User talk:Wondering55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hello, Wondering55, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you need help, check out useful resources & Getting Help below, ask on his talk page, or ask a question on your talk page & add {{Help me}}. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) after your text entry, or by clicking if shown, in order to produce your username & date. Please always fill in edit summary field with a brief description of your article or talk page edits (optional when just adding your communications on talk pages).
You can practice in your personal sandbox (add {{My Sandbox|replace with your user name}} on your user page for future easy access) or your user page. Happy editing! ~~~~
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
Writing articles
The user community
Miscellaneous tools and support
Hello, Wondering55. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome, roadfan![edit]

Hello, Wondering55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives / Sandbox[edit]

My sandbox



Convert parameter adj=j[edit]

Your recent edit to the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey added the parm "adj=j" to several occurrences of the convert template. Yet Template:Convert has nothing about this parameter and it's unclear how this functions based on the documentation. Your edit summary states that you "updated applicable Convert entries to avoid text wrap with first number and and first word of any fully spelled-out unit of measurement" but what is this based on? Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Template Talk:Convert#Problems with separation of Number from Units of Measurement at End of a Text Line.. I raised this issue and they provided this function. I asked them to included this adj=j with a description in the Template. It works as I described it in the edit history. As an example, it would avoid any split between "32" and "Miles" or "32" and "Square" (for "Square Miles") at the end of a line. Other editors have been asking for this function over the years. The team felt it was time to allow this option. It is not required when abbr=on is used since that function uses abbreviated unit of measurements that avoid text wraps. It is not required when adj=on is used since that is used with hyphenated numbers and units of measurement that avoid text wrap. In all regular cases, the second displayed "converted" number uses abbreviated units of measurement, which avoids text wrap.Wondering55 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Bridge Bus Station[edit]

Please read Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and New York City Transit Authority. The MTA doesn't run anything directly, it's an omnibus agency which works through separate operating agencies like the NYCTA. Please be sure of your facts before you edit war to support erroneous ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you revert someone's update, it is proper to provide an explanation so that a user can then understand the legitimacy of the change or provide further clarification to try and reach a common agreement. do not assume there is any edit war just because I have a misunderstanding of your intent. you seem to be very knowledgeable.Wondering55 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The buses that run out of GWBBS are not part of the MTA Regional System, they're part of the normal bus operations, and the name for the entity that runs them is either "New York City Transit" or "MTA New York City Transit". The regional bus entity is something else entirely and has nothing to do with those buses. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not a good idea to idea war in support of it when someone corrects you, whether or not they provide an edit summary. Now, you've been given the correct information (twice), so I expect not to see you reverting the accurate information I provided again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you had originally revised the subsection to "MTA New York City Transit" (as shown), which is the New York City Transit Authority, as originally shown before all of these back and forth revisions, all of this confusing back and forth could have been avoided. "New York City Transit" was never the correct official name. The subsection should have the correct full official name as currently shown.
According to the Wikipedia article on the MTA Regional Bus Operations, the MTA New York City Bus system, which includes the listed bus routes running by the GWBBS, are part of the MTA Regional Bus Operations. If that article is incorrect, please feel free to update it.
Neither of your two previous explanations properly addressed these issues, which is why we had to go back and forth before we both agreed on the current correct subsection title. If someone corrects another person, an explanation is needed since NO one should presuppose they have a monopoly on the "correct" version. Hope that we can work together in the future. I am always open to alternate suggestions or pointing out any fallacies in my explanations.Wondering55 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lee lane closure[edit]

