User talk:Stayfree76/Archive 1

the learning curve

Hey, Stayfree. I can see you're getting frustrated. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and it's much more difficult when you try to learn on a contentious article. Here's my advice: 1. Make one argument at a time. Pick your battles. Making multiple arguments at a time will just make people stop reading. 2. Make it as short as possible. No one wants to read a wall of text, and literally every extra word is just going to make people more likely to ignore or misinterpret. 3. Provide sources. Give us at least one reliable, unaffiliated, secondary source. —valereee (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

no idea what this means

Stayfree, you seem to be very frustrated, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here.

here is the problem. WHERE IS THE SOURCES THAT ARE USED FOR THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY THAT? here they are [1][2] the nytimes article even says "By combining videos from bystanders and security cameras, reviewing official documents and consulting experts, The New York Times reconstructed in detail the minutes leading to Mr. Floyd’s death." IS THAT NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH?? the BBC source says "After approaching the car, one of the officers, Thomas Lane, pulled out his gun and ordered Mr Floyd to show his hands. In an account of the incident, prosecutors do not explain why Mr Lane thought it necessary to draw his gun."... i this point i dont think you have a right to tell me to stop posting. i am not even using my own sources. I AM CLICKING ON THE SOURCES THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE HAS RIGHT NEXT TO THE SENTENCES I AM INQUIRING ABOUT. the transcipt and other things are there just because for some reason PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LISTEN. Stayfree76 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like maybe you just haven't done enough reading yet and you don't understand what we're doing here, and you've kind of...well, lost your shit. —valereee (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Valereee. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Khajidha that didn't seem very civil at here. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Valereee. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Here we go: the deeper i go, the more i realize how full of shit you are —valereee (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Alright, that's enough cussing and insulting out of you. You have 31 hours to reconsider what editing on a collaborative platform requires. And there's more: you will also have to abide by our guidelines for sourcing--and you need to seriously copyedit your writing because it is not up to par. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

valereee, are you high? you literally just said to me. its like 1 inch above this post lol. you attacked me when all i was trying to do is correct clear inaccuracies. if you cannot read 100 sources that all say the same thing and fix the damn wiki, you are by definition "full of shit". that was not an attack, that was a statement of fact. "I feel like maybe you just haven't done enough reading yet and you don't understand what we're doing here, and you've kind of...well, lost your shit. —valereee (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

This is Sad

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).

Stayfree76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

a protected editor said "I feel like maybe you just haven't done enough reading yet and you don't understand what we're doing here, and you've kind of...well, lost your shit. (see the section above this one for proof). i questioned decisions in which they change there contradict themselves to ensure my discussions get destroyed. they said "Stayfree, I must have misspoken. I've been known to do that. —valereee (talk)"... this admin/ priv editor is lying about what a living person is saying and is failing to correct issues where upwards of 20 different RS have been provided. i went to their page and said they are "full of shit", they immediately posted on my talk page to stop attacking them + plus get some admin to block me (tbh it looks like retaliation) // and though i said "full of shit" one time. that is hardly "persistent". i forgot: oh yea, one case for it being retaliation. see this quote i said earlier today. "i know exactly what you are trying to do here. spread lies through your protected editor power and ignore anyones attempt to correct details. if you are going to incorrectly state what a living person said, then WE have a problem. for some reason you always ignore my posts that have 5+ sources attached, but respond to a response. once i get off work, i will be collecting all the nonsense, condensing it for ease of read, then filing an accuracy dispute and a request to remove your editor control over the three wikis related to the incident. Stayfree76 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. El_C 02:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

The first thing you need to do (if you want to get unblocked, and stay unblocked) is stop yelling at people. When you do, you might could hear what they have to say, and that's step two: listen. Finally, you can threaten all you want, with collecting evidence and filing complaints, and suggesting there's retaliation (and "protected editor powers"?), but that is not going to help your case. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, what do you mean, yelling? i am typing text on a digital platform.

i will clarify, "Alright, that's enough cussing and insulting out of you. You have 31 hours to reconsider what editing on a collaborative platform requires. And there's more: you will also have to abide by our guidelines for sourcing--and you need to seriously copyedit your writing because it is not up to par." is "why" i was blocked, but i have not done anything that the other person hasnt done to me first. like how much longer can we let blatant lies sit on wikipedia. its disgusting. as for the "copy edit, i am a 100% disabled veteran with pretty bad cognitive issues which make it pretty hard to ensure my writing is "pristine". that being said when making initial discussion points for edit, it takes me along time to validate things, and i quadruple check everything to be thorough. not once has any editor actually acknowledged the 20+ sources i have cited, some of them are already approved reliable sources linked in the wiki articles themselves... i am not out to harm or hurt anyone or even talk down to people. when i get attacked, i cannot let my kindness be taken for weakness. i would highly recommend you go look at any discussions i have been apart of and look at all of the reliable sources i have listed and start out with "short and concise" formatting until people go off the rocker and attack me.

