Wikimood
[purge]	[edit]

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

The temptation to edit war or throw bane accusations at times is so great. How dare another editor revert my edits or dare to contradict me? The chakras are disturbed, the body seething in anger. Such are the animal impulses of human nature that need to be under control. Let patience, diplomacy, cool reasoning, and proper process win the day. Thinker78 (talk)

Archives

2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 2023

Please proofread the daily tip before it goes "live"... It's displayed below two days early, so it can be error-checked and made ready-to-display for all time zones. Some tips are obsolete. So we need new tips too. Please share your best tips and tip ideas at the Tip of the day department. edit Day-after-next's tip of the day... Templates for Age and Dates Wikipedia contains age calculation templates that self-update every day to keep date and age information current. These are very useful for a dynamic online encyclopedia and save users from having to regularly update that kind of information. Many articles including biography articles contain infoboxes which use these age and date templates. For example: The article for Benjamin Franklin infobox contains template ((death date and age|1790|4|17|1706|1|17)) Results display the date of his death and his age on that date: April 17, 1790(1790-04-17) (aged 84) Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read More: Category:Date mathematics templates   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use ((totd-day-after-next))

Category:1940s assassinated French politicians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok Thinker78 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by stabbing has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by method has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by beating has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by decapitation has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by explosive device has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by firearm has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1940s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok Thinker78 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by political orientation has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated anti-capitalist politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated anti-communist politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated liberal politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated conservative politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'd stand a better chance of keeping categories at the intersection of politician deaths/assassinations if you made a page about the scholarly literature on the topic before the category. Mason (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is excessive deletionism. I added my full comment at the entry. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see how you'd think that. I still think you'd make a stronger case in general if you can point to a page about the intersection. Mason (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Assassinated Democratic Party (United States) politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smasongarrison Can you refactor it to the entry regarding Assassinated politicians by political orientation, it belongs with the others, to avoid duplication of discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely! Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate it. And even though we disagree about intersections, I appreciate the effort and energy you put into categories. I think your efforts are a net-positive to wikipedia. Mason (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mason. I appreciate it. Diversity of minds contributes to a proper balance in the world. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't reinstate dumb/trolling Talk page comments. It only feeds the trolls. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bon courage Please don't unduly remove the content dispute of talk pages. That's what talk pages are for, to discuss things. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are now edit-warring this crap back in and are at WP:3RR. Please work with (not against) admins to remove trolling from Wikipedia. Hint: the idea that naming the chemtrail conspiracy theory is "racist" is either trolling or from somebody WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, your assertion that I am at 3RR is false. I have reverted twice in all time in that talk page. Second, you for some reason also decide to ignore the civility policy and use an inappropriate adjective, namely the word "dumb" to refer to the post of the ip user. Third, as I stated in my edit summary that you apparently chose to ignore, be mindful of WP:TPYES, which states,

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach.

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to be able to distinguish between useful contributors and unwanted disruptors. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinker78: I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again. Regard that as avoiding disruptive edit warring if you like, but a more accurate assessment would be that it is to avoid the destructive effect on the community of such comments becoming common. If you have a point you would like to make about the article or whatever, make it, but don't edit war to restore nonsense from who-knows-who. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnuniq I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block. For starters, you did not even attempt to find out my rationale, even though I cited relevant Wikipedia guidance. The assume good faith guideline states,

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

It completely perplexes me why you chose to ignore the relevant guidance I added to the edit summaries of my two reverts. The Good practices for talk pages (WP:TPYES) I cited states,

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach.

The edit the ip user made in my opinion was not vandalism nor trolling. They made a request that the term "conspiracy theorist" be removed. I understand this term is considered pejorative among some people. They further stated it was "racist". The use of this word in my experience elsewhere is not limited to racial topics, but to denote an action as inappropriate as racism. I see it as a content dispute and it should have been addressed like that. Is there a chance it was trolling? Yes. But again, Wikipedia tell us to assume good faith.

The fact that Bon Courage did not address the concerns I pointed out in my edit summary and even used incivility in theirs, made me revert them as well. Your characterization of my edits as edit warring also fails to assume good faith and mischaracterizes my record. I personally try to stick to a 1 revert personal guideline out of principle, in general. Only a minority or a few of times I make a second revert. But I point out that making a second revert is backed by POLICY

Per the Consensus through editing policy states,

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

I find it really rude from you that you completely ignore collegiality and my years of experience in the project when you immediately decided to threaten me with a block, when it is evident I did not make an arbitrary revert. I researched and cited relevant Wikipedia guidance for my reverts. You did not appear to have cared and did not even appear to respect the consensus policy.

