have expressed about DarkNipples's 'riposte', while ignore the tone and content of Valereee's comments. Nobody should have been banned/blocked for this itty bitty exchange. Definitely Valereee took it to the next level in bringing an ANI (or whatever it's called, I don't engage in these actions but rarely) regarding it - seriously, how childish. How absent the 'Old-fashioned Wikipedian values' and instead privilege going for the jugular.

Okay, actual 'lastly'. I like to rant. That's patent. I've gone way over the top myself. Also patent. I apologize if anyone has taken offense at my screed(s). Because, in fact, I do care about people's feelings, even if it's not apparent here. Call it situational caring, or lack thereof.Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Your 'small' text is overtly disparaging, do you not realize that?" Disparaging to myself, perhaps, as I have learned many important lessons on this score as a result of past mistakes in life (as I explicitly acknowledged in the same comment) and would not usually see myself as being in much of a position to offer moral guidance. The rest of your comment is predicated on similar unfounded projection and does little to elucidate any relevant issues here, so I will not engage with it further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: The blocking admin was 78.26, not Cullen328. Cullen in fact spoke against a block (persuasively so, IMO, which was the reason I mentioned them in my unblock note just below). Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC). Reply[reply]

Oops, my bad! I blame the numbers in the usernames as well as my own lack of sleep for the error, which I have stricken above. Thanks, Bishonen!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unblocked. I note that Valereee made a confrontational comment on this user's talkpage, then Darknipples reacted badly (I quite agree they did) and Valereee reported them to ANI without mentioning her own provocation. I don't know why she then went on to present diffs [2][3][4] that I struggle to see the least problem with. Referring to the blocking admin's comment here, and not least to Cullen328's comments, I'm changing the block to time served and unblocking. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Regardless of the other issues here, I do not see that DN's edit fits our definition of Personal Attack, which is quite explicit and quite limited. Accusations of PA are often invoked in heated interactions, but they're seldom validated upon scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 11:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @SPECIFICO: How one earth is calling someone ugly not a personal attack? It's commenting on someone's personal appearance in a demeaning way. And yes modifying someone's comment so they call themselves ugly is calling then ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not aware that any of us is familiar with V's personal appearance. If she's posted a photo or otherwise documented it, I stand corrected. Otherwise, it's pretty far from the dominant intent of the definition, which is about various forms of real-world personal, not "I don't like your Wiki-persona" personal.

As to less clearly defined part of PA, which does allow for some leeway in application of the policy: I don't see anything there that fits. Yes, there's a disclaimer at the end about anything "insulting or disparaging" another editor. Well, that is so broad and so dependent on case-by-case interpretation as to be useless. And in fact, thousands of the accusations of Personal Attack raised at ANI AE and elsewhere -- based on interpretations of "insulting or disparaging" -- have been rejected with at most a warning to the accused to be more civil. It's just not something that Admins or the community enforces, first because such incivility is so common, second because that standard is so ill-defined as to be useless as a policy, and third, because it overlaps with WP:ASPERSIONS, which is itself a flawed standard in that in most instances the accused disparaging editor backs up the claim with links and "evidence" the validity of which become the subject of extended inconclusive and unproductive debate. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: who said anyone knew anything about V's personal appearance? People comment on other people's personal appearances all the time despite having no idea what they look like. It's a common insult, particularly targeted as females. I'm not sure what rock you've been living under that you've never encountered it before, but that's none of our business. Suffice it to say, if you or anyone else calls someone ugly in the future, I will warn about it and if it continues ask for an NPA block. Your ridiculous suggestion it's not a comment on someone's personal appearance not withstanding. If someone wanted to make a comment on someone's behaviour or something else they are calling ugly, they would make it clear they are referring to that, just the way V did. It's entirely fair to conclude when someone calls someone else ugly with no context they are referring their appearance. And yes this applies even if they know the other editor is male. It's no different from when someone says an editor is an idiot or stupid. There's a slight chance they meant to say they found the other editor's comments idiotic or stupid, but far more likely they meant what they said it's fairly obvious to anyone with sufficient English level that when you call an editor an idiot or stupid this will be interpreted as a comment on the editor, and not their behaviour or comments. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I correctly understand your view as to what's a Personal Attack, I would say that telling me, I'm not sure what rock you've been living under -- presumably calling me a worm, a slug, a maggot -- I dunno who else lives under rocks -- sounds like a Personal Attack. By my view, however, it's merely a pathetic ad hominem to deflect from the inconsistency of your argument and its inconsistency with WP policy and enforcement practice. I'm disappointed.

