User talk:Barnes VQ

Welcome![edit]

Hi Barnes VQ! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with other editors[edit]

A less condescending tone when addressing other contributors would be appreciated from such a new user. Please direct your efforts to article improvement, rather than chiding editors who are working to expand the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake! There I was thinking that Wikipedia didn't like having unreferenced text in biographies, and would welcome newcomers who were capable of keeping such principles at the forefront of their minds as they go about both fixing articles and addressing the root cause of the issues they find, rather than the frankly lesser concerns of making sure the more experienced and frankly quite slapdash existing editors don't have their feelings hurt. I mean, I guess I might have misunderstood your condescending message and your chiding tone, but I think not, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnes VQ (talk • contribs)

I mean, I'm happy to take lessons from someone who says eminently sensible stuff like this.....

"Please post the references you're using. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)"

.....but hey, I also noted that in that case, they were chiding a new user.

I guess on Wikipedia, the old adages apply. Do as I say, not what we let our friends and neighbours do. Capiche! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnes VQ (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: You will be indefinitely blocked if poking of other editors continues. It is obvious that a two-day old account with a total of eight edits would not randomly find the pages you have been editing. Please find another topic or another website. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea I found these pages randomly? And why are you assuming that not finding them randomly, signifies some nefarious intent? If you're going to threaten people, making not so veiled accusations (off the back of that other guy's more veiled threats), then make sure you haven't perhaps made a mistake first. I mean, I can find another website, sure. I can do a lot of things in response to this sort of outright protectionist nonsense happening on a supposedly democratic entity where anyone and everyone is supposedly welcome to bask in the good feelings of helping society by instantly publishing information they scrape up from other more reliable websites. I have defied your request, and made a necessary follow up comment to that editor. If I had not done so, an error might have persisted on this website for years. Especially if it is common practice to threaten anyone who dares to do what I did, and not just fix a mistake, but search for the root causes of it. You do what you must, John. I hope you are confident that whatever it is you do choose to do, will be a good look for Wikipedia, rather than looking like a pretty obvious revenge attack for hurting the feelings of one of your friends.

And you're busy proving our points. If you're just here to needle other people, please find something else to do. You appear to be intent on harassment, and your behavior reminds me of one of our long-term problem editors. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for harassment[edit]

And this [1] settles it. That kind of nasty vituperation is intimidation. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your very first interaction with me, was intimidation, pure and simple. I would even go so far as to say it was not just nasty, it was gaslighting. Trying to make me wonder if I had not actually improved Wikipedia by correcting their mistakes? Trying to make me wonder if I was mistaken, and there is actually some kind of hierarchy here, where I apparently have to show due deference to my superiors, and accept that I am her inferior? Crazy talk.

I know enough to say with absolute certainty, that I am perfectly entitled to investigate and act on apparent patterns of poor editing, and to identify and reasonably speculate as to their root causes and identify remedial actions. These are my rights, and if you deny me them, you are denying Wikipedia itself. You can comment and even request a change in my approach, but you cannot silence me, or gaslight me.

<abusive header retitled> Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm no threat to Jess Wade. It's not like I have a newspaper column or a direct line to anyone who has direct influence over her life. I can quite easily restrict my comments to her in the most polite of terms. I see no reason why, with that understood, anyone here needs to risk Wikipedia being seen as a place which doesn't practice equality, as in equal opportunity to correct and improve articles, by choosing her over me. If no such choice is being made, please say so now, because that is how it appears to me. I have already demonstrated, contrary to the claims above, a willingness and ability to improve Wikipedia articles. In two days, I fixed no less than five instances of biographical sentences either not having a reference at all, or having a reference that was improperly placed. I think that is a pretty decent effort, for a beginner. It was of course not a random accident that all five sentences were originally authored by her, and published by her as part of her two most recent works here, but I hope it is also rather obvious that just because it wasn't random, that doesn't mean it was malicious. If it is not going to be permissible for me to volunteer to perform this vital function of quality control on Wikipedia, it might be a good idea for someone who considers themselves a servant of Wikipedia, to explain why that might be a good thing. Please make sure it is something you would be happy to see in print, since I reserve the right to make public what occurs here, on this private website, in pursuit of the public interest. Barnes VQ (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(ec) This doesn't address the sockpuppetry mentioned on your user page. Based on what I've seen here and in your other postings, I think any benefit to Wikipedia in permitting you to edit is outweighed by everything else. For that reason, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2021 (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.

You've done this before, to this editor [2] [3], and you've been globally blocked for years. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked due to continued targeted abuse. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]