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

With all due respect I feel you are abusing your administrator powers in this case. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinker78, you've picked a strange cause to attach yourself to. A drive-by comment asserting that calling conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists is racist is at best obvious nonsense, and at worst trolling. Moving on to tone-police editors who describe nonsense as nonsense is a waste of your time and ours. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Acroterion and Johnuniq:, this is a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive. See User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2023#Block of 99.196.130.183 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully inquired and challenged your block at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I stand against undue censorship, per the spirit and principle of the Wikipedia is not censored policy. I think making Wikipedia a more welcoming environment per the civility policy and other Wikipedia guidance is not wasting my time or of editors respectful of others. In addition, you seem to forget that in Wikipedia there are long discussions even for the placement of a comma. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been doing this for some time.[1]. I strongly suggest you stop. Note that my comment does not make me involved, you, like some others I've seen recently, don't understand that that means. See WP:INVOLVED Doug Weller talk 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I would point out that reverting my removal of a trolling comment doesn't make me involved either - clear-cut vandalism and trolling are exempt from those considerations, and the comment that you restored was sufficiently absurd for that to apply. Anyone who intentionally restores vandalism, trolling or BLP violations takes ownership of that edit and is, by implication, endorsing it. You intentionally restored a minor troll’s disruptive edit, apparently to make a point. That by itself is not block-worthy in most cases unless you edit-war (which you were also doing), but your pursuit of some kind of justification is ill-advised, and creates a time-sink as you bounce from place to place seeking justice or retribution, scolding anybody who disagrees. I would probably not have blocked you, I having made the initial revert, in any case short of gross abuse, as the inevitable ensuing accusations of involvement become a distraction that isn't worth the time to refute, when other admins are looking in and can do what's necessary without giving you the drama you seem to be seeking. I think you're too interested in wiki-litigation and argumentation. Acroterion (talk)

Our community so rarely smacks down ne'er-do-wells that we should celebrate it when they do. There is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Wikipedia. While I get your point, I think it is unwise for you to defend this class of troll simply because you have more willingness to suffer fools. Please let the community do what it does. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinker78: You need to learn to distinguish good-faith attempts at improving article content and drive-by disruption. Here is an example of the former. In contrast, an accusation of racism thrown in your interlocutor's face is hardly a way of starting a productive discussion; rather, it's a show of displeasure with Wikipedia, not an attempt at improving it. Such disruptive edits are normaly removed, as we have talk page guidelines for a reason. I suggest you read these guidelines and cease defending disruption in the name of misinterpreted lack of censorship. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Kindly explain why you think I am making persistent disruptive edits and how you blocking me is appropriate being an involved editor in a dispute with another administrator and other editor. I wrote the reasons why the other administrator in my opinion had acted inappropriately in the Chemtrails thread above. You delved in the dispute writing an accusation against me, "this is a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive". I stated and asked, I respectfully inquired and challenged your block [of another editor] at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask. You did not answer the question and instead proceeded to block me. I believe you should have left it to other administrators to review my case and I don't think it was appropriate from you to block me in this instance. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Please provide diffs of relevant instances of "forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. Also, the diffs of failing to listen. And again you were an involved editor that delved in a dispute so I believe you acted inappropriately in blocking me, specially when I questioned you and you proceeded to block me. You have not addressed this. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2] [3] [4].

Your disagreeing with my actions does not make me involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thinker78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are reasons I believe why the block against me is incorrect.

1. Blocking administrator (ScottishFinnishRadish) stated as a reason to block me You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. They produced the diffs [5] [6], which are edits I made following the Dispute Resolution policy which I had read beforehand.
   1. Said policy, under Requesting other editors' help for content disputes#Related talk pages or WikiProjects, states,

      If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page.

      1. I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, i publicized in the talk page of Talk page guidelines. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the Assume good faith guideline.
   2. The forum shopping policy states,

      Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

      1. I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the ones I mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input, regardless of whether it was in favor or against my position, thence not constituting forum shopping.
2. Blocking admin also stated as a reason for block, You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. As evidence they provided this diff, regarding my complaint to the other administrator (Johnuniq) that warned me of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. I simply provided my rationale for my previous revert, evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and complained about the threat of a block (which took me really by surprise). Therefore, I did not fail to listen as I did not do the action the other administrator warned me against. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your interpretations above are incorrect and that this is a good block. I too would advise you to read WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

Wont get anywhere with the above....best read over WP:NOTTHEMMoxy- 04:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot I explained my rationale with basis in policy. You only stated a subjective opinion with no explanation or clarification whatsoever. As such I question the legitimacy of this denial. Per the consensus policy, under the principle of section Consensus-building#In talk pages,

The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I think this principle is specially important when administrators enforce blocking editors or takes part in the process, like in this case, an appeal.

Per the policy on Administrators, under Expectations of adminship,

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.

Therefore, I ask for proper clarification on why you think my interpretations are incorrect and why you mention WP:NOTTHEM. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with and endorse the comments of the blocking admin. You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinker78 Folks are mentioning WP:NOTTHEM because your unblock request focuses on the behavior of others rather than considering how your actions contributed to the situation. (Even if you may not agree with others actions, it's in your best interest to consider alternative perspectives and focus on the things you have control over moving forward) Mason (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinker78, you are wikilawyering. It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now if kowtow. That's how the system has always worked. No one has ever successfully argued their way out of a block. Further, consider that no other editor agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you were in the wrong, so maybe you really are OR you are too far from political consensus here to continue to edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thinker78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are reasons I believe why the block against me is incorrect. I will proceed to provide context and explain my rationale. Note: This is a new appeal after I was advised "you may make a new unblock request for someone else to review."