I have not expressed any opinion about the underlying behaviors or the block and unblock. My comment simply had to do with the way our policy is written and the way I've seen it applied. If you're inferring that I favor DN's name or action, that's also disappointing, because you have no basis for such an inference. I've given no hint as whether or what I thought about the underlying incident. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I have no idea what on earth DN's name has to do with anything I said. I made zero comment on the name. I only ever commented on the personal attack Darknipples made that lead to their block which you continue to claim is not a personal attack despite all evidence to the contrary noting I've now provided ~8 sources, at least 2 of which I think are RS about what it means to call someone ugly. In any case, I'm not going to discuss this further with someone who thinks it's not a personal attack to make demeaning insults about someone's personal appearance on their fellow editors. While perhaps I shouldn't have used the rock comment as I said below (composed before I read your comment), it's well understood that when you say someone is living under a rock, you're saying they seem to be oblivious to something well known [5] wiktionary:live under a rock. People don't use it to say the other person is a slug, maggot or worm, it's not even under consideration. Frankly, I've heard the idiom probably thousands of times, and use it maybe 3-5 and it never even occurred to me that it could be interpreted that way as I suspect 99.9% of the people who've used or heard the idiom. By comparison, as the sources below show, most of the time when someone says another person is ugly they're referring to their personal appearance, and it's fairly unlikely most people using that insult would not be aware of that. As I said in my first comment, this isn't to mean ugly can't be used in other fashions. But when people do so, they generally ensure they make it clear this is what they're doing as V did, precisely because they're aware of how the comment will normally be interpreted if they just call the other person ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I'm fully willing to accept that saying someone lives under a rock is very close to if not crossing the personal attack line as it is a clear insult. And if I'm blocked for it so be it. I'm not going to claim I shouldn't be blocked because it wasn't a personal attack. Once I posted it, I did feel I probably shouldn't but although I edit my comments a lot I felt it would be disingenuous to remove it. And while I could have struck it, I felt it better to explain as I did below why I did so. My point of the above was simply that if we are going to say it's a personal attack, it should be because of what the idiom actually means, not because of some weird literal interpretation of it which no one using the idiom even thinks about. Just as we should take calling some ugly how the term is normally used which in this case is fairly literal, not some weird other interpretation. Especially not if the reason for this alternative explanation is clearly faulty, since as I've explained it's just silly to suggest someone needs to know what the other person looks before they will describe said person's physical appearance as ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(EC) I know some may find it ironic I made the rock comment in a discussion about personal attacks, but here's why I find User:SPECIFICO's comment so frustrating. I'm male, but I'm well aware of the way comments on someone's, generally a female's, personal appearance are used as insults on the internet and in person all the time e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I'm genuinely surprised anyone with much experience on the internet or world in general would not have some knowledge of this. Yes most of the time when these insults are used, they are used when the person using the insult likely has some knowledge of what the target looks like. But who realistically thinks people using such insults are using them because they've looked carefully at photos of the person and decided that it's a fair insult based on the target's personal appearance? I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm sure people are less likely to call someone like Bella Hadid ugly in big part because they know they just end up looking stupid. Likewise people are less likely to call someone fat if they're aware that under most definitions the person they're insulting is underweight. But still by no logic do people only use these insults when they have actually seen the person in photos or real life. Indeed even when the there are photos of the person, the insult will often be thrown out without having viewed them or just the thumbnail of the profile picture or whatever. As some of the sources say, frankly it such a common insult and girls and women face so much abuse, that frankly it's on the more "tame" end of the scale. But that doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't make it okay for SPECIFO to try and suggest the comment does not normally refer to someone's personal appearance or that it's not a personal attack. And as I said, even if it's knowingly directed at a male that doesn't make it okay either. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that it matters a hill of beans, but on first reading of Darknipples's modification of user Valereees indelicate approach to its feelings, the change to "I'm ugly" fit clearly in my mind as converting Valereee's words into a summary of what they were - "I'm an ugly person (for going after a user whose username bugs me)". It was ugly behavior. Not a comment of user Valereee's physical appearance. That's how I read it at least, but I'm ham-fisted clod, so what do i know. Anastrophe (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anastrophe: I also read it that way, so you're definitely not alone in that. Of course, modifying someone else's comment to read "I'm ugly" is also 'ugly' in that sense. I think everybody agrees it wasn't a very appropriate way to react to a not very appropriate comment. Things like that happen, and we should probably try to get less wound up about it, especially if both sides have recognized their mistake. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It seems that some of our admins have forgotten their place, to put it mildly. I'm sorry you had to deal with this nonsense, DN; please don't let it discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Darknipples! I hope you're doing well and that your day is happy and stress-free. :-) I just wanted to say that I'm sorry that you had to go through this lengthy discussion both on your user talk page and on WP:ANI. I think that, overall, both yourself and Valereee took away some key things to understand, keep in mind, learn from, and apply in order to grow and improve as editors and as members of the community. Valereee definitely did not need to word her message to you in the way that she did, and you (obviously) did not need to refactor her comment in response. ;-) Anyways... you know that already, and pointing out the obvious isn't the reason that I'm messaging you. ;-) Instead, I'm messaging you to both acknowledge and commend you for your edits and your contributions to Wikipedia, and to encourage you to stay with us as an editor and keep editing and contributing as you've been doing. We need editors like you, and I never want to see anyone leave the project - especially in distaste or in a disheartened way. Please stay with us, and please keep up the excellent work that you've been doing for us. :-)

