User talk:Ferociouslettuce

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hydrogenaudio[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hydrogenaudio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CardinalDan (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Fields junip.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Fields junip.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Karminsky Experience[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Karminsky Experience requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-dubstep[edit]

Sorry it took so long to reply. Three months is a little excessive... But yeah. Electronic music subgenres are defined in part by their BPM. From what I've heard (and I am by no means an expert), the speed the music is played at directly influences the style of play. There are many many many other factors but taking something and slowing it down or speeding it up is a very typical beginning to a new style of music. Thrash metal / heavy metal / sludge metal is a good example.

In reply to your indie music analogy... Dubstep and post-dubstep are subgenres of electronic music. Like Noah and the Whales can be more accurately described as Indie Folk or something similar, some bands may fit into post-dubstep better than any other genre or subgenre.

Immortal Z (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Feed Me's Big Adventure[edit]

Hello, the caption for the deletion on Feed Me's Big Adventure page was "No explanation of the subject's significance". I can't restore this page, but what I can suggest is looking at this page and this page and it may help you. If you have another question, please ask. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Me's Big Adventure[edit]

It's just an unreferenced track list, no indication of why the release has any notability separate from that of the artist (sales, chart position etc. There is nothing to stop you posting a proper article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. Just to expand on the above, it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for music. Just giving a track list looks as if the intention is to promotel rather than inform. I've recreated as a redirect to his page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop you recreating with references and an explanation of why the recording meets the notabilty criteria(although him saying it's a major event is hardly a reliable independent source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you have independent reviews, and can add something other than an unreferenced tracklist, that would help, although ideally we need something like a chart position or sales figures to show that that it is truly notable. Whether he is notable is another issue. He might be, but his page basically saws he's released a few recordings, nothing to indicate why he meets the notability criteris as defined above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora[edit]

Please stop adding truther nonsense to the 2012 Aurora shooting article. If you persist in adding this material without first gaining consensus on the article's talk page, I will be forced to block you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I try to reach consensus, but you're very angry at me when I mention James Yacone & add a relatively sane conspiracy theory section. Your block makes no sense. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry, but this sort of thing gets played out quite often on Wikipedia and it starts to get old. It's a disservice to our readers to ever give this sort of thing more than a fleeting mention, whether it's this, the moon landings, 9/11, Sandy Hook, or whatever. That's not to say we never mention them, but it's got to be proportionate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense is the theory that James Yacone & Dan Oates did their due diligence & believe James Holmes, while on vicodin, had a 2nd gas mask [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/aurora-colorado-theater-shooting/ ], which he ditched hundreds of feet from his car before running back to the theatre, where he waited with another gas mask to get arrested.. I understand that at quick glance this looked like nonsense comporable to delusional Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, but please visit the 2012 aurora talk page to make any changes you believe fit to a better sourced conspiracy theories section. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANDNOT[edit]