i have made plenty of very insightful discussion starters, and a few of the have already been enacted and updated. its not like i am trying to remove anything, i am just trying to FIX inaccurate information. if you feel the need to keep me blocked for 30 hours to ensure my accuracy claim is delayed, that will only give me more time to prepare. i do cyber crime investigations for a living. i will be very thorough. that being said. i propose to be allowed to make a post to the accuracy dispute board. the other discussions are waiting for a response anyways and its not like i can respond to silence. Stayfree76 (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, no such board exists. Also, please capitalize sentences properly — your comments are really difficult for me to read. Sorry to learn about your challenges, but competence is still required here. Please proofread better. El_C 03:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you really an admin, El_C? WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard also "There are several noticeboards at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the reliable sources, no original research, neutral point-of-view, and biographies of living persons noticeboards". If capitalizing the first word in a sentence is biggest of your concern, i think that says something about you not me. Stayfree76 (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Also, English is not my native tongue, so I'm not sure what you think it says about me that I find your uncapitalized sentences difficult to read. No, you're not going to be submitting a complaint to any of these noticeboards at this time. You are blocked. You need to be unblocked to be permitted to do so. El_C 03:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DRN is not a complaint board. As their disclaimer says: this is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. El_C 03:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird, El_C. That is EXACTLY what i am trying to do. The articles are misquoting their own sources cited... its not hard to read that. Like you have to have some severe cognitive dissonance to lie in an article and use a source that literally shows its a lie right after it... Stayfree76 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, since I know this will detract from my point above. seems to be common these days... I will keep it wayyyyy lower. Have you formally studied English? Is your native language not derived from Latin? If so, they are close enough to be able to use the "." as a sentence delimiter and not a capital letter. That is absurd. also find it weird that I'm trying to fix clear lies on the wiki about an American problem, and i am being blocked by a non American? Like literally the articles are breaking 5+ wiki policies... are you for real? That's heavy.... I like your style my friend. Silence and destroy all opposition! Stayfree76 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are out of line, Stayfree76. I have extended your block to one week and have revoked your talk page access. Please reflect about keeping discourse civil. Stop accusing others of "lies." Assume in good faith that they might be in error. You need some time to reflect, because, again, you are operating well outside the line which we deem appropriate for interactions on Wikipedia. Letting you continue editing in a day or so is a no go — not if you continue to fail in absorbing the advise and guidance that is being offered to you here. El_C 03:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and further avenue of appeal is available through the Unblock Ticket Request System. El_C 03:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Finally, Stayfree76, I will add that it (supremely) doesn't matter what citizenship/s I hold. Don't make assumptions or comment about that, toward anyone on Wikipedia, ever. In my case, it is absolutely none of your business. My native language is Hebrew, if you must know. El_C 11:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. We've never met, I'm another random Wikipedia janitor. The noticeboard discussion above raises concerns about your recent edits at Talk:George Floyd, including this comment which implies a threat to take legal action against other editors. It's not clear from your post whether you are actually threatening legal action or just making a general comment. It's important that be clarified per this fairly strict policy: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention.

I note that someone else has now removed that comment from the George Floyd talkpage - if you were just making a general point please clarify that on this page, and we can all move on. On the other hand, if you are actually threatening legal action then that's your right but you will likely be prevented from editing while you pursue that course. Again, this is all spelled out in the policy linked above.