Dear Wondering55: I don't know of anyone who questions that the Kelly email exists. We just don't want to get ahead of the story. The mere fact that an email exists with a heading that says "From: Bridget Anne Kelly" does not necessarily mean that she's the one who sent it, or that it was ever sent at all. Now, we have no reason to believe that she isn't the one who sent it, and we have no reason to believe that it wasn't sent (after all, there is also a Wildstein Email that purports to respond to the Email). The point is that this is going to be the subject of litigation, possibly criminal prosecutions. In Wikipedia, we want to be precise on this. Famspear (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say. However, Wikipedia is not a legal court of review. Otherwise, almost everything in Wikipedia would have to be reported as "allegedly", until proven in a court of law. The email was provided as evidence and must be assumed to be legitimate and sent by Bridget Anne Kelly, who did not deny it was hers.
If we would go with your scenario, then every other single communication, whether e-mail or text, in this article needs to be qualified as allegedly sent by someone.
It might be OK to say "allegedly" if someone claimed that an e-mail was sent by someone else, but when the documents are in hand, let's not play the defense's game in a Wikipedia article.
You will notice that I went along with your revision to only state that she advised Wildstein that it was time for traffic problems rather than instructing him to shut down the toll lanes.
As you can already see, Dezatsu has already reversed your changes and provided the necessary reasons. Let us continue to work together. Thanks for taking the time to provide your perspective.Wondering55 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few minutes ago, I posted another comment in the talk page for the article that explains my thinking in more detail. The point I am wanting to make is that it is the source that should make the allegation, not Wikipedia editors, and the source should be clearly cited in the article. I agree with you that we would not recommend using the term "allegedly" in Wikipedia each and every time a reliable source makes an allegation. Where to draw the line is a matter of professional judgment (I'm an attorney and former broadcast news reporter, and that's where I'm "coming from" so to speak). In this case, a tiny, cautionary "bell" went off in my head as I was reading the article. However, consensus seems to be that the article is OK as is. Famspear (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham or Chatham Borough?[edit]

"Chatham Borough" is the borough; "Chatham Township" is the surrounding township; "Chatham" (without any qualifier) is inherently unclear, which is why disambiguation is required. In cases where there is no ambiguity, dropping the type of municipality may well make sense, as with Summit or Mountainside (not Summit City or Mountainside Borough). Where there are pairs of municipalities (such as Mendham Borough / Township or Neptune City / Township), the consensus has always been to include the type of government in the title of the article and in any references to the place within an article, and as such consensus is to use "Chatham Borough" throughout the article. There is already a semi-active discussion at WT:NJ to address the issue of including / excluding type of government where there is no ambiguity, and you may want to reach out there to generate consensus otherwise regarding referring to "Chatham Borough" solely using "Chatham". Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see using Chatham Borough in the title to avoid any confusion, but once the article starts there does not appear to be any need to make any further distinctions between "Chatham" and "Chatham Township" since it is very clear from the first lede sentence and the article title which Chatham is being talked about. I do not perceive any confusion with this approach. In fact, it appears that the majority consensus after 12 years since the article was first created was to identify the municipality as Chatham, and not Chatham Borough.
Your edits seem to go against what has been accepted for 12 years in this particular article. In fact, the way the article is set up now, it is even more confusing since Chatham and Chatham Borough are used interchangeably throughout the article. The lede also starts out calling the municipality "Chatham", and then inexplicably starts referring to it as "Chatham Borough". People, who live there, and reporters regularly refer to it as Chatham, and NOT Chatham Borough. The consensus in Wikipedia articles is to refer to an item by what it is most commonly described and recognized as. Chatham is most commonly described and recognized as "Chatham" and NOT "Chatham Borough". Can we reach some compromise where Chatham can be used when the sentence does not also refer to Chatham Township, and Chatham Borough if the sentence also refers to Chatham Township. I look forward to your response. Wondering55 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref to NJ Legislature transcript[edit]

Hi, Wondering55,

The "30 years" ref for Mr. Durango's testimony is to a shared transcript, true.

However, the shared URL drops the '#page=89' suffix I had provided, which took the reader to the page that Acrobat Reader considers Page 89 (but labeled "86"), which has Mr. Durango's exact comments.

Is there a way to share the reference, and still direct folks to page 86 (89) for the "30 years" comment?

I don't want the reader to have to wade through 230 pages of transcript, when he can be directed to the exact page.

Thanks. JackGavin (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just added the reference page, which is shown with : 89  after the citation number, which is in parentheses. Wondering55 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that notation, but I guess that's what we have. Can we handle the 86/89 confusion as something like: 89 aka page 86  ?

Thanks JackGavin (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp which explains the RP. Despite what Acrobat Reader thinks, the displayed page number is 86, so I'd change the thing to : 86 . JackGavin (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about how to handle the page numbering mismatch at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Rp#When_Acrobat_Reader_page_number_mismatches_displayed_page_number. JackGavin (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I have seen the electronic page number cited for any citation to an electronic document if it is different than a physically shown page number. I have never seen both the electronic and the physical page number shown for a source. I posted a comment on the topic page that you linked to. Let's wait to hear back before we do anything further. Wondering55 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the standard convention is to show the page number that actually appears at the bottom of a page (in our case, p. 86) from a cited source rather than the electronic page number. Identifying the page shown at the bottom of the page would require an interested Internet users to search and scroll before getting to the correct page.
Identifying the electronic page number would get an interested reader directly to the correct page (in our case, 89 of 230).
Please advise which convention you prefer to appear in the article, : p. 86  or : 89 of 230  and I will change it. Wondering55 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Fort Lee lane closure scandal[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Fort Lee lane closure scandal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