Please review what is and is not vandalism. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have very carefully reviewed it. i have also discussed all proposed changes in the talk page and reached a consensus before posting. all are sourced, and occupy less space than the reactions of batman executives to a shooting in colorado.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the talk page to include that material, and even if there was it still would not be included because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override centrally-developed policy and guidelines. That section was completely, laughably inappropriate. Also, please do not use misleading edit summaries, as you did here. VQuakr (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wow so now you revert edits on my own talk page.. "centrally-developed policy and guidelines" that's bizarre jibberjabber. speak substance. speak about the matter at hand. don't blind revert Ferociouslettuce (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blindly revert. I reviewed the edit, got as far as the words "mind control," had a good laugh, and then reverted. This isn't a case of finding some good material to salvage, it is so far in lunatic territory that it would be hilarious if it were not for the article disruption. Feel free to pick up the discussion on the article talk page, but here is a hint: you might want to try to get at least a single other person to agree with you before claiming consensus. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michaelmalak thanked me for my edit.. Whereas I Made These Changes, I had nothing to do with this. That whole mkultra thing existed before I started editing this article. If you want to remove that section, then that makes sense, but I still think it is worth mentioning because it does tie in to elements of his lawyer's defense. I do believe, however, that it is more relevant than quotes from batman executives.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:2012 Aurora shooting. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to remain cordial & agree in hindsight with the revert you made regarding the Charleston Church Shooting. But there are 6 reliable sources in the Aurora talk page, and not one taken out of context. Libelous sources condemning Holmes are allowed, but sources questioning a narrative with a lot of holes, are not? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't "try" to remain cordial; just do it because it is required. Calling a group of sources reliable when they include Youtube links destroys your credibility. You provided one source that actually discussed conspiracy theories, which I addressed in my reply last week. Your claim regarding the investigators was not supported by any reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am being cordial. And my claim regarding the investigators was never proposed to be in the article. Nowhere on wikipedia does it say that newscasts preserved on youtube are not allowed. msnbc and nbclocal are as mainstream as they come.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to James Eagan Holmes? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguously, yes. It also applies to information about Holmes in other articles, as well as in other namespaces such as user and article talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Ferociouslettuce. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic 2012 Aurora shooting. Thank you. I do not think your participation at the noticeboard is necessarily required since I merely requested additional opinions, but I did want you to know I had posted there. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been neutral. Why do you consider Diverse Education http://diverseeducation.com/article/77609/ (no wiki available) to be more reliable than The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Fusion (TV channel)? Why are You so interested in this story? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://imgur.com/CwaGt5O,76hu4O4#1 I am certainly not the only one frustrated with User:Beyond My Ken's disruptive editing. I am going to give MaxSem the benefit of the doubt and say he did not give the article's history enough attention. Clearly, "bmk" has gone above and beyond what is considered disruptive editing and should be banned. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Please see WP:SOCKPUPPET. Editing without logging in in order to avoid scrutiny of your edits is a violation of that policy, and can leade to your being blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're having an edit war with 2 users and my roommate. Stop making edits and start explaining why the title shouldn't be changed from "financial crisis" to "financial deficit" especially in noting, as the attorney general has, that the deficit expires in 2018. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he is your roommate then still he is your sockpuppet. Read WP:Meat. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have 6 roommates, I'm supposed to ip ban them all from wikipedia? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From editing the same subjects as you, yes. Please read WP:MEATPUPPET. BMK (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. at this rate bmk you're going to be blocked from editing entirely. I do not have total control over everyone who ever uses my ip address. You, however, deleted your talk page, deleted my post from the talk page of Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests and deleted my post twice from your talk page warning you. Please bring an admin into the equation. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete talk page comments[edit]

There are an extremely limited number of circumstances in which article talk page comments can be deleted - please read WP:TPO. Your deletion of comments from Talk:Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests has been reverted as it was not a "cleanup" it was a deletion not allowed under policy. Please do not do this again. BMK (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the old conversations but they are archived. Why'd you delete my comment on your wall? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again edited the talk page in direct violation of WP:TPO, I have once again reverted to the previous version. It is not the job of a POV editor to "clean up" a talk page. If you do this again, I will go directly to an admin with the issue. BMK (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an old section where 5 months ago you asked another editor to re-add the npov tag but no one else agreed with you. Keep it since you're obsessed. Please go to an admin. You've deleted much more than I have. Respond to my real query about how the article should be changed to "deficit" and not "crisis" given that the Chrysler Building rent Triples in 2018. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?[edit]

Do you have a conflict of interest in regard to Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests? Are you a member of any of the organization which were protesting, or were involved in the lawsuit? If so, please read WP:COI, which weill tell you what your obligations and restrictions are as an editor who is not neutral about the subject, but has a conflict of inteerst. BMK (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested because I am a former student. Take your own advice and stop deleting things. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a neutral editor's job to delete non-neutral material such as yours, which I will continue to do as long as POV editors continue to add it. And BTW, you are not "interested", you are deeply biased against Cooper Union, it shows in all your edits. BMK (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're deeply biased as you have been for nearly 2 years on that article "bmk" [name redacted for face saving purposes]. I have not argued with a single other wikipedien about Cooper Union. Former president Bharucha's twitter most recently directed to my journalistic writings on Disqus (though I prefer Felix Salmon's on fusion. [redacted[ has also deleted my warning from his own talk page as he has deleted additions from 3 different users. @PhilKnight:, @NeilN:, @Bongwarrior:, MaxSemlol? can someone please ban User:Beyond My Ken. Not only has he violated the three revert policy but he is actively deleting warnings from his own talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=679555117&oldid=679513944 . Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to remove whatever they want from their talk page subject to WP:BLANKING and I see no violation of WP:3RR. Please elaborate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, thank you for joining the conversation. Of greater concern is "bmk" deleting relevant query from Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. He did so not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 times. He never entered into discussion and maintains that the settlement between the Committee to Save Cooper Union and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is not relevant even though it mandates that methods be investigated to force tuition free by the year 2018 at the latest. He has gone beyond violating the three revert rule. Thank you Neil for listening. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Thanks for pinging me thus attracting my attention to your behaviour.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Max Semenik (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