Now... let's talk about the "elephant in the room" for a moment: Your username. Although it's definitely not a username that I would've personally chosen for my account, in the end - your username is not a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Although some editors (including myself) see your username as a sub-optimal choice for a member of the community who seeks to grow and improve Wikipedia, there is nothing I can do about it. I can't force you to change your username, I can't block you over it, and I can't (and won't) treat you differently than I would any other user because of it. All I do ask of you (and encourage you to do) is simply one thing: Take a moment of time and reflect over the discussions that were had in relation to your username today, and seriously consider whether or not you feel that your username reflects you as an editor appropriately. If you don't feel that your username is fit anymore, changing it is easy - have at it. ;-) If you feel otherwise, then - like I said - there's nothing I can do here. You're obviously free to keep the username you currently have, though I'd personally encourage you to change it. Like I said, my personal thoughts are irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and my responsibility to enforce them. I may not like it sometimes, but I have to enforce Wikipedia's policies appropriately, fairly, consistently, and with a neutral and level-headed mindset - which, many times, includes having to conclude that certain things that are reported are not policy violations. :-)

Anyways, I'll get out of your hair and let you carry on with your day. Please know that my user talk page is always open to you, and you are welcome to message me any time you need or want to. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions, provide any input, or help you with anything that you need. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you aware that the admin who blocked Darknipples (78.26) also has an inappropriate (under the current set of rules) username (i.e. one that resembles an IP address, which is explicitly prohibited by WP:MISLEADNAME)? Perhaps you should leave them a similar message, Oshwah. After all, aren't admins expected to lead by example? I'd certainly love to read their response (its original unedited version that is). 78.28.44.31 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