Hi. I am using the Cite Templates from the editor and the date format used there is Day Month Year, but you are correcting these dates using the American notation of Month Day Year. Which one is correct? Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with all other dates cited in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article, the current format is Month Day Year. Date formats are typically decided at the beginning when an article is beginning to be published. There are a variety of date formats that can eventually be made as a consistent format for a particular article. Some articles even used different date formats for a citation article date and a citation retrieval/access date. There is NO standard correct format for all articles. There is a problem when citation templates are used to automatically add in missing details since it could be adding the wrong date format upon which an article is using. You then need to go in and correct the date fromat to be consistent with the Wikipedia article. Wondering55 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwobeel: normally an article related to a specific country will use the date format appropriate to that country. For non-military topics in the US, that's MDY, not DMY. (See WP:STRONGNAT.) As Wondering says, when an article is first written, ("published" isn't the right term for a number of reasons, but I digress) we retain a number of formatting and style conventions (variation of English, date format, citation format) unless there is no clear choice nor a nation-based choice to settle on. In the referenced article, it would be appropriate to force the article back to the standard American date format when subsequent edits have strayed from that. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News sources vs. press releases[edit]

Newspaper sources are preferred over press releases. A press release is a first-party primary source because it is published by the DOT (first-party) and it is on the level closest to the information (primary). Even if a newspaper regurgitates a press release, that still makes it a third-party secondary source, which is preferred. That's the long form of what I put in my edit summary. For better or worse, we respect this preference in our sourcing, especially on Featured Articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your proactive approach in providing much appreciated advice and guidance to a new user and in substantially improving the layout and content of the induction package. Thank you very much. GnGn (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page complaint[edit]

Frankly I'm a bit too weary at the moment to figure out what's happening between you and that other editor. However, it appears that this edit[1] involves moving someone else's post to a different location. If that's correct, maybe it's best not to do it since there seems to be an objection. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a section on their Talk page to try and resolve this issue. Instead of shooting from the hip with unsubstantiated or distorted claims, the editor should have asked me what I was trying to do. This issue has been blown completely out of proportion. Hopefully, we can move on if calmer heads prevail. Hopefully, this editor will also remove their RfC, which seemed to surprise you and me since it contradicted Wikipedia:Requests for comment based on their separate posted issue about an article statement not being supported by a citation since it had never been addressed in the articles Talk page as you and I pointed out.
Thanks for the feedback. Wondering55 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback from Technical 13[edit]

Hello, Wondering55. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use BRD[edit]

Are you familiar with WP:BRD? if not, get familiar with it so that we can enjoy editing. It means, that if you do a bold edit, like deleting a ton of content in an article, and you get reverted, you then discuss and don't revert. But you you did is do a bold edit, I reverted and then you reverted again without discussing first. As you are obviously not using BRD, I reverted again, a slippery slope. So, use BRD and save us the back and forth!!! Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with making unsubstantiated false accusations, which you have continually done about my edits, in order to hide behind BRD? Stop with this false nonsense that I deleted a ton of content, which only makes your arguments look clueless. If you have questions about any specific items, you can easily address them in Talk with me like a reasonable person, unless you don't want to. Wondering55 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cwobeel is right. I was just about to make the same point. You seem to expect others to discuss while you yourself are free of that obligation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are making false accusations as my Talk history has shown that I frequently discuss changes both in advance and for past changes. You seem to be unable to accept what I and other editors have told you or agreed to in Talk discussions and continue to bring up old issues that have been previously resolved or addressed. This is now bordering on harassment. If you both do not stop this, I will have to report both of you since all of your false accusations contradict the actual facts that are continually presented to you. Wondering55 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to be cognizant of the three revert rule. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again and deletion of text[edit]