User:Beyond My Ken has made edits against policy. I have done nothing wrong can you please explain what is considered "disruptive" about my editing? I edited once in support of User:jm3. Other than that I have not touched the main article, while BMK maintains that "diverseeducation" should be the only sourced material, whereas wsj, nyt and other more reliable sources should not be added. Can you please block Beyond My Ken since he violated the 3 revert rule as I've outlined above? Thanks

Decline reason:

See below. MER-C 04:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not realize that outing was against wikipedia policy and will not do so again on wikipedia. I was very frustrated by Beyond My Ken's incongruous edit warring with myself and other users, but I should not have violated policy just to out him.

Decline reason:

While the outing alone is reason for a block, that's by far not the only problem. In particular, I find your complaints of BMK "deleting relevant discussions" utterly hypocritical when BMK even re-added comments they removed while reverting your repeated removal of discussions. See also WP:NOTTHEM. It's obvious that unblocking you would lead to an immediate resumption of the problems that brought us here in the first place. Huon (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. BMK did re-add his diff section question, but he deleted my request for more current administrators point of view inside the talk page. Again, I have not edited any main articles other than reverting BMK's edits to reflect User:jm3's superior sourced edits. The edit that bmk deleted represents particularly poor judgement, given that bmk himself previously said "the viewpoint of CU admin is somewhat under-reported", and I was trying to add the viewpoints of all current ranking CU Admin.. I have no plans of deleting anything, especially given the fact that I failed to properly archive when I last attempted to do so.

Decline reason:

You were warned that if you continued the same behavior you'd be blocked again, and that's what happened. Also, WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewing admin, please note the blatant violation of WP:OUTING just up the page, made with this edit. I've requested oversight. BMK (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has been oversighted, so the outing was, clearly, real. BMK (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin, please note User:Beyond My Ken violated the spirit of Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule by deleting the edits of 3 different users at Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. He did so not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 times over the course of a few days. I honestly did not realize outing was against policy, so I apologize for violating policy by outing on wiki and will never do so again. But please ensure Beyond My Ken stops his disruptive behavior at Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. He also deleted relevant discussion both on his talk page (technically acceptable) and a relevant query from the Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests talk page. Requesting that the top 3 Current Admins' views be added to the article inside of a talk page is not a discussion that should have been deleted by User:Beyond My Ken, even if I technically failed to archive his old threads properly. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Ban Beyond My Ken For Disruptive Deleting[edit]

I posted the following to Talk:Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests here. (()) is an implied addition that I should have made more overt. However, User:Beyond My Ken was very out of line to delete these relevant points from the talk page, especially considering he and I are both TW users and not admins. I was also trying to foster a real discussion with the admin who was expressing interest in the article.