Brief: Following guidance, I made edits and two requests. I did not do forum shopping but instead I followed proper Wikipedia guidance. I heeded the warning of an administrator. I did not fail to listen. Following the fundamental principles of the Five Pillars, my edits were not disruptive but rather contribute to a better encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, in an environment where editors should treat each other with respect and civility and understanding that Wikipedia has no firm rules, where the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording.

Details

#Context: I was provided two diffs [7] [8] as justification for my blocking, with the statement, You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. ##These are edits I made after reading beforehand the Dispute Resolution policy. Said policy, under Requesting other editors' help for content disputes#Related talk pages or WikiProjects, states,

If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page.

###I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of Talk page guidelines. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the Assume good faith guideline. ##The forum shopping policy states,

Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

###I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the diffs of my edits mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input for more clarity, regardless of whether it was in favor or against my position, thence not constituting forum shopping but instead being reasonable requests based on policy. #Context: I was also provided with the diff [9] as further justification for my blocking, with the statement, You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. For necessity of context, I include this info: an administrator (not the one blocking), had warned me of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. Therefore, I did not fail to listen to the warning. I simply had provided my rationale for my previous revert, had evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and had made a complaint. #I have to point out my concerns that this block has the effect in practice (not saying it was the intention of the blocking admin) of ignoring and bypassing the consensus policy. ##The explanations I was provided about my reverts by editors in the thread of the dispute that generated these proceedings (named Chemtrails; above) could have been provided to me without any need of a block or any further issue. A discussion would have ensued and I would have respected the consensus at the end of it. ##I have to mention I had no plans whatsoever to continue reverting past the 2 times I had reverted because I am aware of 3rr. My record of not engaging in edit warring can speak by itself. Plus I have had for a while now a personal voluntary policy of trying to stick to a 1rr, and only sometimes I revert 2 times (which is within Wikipedia policy). #Finally, I am against undue censorship which is what motivated this whole dispute in the first place. Here in Guatemala where I live the government even used to torture people to death for discussing the wrong things or reading the wrong books. My mother actually disposed of all the books in my house when I was a kid for fear we would suffer such a fate.

When I see (seldom) what in my opinion is an undue revert even of what seems to be trolls, I analyze it, I investigate the context, and if it is not indeed just vandalism or unconstructive edits (which sometimes I also remove myself), I restore them.

I stand for the principle and spirit behind the policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the neutral point of view, respecting relevant Wikipedia guidance.

*Per the Guide to appealing blocks, I provided evidence why I did not disrupt Wikipedia and why my edits were and are legitimate. Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

For wikilawyering and timewasting unblock requests following on wikilawyering and timewasting talkpage editing, your talkpage access has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. I should perhaps warn you that the UTRS admins will also soon enough get tired of having their time and patience wasted, so in your own interest, try to be more concise. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

Normally a successful unblock request will take responsibility for the behavior that caused the block and promise to improve the behavior / not to repeat it. In this unblock request, are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by making them spend a bunch of time on a low effort troll comment? Are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by forum shopping? Is it possible you are being a bit too inflexible and failing to calibrate when half a dozen other editors are letting you know that your behavior is bothering them? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TLDR: You just wanted to argue. If you want to just pick a fight with other editors, then you need to choose your battles more carefully. See my comment up the page - the idea that the comment you reverted was actually a serious recommendation for improvement to the encyclopedia is just absurd. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll just do 1 and 3. First, the pages you posted to state clearly at the top This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. They are not noticeboards. This is not the first time you've gone to the talk pages of random guidelines over an editor behavior complaint. Third, as far as consensus goes you should read the room a bit and look at the myriad responses here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Thinker78: Please keep in mind that blocks are there to prevent disruption. After you are unblocked, I hope you will be careful not to restore obvious trolling to Wikipedia, especially when experienced editors are telling you not to. I hope you agree that all this is not worth another, much longer block, right? — — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thinker78. You have written me an e-mail asking to have your talkpage access restored. I will reply here: The way I see it, you have been exhausting the patience of administrators by submitting several long elaborate unblock requests and, in between, arguing in a bureaucratic way with the blocking admin and the admin who declined your first request. See Vexatious litigation. That's why I revoked your talkpage access. You can discuss any problems you see with my rejection of your request for unblock, and/or my revocation of talkpage access, with the admins at UTRS. It is not an inferior option to write to them and explain why you think you should be unblocked and/or have your tpa back. It won't be as public, that's all. UTRS admins, feel free to unblock and/or restore tpa without consulting me, if you think it appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 01:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Conservative politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]