You have got to stop the edit-warring at Fort Lee lane closure scandal. You reverted me at [2]. I came up with compromise language and placement[3], but no, that's no good either. It's your way or the highway, so you reverted me again.[4] Then you reverted some material that another editor had added concerning Dawn A. Zimmer.[5] You really need to stop this constant reverting and deletion of sourced content. I'd appreciate it very much if you would reinstate these edits that you made and cease the edit warring henceforth. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back from a 3RR violation and starting again with deletions of content and reverting other people's edits? Do we need to forewarn you again? Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, you were specifically mentioned in this edit summary[6]. What Wondering55 needs to realize is that people compromise and reach consensus as a continuing process. One conversation with a cooperative editor does not result in text that is to be enforced rigidly by reversions and etched in stone. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple, you are once again making false and inflammatory allegations about edit warring that are contradicted by the facts and past Talk discussions, It is definitely not my way or the highway as I repeatedly collaborate with others, as shown today in my edits and Talk discussions.
You did not come up with compromise language at [7]. You simply put back in the exact same language, which is already addressed in the subsequent statements, that was agreed to be removed in the Talk section that I cited for you. If any one is edit warring, it is you since you are putting in items that were agreed to be removed in Talk section. To make matters even more objectionable, you put back the item, which was agreed to be removed, after you just posted a comment on that Talk page that you had read the entire Talk discussion, and yet you made absolutely no mention that you intended to put back in an item that Cwobeel and I both agreed to remove based on a compromise solution.
You seem to be unable to accept past agreements on Talk pages, all of which support my edits and you continually ignore them when I reference those Talk items. Your addition at [8] was previously agreed to be removed by Cwobeel and me at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures. You need to go back to that Talk page to resolve this if you want to insert anything that contradicts a very recent Talk agreement that I have repeatedly referenced for you in the History comments section. Why is that so hard for you to do?
You are also referencing items about Zimmer in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article, which have nothing to do with Bridgegate. Past Talk discussions indicated that everything about Zimmer would be relocated to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. You have been notified in several Talk discussions about this, yet you continue to advocate to add items about Zimmer that were previously agreed to not be included in the Bridgegate article. When the reasons, about why items about Zimmer are not included, are highlighted in Talk discussions, I do not see you or any other editors object. Instead, you come to my Talk page to intimidate me to go do what you want and ignore past Talk discussions and agreements. If another editor adds something about Zimmer, I simply point out the reason for its relocation based on past Talk agreement. They do not object to this very clear reasoning. Why is that so hard for you to accept past Talk discussions that agree with my editing?
Article content is also not etched in stone, regardless how much effort went into putting it there. Article content is continually revised and deleted by many editors in this article and every other article that I have been working on. I have not seen any claims of edit warring among these editors or between them and me, because we all know how to work together, even if we have different perspectives and ways of making the needed edits.
You also have a bad habit of waiting a while after something has been specifically agreed to at a Talk discussion and then proceed to edit in contradiction to that agreement. When it is pointed out that your edits do not agree with the past Talk agreement, you then come up with a very weak argument, that fails to meet any Wikipedia guideline that I know of, that it is OK to simply revert that agreement since it is not etched in stone, even though you have no other substantiated rationale or fact based argument based on reliable sources.
Cwobeel, once again you are ignoring Wikipedia policies to resolve items in a collaborative, rational manner on article Talk pages, as I have continually tried to do with both you and Coretheapple, and come to my Talk page to threaten and harass me with unsubstantiated arguments. When you do not get your way on the article Talk page, you simply make the changes that you want in contradiction to the Talk page discussions. If you add items to the article that are simply contradicted by reported facts by reliable sources or past Talk agreements that are still valid based on the latest circumstances, it is my obligation in accordance with Wikipedia policies to revise those items. Both of you refuse to address your concerns in a calm and rationale manner on the article Talk pages.
Both of you continually try to personalize my edits as if I am working against you. My only mission is to improve content so that it accurately describes what reliable sources have reported. You and Coretheapple seem to go out of your way to dispute reported facts, past Talk agreements, and Wikipedia guidelines that are not convenient for you. When you do have good points that require editing of my material as you frequently do, I do not accuse you of edit warring because you see something different from me. Based on your actions and comments, you are both making it very difficult to trust or believe what you have to say.
The article editing can be an iterative process of mutual back and forth editing based on History comments that explain each editor's rationale until a mutually agreeable compromise is worked out. Editors do not have to start falsely accusing someone else of edit warring, just because the initial set of revisions that are being made about a specific item does not immediately gain acceptance.
Are we going to work this out on the article Talk page, along with other editors, or are you both going to continually to come to my Talk page and waste my time? Wondering55 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have time to read this long tirade you are wrong. Please summarize your comments in a few lines, we are here to edit an encyclopedia. Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel, you continue to use inflammatory, inappropriate, denigrating, and inaccurate comments (which are in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette), like "long tirade", even after I pointed out to you that it it is objectionable.
There is absolutely nothing for me to summarize for you. Start reading where your name is bold highlighted in my previous response and respond if you are interested. It's 4 very straight forward, short paragraphs for you to read.
You seem to have a lot of time to repeatedly delete and question my edits without cause and in contradiction to article Talk discussions and to make repeated allegations on my Talk page and elsewhere, which are in contradiction to the facts, reliable sources, and past Talk agreements. Wondering55 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop cluttering up the talk page of Fort Lee lane closure scandal with wall-of-text personalized arguments and ad hominem attacks. That is not what is meant by "taking it to the talk page." It actually is the opposite of seeking to find a consensus. Removing an administrator's warning[9] is also inadvisable. If you continue on this course, you will only makes things hard for yourself. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the following message on your Talk page. If you need to respond, do not come to my Talk page since you are no longer welcome. Feel free to respond on your Talk page.