78.26 is not a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. It does not resemble an IP address... not even close. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the non-technical user, it doesn't resemble an IP address. To the technical user, it resembles a classless inter-domain routing /17 netblock. Anastrophe (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most browsers will allow you to navigate to https://78.26, and you can ping 78.26, as omitting octets is allowed in IPv4. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmm, we're having red herring I see. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a royal we I presume. Regardless, two short numbers separated by a period unquestionably resemble the "usual" four. Claiming otherwise is silly. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question is just a distraction from the point. Oshwah wasn't talking about usernames that may resemble IP addresses, they were talking about Darknipples username. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 10:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me restate what I said in a vulgarly direct manner then: Darknipples is under no obligation (real, moral, or otherwise) to change their username and it's unseemly to continue pressing them on the matter after all they've been through, especially in a world where the admin who inappropriately blocked DN is allowed to keep their unambiguously policy-violating username completely unmolested. You may disagree, but hopefully we can at least understand each other's position now. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I understand your possession, it's just a blatant logical fallacy. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a digression from the issues, but I don't think anyone is being misled either intentionally or inadvertently into thinking that this is the argument at play. An administrator chastised and belittled a user because they didn't like their username, a username which violates no WP policy. Another administrator blocked that user on other grounds during the dispute; that administrator has a username that can be misleading, albeit to a relatively small audience of more technically inclined users (systems administator am I; first time I saw '78.26' I thought "that's curious, why would someone name themselves after a slash seventeen netblock?"). On that point, I've neither been misled or deceived by that username, it was just a curiousity, and I don't care enough about the username policies to look up if it really would 'unambiguously policy-violating' (though I did visit the user's page, and found out a neat little bit of trivia). (would '3.14' fall under the same policy? There is a 3.14 netblock that's owned by amazon, but the majority of folks would (hopefully) think "pi"!). What we have here is the juxtaposition of an admin with a potentially policy violating username involved in a tempest in a teapot about usernames. This matter falls within the grand tradition of wikipedia 'talk', with massive volumes of letters formed into words formed into sentences formed into paragraphs formed into the bloviations we've all come to know and love. I'd hardly call it a 'blatant logical fallacy' but instead 'standard operating procedure in WP shitstorms'. I'm pleased to have been a participant <plonk>. Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, back off. I was beating this dead horse first XD ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m sorry I came in too hard. I sincerely didn’t realize I was, and after your first response I lost my temper, and I should have just walked away, and I didn’t. I’m sure you are a well-intentioned editor. —valereee (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Robert O. Paxton finds that even though fascism "maintained the existing regime of property and social hierarchy," it cannot be considered "simply a more muscular form of conservatism" because "fascism in power did carry out some changes profound enough to be called 'revolutionary.'" These transformations "often set fascists into conflict with conservatives rooted in families, churches, social rank, and property." Paxton argues that "fascism redrew the frontiers between private and public, sharply diminishing what had once been untouchably private. It changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity. It reconfigured relations between the individual and the collectivity, so that an individual had no rights outside community interest. It expanded the powers of the executive—party and state—in a bid for total control. Finally, it unleashed aggressive emotions hitherto known in Europe only during war or social revolution." DN (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action

Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics. Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an "endless struggle"; this emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party's Brown shirts and Fascist Italy's Blackshirts). The basis of fascism's support of violent action in politics is connected to social Darwinism. Fascist movements have commonly held social Darwinist views of nations, races and societies. They say that nations and races must purge themselves of socially and biologically weak or degenerate people, while simultaneously promoting the creation of strong people, in order to survive in a world defined by perpetual national and racial conflictDN (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roles

Fascism emphasizes youth both in a physical sense of age and in a spiritual sense as related to virility and commitment to action. The Italian Fascists' political anthem was called Giovinezza ("The Youth"). Fascism identifies the physical age period of youth as a critical time for the moral development of people who will affect society. Walter Laqueur argues that "[t]he corollaries of the cult of war and physical danger were the cult of brutality, strength, and sexuality ... [fascism is] a true counter-civilization: rejecting the sophisticated rationalist humanism of Old Europe, fascism sets up as its ideal the primitive instincts and primal emotions of the barbarian. DN (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascist aesthetics