BMK has agreed up until very recently that the article, before User:jm3 made edits that "bmk" wants hidden, that the 3 paragraphs of current admin and a former trustee provide enough balance so I've deleted the section below. User:Beyond My Ken feels that the Attorney General's settlement of the lawsuit ((As Described by wsj & nyt)) should not be included. Obviously I disagree. Welcoming opinions from Tapered, OR drohowa & Eflatmajor7th as well as other users is of course welcome. Is the deficit still a crisis? Acting President Bill Mea's POV should certainly be added as well as Acting Provost Richard Lincer and the newly promoted Chris Chamberlain. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferocious:You are going in wrong direction, you will get nothing by blaming others, you have been blocked indefinitely. You should assure that you will never interact with BMK (specially for disruptive purpose) or you will never edit that article in question. If you are still blaming other users then you will not get unblocked. You can request for decrease in block period, like for 1 month/2 month etc. And you should assure that later you will come back with decent manner. I'm telling you all these things because you have been blocked indefinitely, this is end of your part as an editor on Wikipedia. So take it seriously and don't debate on content or user here, talk about yourself, assure that you will improve yourself and you will not touch that article ever. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 20:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Human3015, I appreciate your concern, but I am trying to understand. What did I do that was disruptive? I only made one edit, which involved reverting from the edits of User:Beyond My Ken to the better sourced ones from User:jm3. Why did User:Beyond My Ken, who deleted links from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Daily Kos & Hyperallergic in favor of an exclusive for diverseeducation.com not also get banned? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss this issue further, you got blocked indefinitely and I just thought that you need advice. Its upto you to follow my advice or to continue your blame game. My role in this issue is only that I requested full protection for that article in question. Your disruptive behavour was "deleting discussion from article's talk page", "sending notices to BMK", "complaining when your notices from user's talk page gets removed" etc. Anyway, still I will say that there is no use arguing or blaming others. I may not reply to any of your further comments. Thank you.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your conversation even though I disagree. I am not trying to "play the blame game", but to understand. I do not understand why I was banned for siding with User:jm3 instead of User:Beyond My Ken when the latter has deleted new talk page queries and reverts against the clear majority. Do You understand why I was blocked and Beyond My Ken was not? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you attempted to out BMK. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info Jeremy. I had no idea that outing was against policy, and I apologize for violating policy. It is my hope that User:Beyond My Ken will cease his megalomaniacal control over all other opinions at Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. I will certainly not out him again on wiki, and it is my hope that he will move on to other articles. I see that this user is involved in a proposed amendment to WP:ADMIN regarding paid editing. Beyond My Ken ought set example for ensuring no admins are paid for their services, but he is far too close to CUfcatp to be an objective editor as he has lorded over the article for nearly 2 years. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And these personal attacks were the last straw. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which "personal attacks"? Beyond My Ken has exhibited near total (megalomaniacal) control over Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. diverseeducation.com qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability such that it Trumps The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times as User:Beyond My Ken considers it? User:jm3's edits are, objectively, more neutral than 'User:Beyond My Ken'? @Huon:, how well versed are you with Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests?

[quote=Ferociouslettuce]I will certainly not out [redacted] again on wiki, and it is my hope that he will move on to other articles[/quote] and not exist to criticize those with imperfect punctuation and html knowledge. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Talk page access[edit]

I've restored your talk page access. This is for the purposes of seeking clarification on matters relating to your block, and for limited replies to other editors if necessary. It is not for appealing the block, which must be done through the process prescribed by ArbCom. You must not mention or ping Beyond My Ken. You must not post or allude to any material which has been previously suppressed. If you breach these conditions or are disruptive in any other way, I will revoke access to this page again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reasonable conditions. Thank you Harry Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HJ Mitchell: & @GorillaWarfare: - I tried to find threads of templates through email but was unable. It's been a long while since I even thought about enwiki (I was eligible to apply for unblock as of July 1), but I would like to add a few pages - Stanley Schlein as an example - and make edits ranging from removing an unsightly bracket after CAA here to working on improving articles to ultimately remove headers here, so I would like to be unblocked. I will definitely improve my etiquette - I was frustrated as I had never encountered significant opposition during the first 9 years of edits, though a 24 hour "sleep on it" / "cooling off period" mentality will be my go to reaction to any potential future conflicts -- not that I intend to provoke any. Can I unblock request above? Please advise on the best way to proceed and thanks for reading Ferociouslettuce (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your block must be appealed either to the oversighters or to the Arbitration Committee; it can't be appealed onwiki. See WP:OSBL. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailing list has been closed.. Per WP:RFO, I have forwarded my request to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Access (First Time Requesting Unprotection so I am trying to follow guidelines via WP:Unprotect)[edit]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The New York Times Company. David J Johnson (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