Instead of responding, as I requested, on the "Fort Lee lane closure scandal" article to the content issues that I raised in the three links in the "Please respond" Talk that I opened earlier today on your Talk page, you go on my Talk page and make more false and unwarranted allegations and implied threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia.
I have also repeatedly indicated on my Talk page and in the article page to simply focus on content issues that I raise and not engage in personal attacks.
Please stop making false allegations and unwarranted threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia and misrepresentation of how I have tried to repeatedly work with you to address content issues. You continually refuse to focus on content issues that I raise, and instead make false allegations and unwarranted threats on my Talk page about my personal behavior on Wikipedia. You also make further denigrating comments on the Fort Lee article Talk page about my edits. You repeatedly revert my edits without any substantiated reasons and which are in contradiction to article Talk discussions where you participated.
That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.
You are the one making ad hominum attacks, not me. I simply indicate exactly what you have done based on the incontrovertible facts of Talk discussions, your editing, your personal attacks on me & my editing, and your refusal to address content issues that I raise.
My recommended edits that I present in the article and its Talk pages are supported by reliable sources, past editing practices of responsible editors, including myself, that have made so many contributions to the Fort Lee article without any personal attacks or edit warring, and article Talk discussion and consensus. I have always been flexible in allowing other editors to make improvements to my edits without any contentious arguments.
You have taken your contentious and invalid arguments and personal attacks to a level that I have never seen before in any of my extensive editing on Wikipedia.
In the future, please direct all comments about my editing and content issues to the article Talk pages or in your History edit comments.
You are no longer welcome on my Talk page. If you post anything further on my Talk page, I will report you. Wondering55 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________

I have posted the following message on Cwobeel's Talk page. If you need to respond, do not come to my Talk page since you are no longer welcome. Feel free to respond on your Talk page.

I have repeatedly indicated on my Talk page and in the article page to simply focus on content issues that I raise and not engage in personal attacks.
Please stop making false allegations, denigrating comments, and unwarranted threats about my personal behavior on Wikipedia and misrepresentation of how I have tried to repeatedly work with you to address content issues. You continually refuse to focus on content issues that I raise, and instead make false allegations, denigrating comments, and unwarranted threats on my Talk page, and now on your Talk page, about my personal behavior on Wikipedia. You also make further denigrating comments on the Fort Lee article Talk page about my edits. You repeatedly revert my edits without any substantiated reasons and which are in contradiction to article Talk discussions where you participated.
That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.
My recommended edits that I present in the article and its Talk pages are supported by reliable sources, past editing practices of responsible editors, including myself, that have made so many contributions to the Fort Lee article without any personal attacks or edit warring, and article Talk discussion and consensus. I have always been flexible in allowing other editors to make improvements to my edits without any contentious arguments.
You have taken your contentious and invalid arguments and personal attacks to a level that I have never seen before in any of my extensive editing on Wikipedia.
In the future, please direct all comments about my editing and content issues to the article Talk pages or in your History edit comments.
I look forward to see if you can make your case for content updates on the article talk page and History edit comments. If your actual or proposed updates contradict reliable sources, facts, and past Talk agreements, I will simply point it out in the article simply based on content issues. I've learned a lesson from my interactions with you. I am now working within Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully, you will too. You have added a lot of good content to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article. Hopefully, we can work together in the future.
You are no longer welcome on my Talk page. If you post anything further on my Talk page, I will report you. Wondering55 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathies[edit]