Fascist art glorifies surrender, it exalts mindlessness, it glamorizes death." Sontag also enumerates some commonalities between fascist art and the official art of communist countries, such as the obeisance of the masses to the hero, and a preference for the monumental and the "grandiose and rigid" choreography of mass bodies. But whereas official communist art "aims to expound and reinforce a utopian morality", the art of fascist countries such as Nazi Germany "displays a utopian aesthetics – that of physical perfection", in a way that is "both prurient and idealizing." DN (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascism emphasizes both palingenesis (national rebirth or re-creation) and modernism. In particular, fascism's nationalism has been identified as having a palingenetic character. Fascism promotes the regeneration of the nation and purging it of decadence. Fascism accepts forms of modernism that it deems promotes national regeneration while rejecting forms of modernism that are regarded as antithetical to national regeneration. Fascism aestheticized modern technology and its association with speed, power and violence. Fascism admired advances in the economy in the early 20th century, particularly Fordism and scientific management. Fascist modernism has been recognized as inspired or developed by various figures—such as Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Ernst Jünger, Gottfried Benn, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis. DN (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idealogical dishonesty

In 1938, Mussolini declared upon Italy's adoption of antisemitic laws that Italian fascism had always been antisemitic. In fact, Italian fascism did not endorse antisemitism until the late 1930s when Mussolini feared alienating antisemitic Nazi Germany, whose power and influence were growing in Europe. Prior to that period, there had been notable Jewish Italians who had been senior Italian fascist officials, including Margherita Sarfatti, who had also been Mussolini's mistress. Also contrary to Mussolini's claim in 1938, only a small number of Italian fascists were staunchly antisemitic (such as Roberto Farinacci and Giuseppe Preziosi), while others such as Italo Balbo, who came from Ferrara which had one of Italy's largest Jewish communities, were disgusted by the antisemitic laws and opposed them. Fascism scholar Mark Neocleous notes that while Italian fascism did not have a clear commitment to antisemitism, there were occasional antisemitic statements issued prior to 1938, such as Mussolini in 1919 declaring that the Jewish bankers in London and New York were connected by race to the Russian Bolsheviks and that eight percent of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews. DN (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anti-democracy

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete. They regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.Cambridge University Press pp. 237–239. DN (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corporatist economic system

The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidoni Pact, in which the Italian employers' association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy's employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions. The Fascist regime first created a Ministry of Corporations that organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations, banned workers' strikes and lock-outs and in 1927 created the Charter of Labour, which established workers' rights and duties and created labour tribunals to arbitrate employer-employee disputes. In practice, the sectoral corporations exercised little independence and were largely controlled by the regime, and the employee organizations were rarely led by employees themselves, but instead by appointed Fascist party members.

Roger Griffin

[14]

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states" [26] [27]

thanks for collaborating on the Columbine article - it's all good. Shearonink (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you have offered an opinion but haven't "voted". 48Pills (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