You appear to be moving back into accusing those who disagree with you as editors with conflicts of interest. How does this square with your unblock condition that you avoid the pattern of editing that led to your indefinite block? David J. Johnston is quite clearly not affiliated with the Times - he's on another continent (or island, at least) and is quite clear about his affiliations. You appear to be edit-warring to insert unsourced speculation, which is disproved by cursory search [1]. Please stop. If the personal attacks and disruptive editing continue the indefinite block will be reinstated. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided a WP:3RR. Seems it is Sulzberger Jr who is the oddball that must call himself publisher And "chairman". My accusation against DJ was out of line, but my initial edits were in good faith as Slim is referenced as owner very frequently as well in a myriad of articles. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my concern. You were plainly edit-warring to insert what you thought was true instead of doing even minimal research in the obvious location, and you made personal attacks with spurious and obviously wrong accusations of COI when confronted. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Slim is obviously the owner of the New York Times, and I apologized to DJ Ferociouslettuce (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Slim owns approximately 17% of the stock in the New York Times company. That means that he is a major stockholder. That does not make him "the owner" and he is neither the CEO nor the publisher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the link I provided? It makes the corporate structure quite clear. You haven't addressed my question in any substantial way either. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my last edit of NYTimes was 22:43, 26 January 2017‎ . I made only 2 edits that I believed to be true at the time Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Robert A. Bernhard. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming someone is dead without providing an ironclad source is a blatant violation of the biographies of living persons policy. A person of such prominence is unlikely to have died unnoticed by major news outlets, and there is no such obituary or notice. Whether or not someone is in your temple is irrelevant, and it seems to me that you have people of similar names confused, especially since you've made the same claim before citing a completely different person. Any more of this and you can expect to be re-blocked, this time indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that Robert Bernhard, a dead man, is alive, is being done. I have no part in (nor seen any proof) that Robert A. Bernhard has been alive as of Nov 1 2016. Both Citizens Bank & Keybank have been behaving as if Robert Bernhard died on November 1. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, citing WP:BURDEN. You may also want to review WP:BDP as the subject was born less than 115 years ago. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned by Acroterion that you were risking an indefinite block but still made the same edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does a bank behave when someone dies? And, for that matter, what connection does Bernhard have with those banks, since Bloomberg does not list him as a director of either? It is practically impossible to prove a negative, such as that Bernhard is not dead, and, in any case, we don't require proof that someone is living, we require proof that someone had died. Until we have that proof - which given Bernhard's life, status and positions, would be practically impossible to hide - we must assume that he is alive. Further, have you considered the possibility that this 88+ year-old man is sick, or incapacitated in some way, and that's why you can't find evidence of activity on his part? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

−

On Nov 1, after Bernhard's death, his emissaries called Citizens Bank & Keybank in his stead.. Bernhard was not even written about until 2 years ago. It would be very easy to pretend he isn't dead. In fact, no video exists of him for over 3 months. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− I thought Haim Saban ran wikipedia.. Why do y'all need to lie to pretend Robert A Bernhard is alive? Haim Saban doesn't need to lie to pretend Robert A Bernhard is still alive. The man is dead. He just is. Dead. No shh. Just dead. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− −

WP:TRUTHMATTERS[edit]

Block appeals only. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− "Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo

− − Fact is Robert A Bernhard is dead. I violated no WP:3RR by doing so. I'll figure out how I'm supposed to apologize to Mike "double the price of MTA to make billions" Bloomberg to get unblocked..? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links discussing Robert Bernhard's death:

Links discussing Bernhard being alive: N/A

~qed

I do apologize to Acroterion for violating format and understand NeilN's decision to temporarily remove my editing privileges. I wish this discussion could be had on that page, however. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you listed above -- Twitter posts and a blog -- do not qualify under our policy on reliable sources as sources for facts, only as sources for the opinion of the tweeter or blogger. We do not require proof that someone continues to live, we require proof -- in the form of citations from reliable sources -- that someone has died. This you have continually failed to understand, or to provide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which is why I didn't add them to the article, and yet WP:TruthMatters - do you have Any evidence he is alive? Those blogs are typically more read and respected than most news sources.. Except Robert Bernhard is dead. You oughta know by now. Please provide evidence he is alive. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been permanently removed because the community has run out of patience with your speculative style of editing. Since you persistently fail to adhere to Wikipedia policies on sourcing and biographies you've been indefinitely blocked. The last few comments you've made simply confirm that the decision was correct. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect aspects of your opinion for the moment Acroterion. I also hope to show you I am prepared to be unblocked. However, there is one glaring exception to what you said, which is concerning - if I'm right then you're participating in a coverup. Not as big as this coverup, but still you have no evidence against me other than noting I rapidly read your concern and was interested in improving the formatting of the article in question. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Even if sources come to light showing that the subject has died, your editing would not be acceptable. Provide proper sources at the time of the edit or keep your speculations to yourself. As BLP applies everywhere, I'm revoking your ability to edit this talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]