Man does all this sound way too familiar; no matter what you say, the "walls of text" rant gets fielded and more anti-AGF and direct NPAs are made by those accusing you of same..... there seems to be no cure for this kind of thing; they are relentlessly narrow-minded and judgmental/condemnatory and any avenue of recourse is similarly skewed by the cesspit of negativity that is the wikipedia "backroom"; and apparently designed that way.....as is the apparent immunity of admins to abuse and distort guidelines as they please....we're not alone, that's for sure; how many hours/days of what could be productive work on the encyclopedia itself are being wasted by such gamesmanship huh?Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wondering55 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WALL -O-TEXT AWARD "SUPREME EDITORIS BLABBEROUS" WIKI's First Recepient[edit]

A nice quiet bridge to jump off after reading all this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal Be careful of the cactus though on the way down. A picture is worth a thousand words. Your famous. LOL

Historic bridge which disoriented editors jump off of after reading a Wall-o-Text
And the Wall-of-Shame award goes to 172.56.10.212. Perhaps some day we will learn, who this anonymous stalker is, and then they will become famous for real, and not imagined, inappropriate behavior. They are already considered somewhat of a joke based on similar denigrating postings on other Talk pages. LOL Wondering55 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I am sure you were expecting this. I have blocked your account indefinitely. Before requesting unblock, you need to state, concisely and without straying into accusations of bad faith, what you understand the problem to be, and how you will address it in future. You are very much more likely to succeed if you can persuade someone in good standing to act as a mentor. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not expecting this since I have not been following the Wikipedia Administrator board and did not have an opportunity to provide any input. I thought that the issue would be closed out based on my original request based on a single Talk discussion that had been fully addressed. I would hope the next time that I am being considered for a block that someone would give me the courtesy of a notice to let me know so that I could have some input into any final decision.
It appears that there has been some concern about the length of verbiage that I use in Talk discussions and the amount of back and forth discussions. I will certainly work to reduce the amount of verbiage and avoid lengthy back and forth discussions. Hopefully, this will not give other editors license to make inappropriate comments about me and my good faith editing that I try to make in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I will also be considerate of the bigger picture when editing articles so that my viewpoint is not the only way to accomplish something.
I have made value-added contributions to the content of dozens upon dozens of articles in Wikipedia and worked with dozens upon dozens of editors without any problems. I have received positive recognition from editors for my contributions. I focus on content issues in Talk discussion and do not make inappropriate comments about other editors or their editing based on their good faith efforts. I always try to work with other editors in a collaborative effort through article edits with clear explanations in the History edit comments of what I am changing.
I would appreciate if the block would be removed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? You're fully aware - based on your OWN participation in that discussion - that it was you who were heading for a block. If you didn't see that, I would question your ability to perform self-reflection. You filed a report that - as expected from the start - turned into a WP:BOOMERANG, as the community found that it was not the person that you reported who had been disruptive, it had been you. You knew that THROUGHOUT your personal input into that extensive thread the panda ₯’ 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think he knew that. I think that, every step of the way, he's been surprised at how the conversations turned against him. He genuinely believes that there was a consensus for his actions, he had the support of the community, he was following Wikipedia's guidelines, and, although his talk page behavior was not exemplary, it can be defended because he was only responding to the attacks of others. Wondering55, you're going to have to let go of all these beliefs and stop making excuses for your behavior. Compare the following:
  • It appears that there has been some concern about: 9 words
  • The community objected to: 4 words
  • I will certainly work to reduce the amount of verbiage and avoid lengthy back and forth discussions.: 17 words
  • I will stop.: 3 words
And then the post should have ended. Nothing after that point (except the last line, perhaps) was necessary or helpful. You were specifically advised to avoid accusations of bad faith, and yet you once again stray into such accusations. The rest of your post is just one long, passive-aggressive accusation of bad faith against Coretheapple. I can't understand how you can ignore what people say to you so often. This is one of the reasons why you were blocked. I advise you to chalk that post up to a "practice run" and think carefully before you attempt to make another unblock request. Look at Dennis Brown's helpful message in your talk page archive. Look at the ANI discussion. Look at the advice given to you by Guy above. Do you see repeated bits of advice and constructive criticism? Why is everyone so pissed off that you edited a highly-used template, lectured an admin who blocked you for edit warring, and refused to change your posting style? Can you address all these concerns in less than 50 words? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary concern is my verbiage in Talk can be too long. I will condense responses.