48Pills...Apparently my opinion was counted as a vote. Please be sure about whether someone's contribution is counted as a vote or not. I ended up adding an "extra oppose" because you made me think you were the one tallying votes...Please be more careful. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, but I am equally in the dark as to what is counted as a vote. So, who is responsible for tallying votes in a situation such as this? 48Pills (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 48Pills, I understand. Each RfC is different, and while that wasn't technically an RfC, for all intents and purposes it is the same situation. I wouldn't be too concerned over who, but I suppose you could ask on the article TP, as it wouldn't be far off-topic in that regard. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. This might shock you, but I'd rather have Biden in the White House, then Trump. As for the House Republicans' investigations of Joe, James & Hunter Biden? A total waste of time (as it's just an attempt to derail Biden's re-election chances), which will end with nobody being found guilty. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full disclosure, I'm not a Trump supporter either. That being said, Biden was not my first choice either. Both Dems and Reps leave a lot to be desired. My personal view is that living in an oligarchy leaves much to be desired, but rather than focusing on how much money/control certain people have, it comes down to compassion, kindness and being smart enough to admit when we are wrong and focusing on solutions that show results. I appreciate you reaching out to me, and I will continue try harder not to let any of my preconceived notions or prejudices get in the way of building consensus with you, no matter what your views are. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe WP:AN was the location for the last time an editor attempted to have an RFC overturned, at the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page. It would be the board, that would get the most attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "Close review" is the proper description, if you want to challenge the RFC closure. You'll have to notify the RFC closer, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer to try and exhaust all options to reach consensus before reaching out to admin, so AN is not on my radar. Thank you for your guidance in this matter. It is appreciated and does not go unnoticed. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AN is basically asking an administrator to overturn the RFC decision. FWIW - It's rare for RFC decisions to be overturned. More more rare, when it's two RFC decisions. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GoodDay: That is manifestly not the case. A close review at AN does not ask an Admin to come and do a fresh close of the completed RfC. As you should be well aware from the review of the first RfC, the close review launched a secondary poll which was then closed on its separate merits. Your insisent and uninformed comments about process on that article talk page are not constructive. Anyone is free to begin a fresh RfC on the issue, and the current discussion is exactly what should always happen before using an RfC, which should be a last resort. Fortunatly, DN, is well aware of that and is proceeding in the best good faith manner. An AN review that would start from the close of a stale RfC is a non-starter. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this was DN's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DN, I just saw that you posted at NPOV noticeboard. From the arguments that are being presented by the current opponents of the lead text, it seems to me this is more a case of Original Research -- article text that is based on editors' personal interpretations beyond what's stated in sources. The board for that is WP:NORN. AN is certainly not the venue for a fresh look at this content question. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DN, It's up to you which route you want to go. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies if my post (at HBLC page) seemed to suggest you had opened the previous two RFCs. You didn't ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit was a breach of the consensus required provision in place on this article as SPECIFICO's edit was challenged by GoodDay's revert which triggered the requirement that there be affirmative consensus for any further changes. I've reverted your edit to the article to enforce the provision. Ensure that you familarise yourself with the consensus required provision as you will very likely be sanctioned if you breach it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. I will be more careful. DN (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DN, this edit looks a bit too personal [28]. Could you rephrase it to avoid to avoid the personal part? Thank you. Springee (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done DN (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just noting that some of your comments in Talk:Huey Long might be considered violations of the wikipedia policy against personal attacks directed at other editors. The community typically extends some leeway for editors in a stressful situation to blow off steam without facing consequences, but if you turn making comments like this one or this one into a habitual pattern it may likely result in sanctions against your ability to participate in talk discussions and/or edit more broadly. Aquabluetesla (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything particularly uncivil in those edits, Aquabluetesla. To the contrary, the least civil edits at Long, such as this vaguely threatening edit summary, aren't from DN. ~ HAL333 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree in the regard that the edit summary I made was not so great. A symptom of narcolepsy maybe. I also find clocks and the concept of time to be fascinating. Aquabluetesla (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I did find some of your edits problematic, it was not personal or meant as an attack. Frankly I was pointing out the tone you were using in your edit summaries here. Mirroring your behavior was not very becoming of me, so I will apologize for that. DN (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are times when Talk comments should be deleted: for violating privacy or making legal threats or personal attacks or violating BLP or violating NotForum or ranting profanely. Otherwise, deletion is not a proper tactic when debating. DonFB (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what this is about. Are you referring to something specific, or just lecturing me? DN (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You commented after I restored my Talk post that you deleted from Hunter Biden Laptop talk page and seemed to invite some follow-up discussion on your talk page DonFB (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see [29]. Apologies for that, it was completely unintentional. I remember there was an editing conflict and I was trying to put an end to that mess, but comments kept rolling in every time I tried to publish, so in my haste I must not have seen the removal action. Again, please accept my apology, I am very aware of WP:TPO and would not have made that edit had I been more patient and careful.DN (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned when restoring my post, I felt that the deletion might have been a mistake. Case closed, hopefully. DonFB (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate that you started a discussion here [30]. Springee (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit removed other peoples (I assume some kind of edit conflict), thus I reverted you. You should not remove other users comments. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I was confused by your revert,[31] specifically the "no consensus for change" part. From my short time at Wikipedia, I've understood it to be the person initiating a change that usually has to gain consensus after being reverted. I reverted content less than an hour after it was added, so I'm confused as to what you meant by "no consensus for change", could you explain? Thank you. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have self-reverted, I misread your edit. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. No problem, I've made the mistake myself! FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're going to arbitration stooooooge 2603:7000:D03A:5895:8DA6:6FD5:6E25:C88D (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! This is Jonathan from the Postal Service. You may remember me from the USPS Talk page, where I was proposing a Delivering for America subsection draft that covers the 10-year reform plan the Postal Service launched in March 2021.You suggested some cuts to my first draft, and then after I made those, another editor asserted that I hadn't included enough information about DFA's drawbacks and the criticisms against it. I've tried to do address that concern with my latest draft, which uses a few of the sources that you suggested (because the other editor didn't provide links to specific articles).