Separate to this: you seem to be in regular dispute with other editors which has already led to one block. It's really a matter of tone - it's entirely legitimate to discuss whether an article should call something a murder before anyone is actually convicted of such a thing; but it needs to be done in a collegiate way. This has all been said before higher up this talkpage. Just a reminder of it here, per the current George Floyd thread. Happy to discuss further, and do please clarify the perceived legal issue above. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus,i just got pinged 100 times. anyways, im not sure who i am supposed to direct this too, but i responded on whatever page has a huge talk about it. i think we are targetting the wrong guy here. im not the one going around calling a living persons a murderer on wikipedia and if i get punished in some way for bringing it up to the person. mentioning defamation is not threatening [i guess this is an opinion as many thought my statement was dubious] if the person is engaging in said act. its a polite human to human, be careful what you say].Stayfree76 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about all the pings, sometiems happens when loads of people all commenting independently on something. Thanks for clarifying at the noticeboard that this was not a legal threat. The article talkpage is probably the best place to continue the conversation. All the best, -- Euryalus (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that it was not threatening but saying that another editor is going to be sued is never the right way to handle a situation. And by no means have your other “human to human” engagements been polite. Please read up on civility. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, dude, please calm down. i was not threatening anything to you. i simply stated that you are potentially putting wikipedia at risk by saying such things. it was not about you. personally, i dont care what you do or say, but im not gunna sit here and let a hard headed person put wikipedia at risk. its not about you. you are just just a person that no one will ever know that when they read something you said, that it was even by you. they just assume it was "wikipedia" saying it, and with that power comes great responsibility... Stayfree76 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree, I'm going to try one more time. This is another example of you not having enough experience yet to edit at highly contentious articles like Floyd and Chauvin. The pings, the noticeboard -- those are signs you've gotten in over your head. It doesn't mean you can't eventually edit at these types of articles, just that you don't have enough experience yet. Is there nothing else you're interested in editing while you learn? —valereee (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee, this does not concern you, and i have been having plenty of discussions with other users just fine. im not even sure why you decided to comment on this. this user is actively being malicious and i should in no way be having a finger pointed at me for the out of place actions of another person. as you can see, i did not get blocked, and i did everything properly, first notifying the person politely, then again, then explaining the legal problem of their actions... its really not a big deal. has anyone had any problems with my edits the past week or 2 or post i have made? Stayfree76 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Many of your posts were uncivil. And you still have not made it clear that you understand that a talk page can be used for wording. You still have not made it clear that you should not have put in the article because it looks like a legal threat. And your comments are still uncivil. Many people have asked you to be civil and I sent you an article on civility. Also, how do you believe I’m malicious? It is clear that you did something wrong which was intentional. If you apologized and agreed not to do it again, it would show that you’re a learning editor and this was just a mistake or misunderstanding. However, you are not doing that and instead are using personal attacks and, once again, being uncivil. You demonstrate your lack of understand above, by saying “this does not concern you”. A talk page is for people to express their opinion on an issue. valeree was using this properly and has the right to weigh in on this issue. They properly used the talk page. I also sent you to the link to talk pages. Please read these before you continue editing. Continuing to break these rules does not show that you are a good faith editor. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

@Euryalus: i just wanted to add a few concerns after some self reflection on this issue, including re reading the policy regarding legal threats.

1. just after your quote the policy also states "To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as "that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." this is not the same situation as what we are unfortunately having to deal with as i was not the one being called a murderer. that being said, if possible, can you provide additional guidance in this matter? Im not only starting to feel it necessary to prove my innocence in the matter, but i am starting to feel attacked by the other editor as they continue to pummel me with accusations of being uncivil and saying things like: Please read these before you continue editing. Continuing to break these rules does not show that you are a good faith editor.

2. the policy also states "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." this is more in line with what i was doing as i was discussing with the user that their actions could be taken a defamation in us civil courts and linked an article showing potential problems faced when engaging in said actions. should i just never mention defamation anymore in talk pages?

3. (last question) the policy also states "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous"" my statement regarding defamation was singular and was not mentioned repeatedly. that being said, i mentioned that we cannot call it a murder twice before the defamation comment. does this count as repeated?

sorry for the longer than i would have liked inquiry. i think this is one of those things that needs a little extra from us all to get it resolved completely. Stayfree76 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. Am out and about at present and can give a longer answer later if required. But short version is that your original comment was not a legal threat per WP:NLT. To the extent it was perceived as one you have since clarified that it wasn't. So it's time that issue was set aside.

There's a separate issue with civility, particularly in the discussions leading up to the block last month. I haven't spent time examining your every edit since then but my impression is that things have improved, which is great news and means we can all go on back to regular editing. Just be careful with the caps and bold, and perhaps recognise that not everyone understands the context of terms like "fix yourself."

Obviously not everyone would agree with my view, so I've also left the AN discussion open to give a forum for discussion. I'm also just one janitor among many so my view doesn't override what anyone else may decide to do. It probably wouldn't hurt for you to acknowledge here or over there that there's a bit more to be done in terms of collegiate tones in talkpage discussions. Other than that, feel free to go on editing, and let's see how it goes :)

Or really short version: good faith concerns were raised about your approach to editing, and about a perceived legal threat. The threat isn't one, but please continue to heed the concerns about approach.

Hopefully the above is helpful, and happy to discuss further. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC) ==

August 2020 Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting user pages

In the future you probably want to use the U1 CSD reason. I've tagged it for you. ^^ —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 01:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf, thanks ^_^. it mentions user talk pages are not within that category, but just to be thorough this only refers to the main talk page, correct? (a sub page to user talk is not considered talk itself) Stayfree76 (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Y -- Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)