Template concerns were I made edits prior to consensus from Template administrators in Talk that I opened. I will not do that again.
I will avoid lecturing administrators.
I would appreciate if block is removed. Wondering55 (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this editor's strong desire to continue editing. However, his initial post here indicates a continued cluelessness regarding the disruptiveness and sheer toxicity of his behavior. An unblock based on a carefully coached statement simply postpones the inevitable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed concerns based on my own words without any coaching. I indicated in my original and second post that I acknowledged the raised concerns and will change my behavior. Are we going to work together? Nothing is inevitable if I change my behavior based on what I stated. Wondering55 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was afraid of that. I thought maybe I could help, but I should probably just keep my big mouth shut. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As originally requested, I have indicated that I understand the problems and will not do it anymore. In my responses above, I did not accuse Coretheapple or anyone else of bad faith. I never even mentioned Coretheapple. I have shown I can make short responses to the point. I respond directly to what others do or say. I allow editors to respond in order to explain themselves so that any differences can be reconciled in an amicable and collaborative manner.
I would appreciate the block be removed so I have an opportunity to prove myself based on what I have stated. Wondering55 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be certain, but I suspect it is this comment which caused some here to question your ability to assume good faith: "Hopefully, this will not give other editors license to make inappropriate comments about me and my good faith editing that I try to make in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines." Try to understand that, in the context we find ourselves in, this comes off as fairly passive-aggressive. You should at this juncture be emphasizing the things that need to change about your own behaviour to make collaboration on this project feasible for yourself, not prognosticating unfair personal attacks against yourself. You could be forgiven presently for feeling a little bruised in the ego, given the tone of this and related discussions, but I think I'm reading the situation accurately when I say that whether your block is removed is ultimately going to hinge largely on how much you embrace acceptance of the criticism being leveled here, as opposed to defensiveness. Snow (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I don't get proven phenomenally wrong here, but I think the point may have begun to set for Wondering. He's not exactly genuflecting over his regret, but he has acknowledged that a rather substantial change to his approach regarding collaboration on this project is in order. If he's dragging his feet a little about overtly owning up to every last syllable being demanded of him, well, maybe that's somewhat understandable; no one likes to be called out by their peers and even once one acknowledges the need for concession it can be hard to give it without a few caveats here and there to try to reiterate that you were doing what, at the time, seemed like the right thing. Throughout even the worst of his tendentious editing, I've gotten a sense that this editor really does have a respect for policy and procedure in the abstract; it is only his ability to properly weight his own opinion against the balance of other editors that has been lacking, causing him to try to make policy serve his needs rather than the other way around. But I believe a person with a strong leaning towards formal argumentation (that is, in this context, wikilawyering) can learn to leverage that dedication to take himself and his ego out of the equation. That, combined with the fact that the editor was not involved in the conversation that led to his ban (at least, not at the time it was instituted, nor for days before hand), and thus was not afforded that last chance to try to reconcile his behaviour with the community's expectations of him as a block became eminent, make me feel perhaps he could be given the benefit of the doubt, his former tenaciousness not withstanding. Provided that the admin who unblocks him stays observant and keep his finger over the revert button, it could be said there is little harm in trying. Though I would advise that Wondering avoid the articles he has been working for the time being, in order that he might get more of a fresh start. Snow (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather bizarre assumption if "verbosity" is believed to be the primary concern here the panda ₯’ 09:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused -- are you referring to his perception of the situation, or mine? If the latter, I'm not sure how I gave that impression; clearly his issues have been multifaceted and more serious than garden-variety verbosity. Snow (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - quite obviously not a response to yours! the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, to respond to your earlier point, what concerned me were his comments at 15:02 27 April that he focuses on content issues and doesn't make inappropriate comments. He is just as clueless as when I chatted with him at ANI a few weeks ago. Also there's the way he phrases things that disturbs me, the use of rote phrases. He needs to be separated from the project for his own good and the good of the project. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no chatting with Figureofnine several weeks ago. They simply stated their assessments based on their opinions, similar to what they are doing here. I simply presented the facts, which they did not address. It is very troubling to see Figureofnine recommending a lifetime ban simply based on their opinion of me and the types of moderate offense. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I would prefer that this discussion remain focused on the facts, which I would be more than happy to address.