You can view that draft at the bottom of the discussion linked here. Please don't feel obligated to review. I know Wikipedia is made up of volunteers. But I thought I would bring it to your attention, since you took an interest back in October. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mind if I edit the reference list to have numbers instead of bullet points? It will make it easier to reference specific sources. Since the reference list is one of your edits I permission before changing your posts. Springee (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure that's reasonable. DN (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added numbers to sources for citations, some sources have multiple citations. DN (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just want to say I saw your work on the GOP article and the high-quality sources you used to back up your edits. Great job and I hope to see your work on the live page soon! BootsED (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated. I haven't tried using a live page yet, but I'm always excited to learn and contribute. DN (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I meant that I’m excited to see your work on the page, live. As far as I am aware there is no separate thing called a “live page.” Apologies if that was not clear! BootsED (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child pbp 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way pbp 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to have been around long enough to know more about the way things work here as well or better than I do. Your additions may be due and you may even be correct about their motives, but one thing I've noticed is that cooler heads often prevail, which means avoiding drama or BATTLES like the plague. Applying Hanlon's razor is essential. Sometimes the only option is to disengage and walk away for a while, for the sake of mental health. Policies that seem to add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, increasing vulnerability to to gate-keeping or stonewalling article improvements or discussions due to personal POVs is a frustrating aspect of working on political articles, but I've learned to see their benefits as well. I do empathize, and I do not doubt your sincerity in advocating the legitimacy of those changes. DN (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't auger well. Taken in the general instead of the specific, an editor could find statements he disagrees with, dispute the verifiability of the sources and the reliability of the authors, force any burden of proof on the other side, and stonewall any change regardless of how much sourcing was available. Or, looking at a different part of what you said, I don't get the edits I want that I know are correct and sourceable just because I should avoid trouble.

The other thing that bothers me is I have a history degree, and, near as I can figure, Sam is a math guy. And yet HE'S talking down to me. And he still is avoided explaining what he really dislikes about the edits, almost as if explaining it wasn't worth his time. I know it may be counter-intuitive that there were right-wing elements to the Populist Party, but it is what it is! The Populist Party is far from the only political movement that is left-wing in some aspects (economics) and right-wing in others. pbp 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for Hanlon's razor, I dont think Sam is either stupid or malicious. I just think he really believes that 1890s populism was an entirely left-wing movement and disputes any sourcing that says otherwise pbp 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My intent is not to deter you or anyone from advocating for your changes, on the contrary I encourage you to continue to advocate for your sources and inclusion of the context if it is DUE. You've made some accurate points so far, but that's not to say they aren't trying to follow policy one way or the other. Why not confine the more personal observations to the editor's talk page, or simply omit them, since it simply does nothing for you in this venue? I don't know anything about your experiences with this editor, but I recognize a familiar pathology. I'm not implying that likeability is some kind policy requirement, but CIV certainly is, so if you feel things are too toxic just take a break and come back when you feel like dealing with it on your terms. The discussion will still be there. DN (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get that I probably overdid it, but he's exhibited several behaviors that infuriate me. I don't like my edits being reverted, I don't like being talked down to, I don't like being asked to do the same task over and over again, and I appreciate it if people see my side of things. He's done all four of those. It's completely normal to be disgruntled at somebody doing that. pbp 01:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I have been in similar instances and the frustration you feel is not unusual in this kind of situation. My apologies if what I said did not clearly acknowledge that fact. DN (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like Nicole Hemmer's work, have you looked at any of NYU professor Marcia Pally's stuff? DN (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a fella I was talking to yesterday who was looking for an article just like this pbp 18:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]