I deserve to be reinstated based on my acknowledgements of the problems I caused and that I would not do it again, as originally requested of me. I have dealt with dozens upon dozens of editors, including the Fort Lee article, without any problems and have received many thanks and praise for my work and editing. The overwhelming body of my work and experiences has been decidedly positive. Wondering55 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, see, there's the problem, in a nutshell...
The history of this talk page, its archive, the Fort Lee talk page, the welcomeg template, the ANI discussion etc., all say the very same thing. A succession of experienced editors come to you to give advice or discuss problems with edits you have made. Your response is invariably a massive rambling diatribe about why you are right, and they are all of them wrong, every single one of them, they're not "assuming good faith", they are all picking on you, "denigrating" you, "deriding" you, "attacking" you - rinse and repeat (and, boy, do you repeat...)
Your analysis of all this is "The overwhelming body of my work and experiences has been decidedly positive"... that's mind-boggling.
Can't you see the disconnect here? That's what you're being asked to do, because if you can't, the amount of other editors' time you insist on sucking up with your repetitive wikilawyering, pointless arguing, and groundless assertions of unfair treatment has been judged too costly in wasted time and effort to permit. Nobody can make you see it, but you now need to if you want to continue to edit.
I understand it can be hard to accept criticism. That's never easy. But if every single person I meet says "Hey, Begoon, you're getting a bit of a beer belly," I should probably at least glance in a mirror, or step on some scales, however much I'd rather not... If they didn't care, they wouldn't tell me. Begoon talk 17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not say that I am right. I simply present facts and ask others to assess whether the facts are right or if they can offer other information or alternatives. The talk in Fort Lee and Templateg show I was able to accept objective comments based on facts and constructive opinions. I have compromised based on suggestions that improve content. It is when some editors repeatedly do not engage in constructive dialogue where problems arise. Sometimes, I may miss a key point that has been made. I do not intentionally ignore what others say. I acknowledge mistakes when I make them. If anyone has anything to dispute this, please provide specific facts for those two articles.
Where in any of the discussions on this talk page did I say I am right? In every interactive discussion on this talk page, including this discussion, I indicated that I either compromised, asked for compromise, worked collaboratively with other editors to reach a solution, or asked editors to address the article content and/or facts, and not repeat assessments based solely on opinions.
Editors and administrators have to know how to balance the contrasting facts and opinions. That is only fair. I am not sure why administrators cannot at least acknowledge the many positive Wikipedia contributions that I have made based on the facts. It is not mind boggling. I acknowledged problems that have been reflected back at me. I have indicated that I will stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering55 (talk • contribs)
Ah - so I'm wrong, then? Me and the "some editors" who "repeatedly do not engage in constructive dialogue"... Imagine that. I can't believe nobody has pointed you towards WP:NOTTHEM yet, if nobody has. You seem to like the words "facts" and "opinions" as well as the others I listed above. I've noticed that elsewhere. I don't think they mean what you think they mean, though - "facts" doesn't mean "things I think", and "opinions" doesn't mean "things other people think". Seem to be lots of us, though, who've been wrong about you (just saying). I've tried to help, whether you think so or not. Good luck. Begoon talk 19:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering55's latest response characterizes our ANI exchange as one in which he stated "facts" that I didn't "address," and goes on to say how "troubling" it is that I should favor a block based upon my opinion and "the types of moderate offense." (???) I see an editor totally devoid of the ability to rationally reflect on their conduct and to engage in necessary change. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda does, doesn't it? It's that self-awareness thing again, and reflection. Mirrors. Lots of big, full-length, compulsory mirrors all over the place, with subtitles... That would help, do you think? Begoon talk 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I have repeatedly acknowledged my problems based on what has been presented and indicated that I will change and stop it. It cannot get any clearer and more rational than that. Why is that so difficult to accept?
If editors/administrators can offer their assessments of events, I am also entitled to offer my assessments. It does not mean there is a right and wrong person. Nowhere, did I indicate that Begoon is wrong. In fact, I learn something from every presented viewpoint, including Begoon's. I agree with Begoon that facts do not mean "things that I think". Facts are based on what actually occurred or was stated. Opinions are whatever I or any other editor thinks about those facts. I simply have stated the facts that should be used in a constructive and objective evaluation.
Is there any way we can work together so that I can continue to edit based on my promises to stop what I acknowledged are problems. Wondering55 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're only acknowledging the verbosity issue. Not the other noted behaviours, including wp:BATTLE and a whole whackload of others. If however, you feel you have correctly identified and have a way forward to address the half-dozen or so issues raised on WP:ANI, then feel free to submit a proper unblock request. See WP:GAB and WP:AAB.. {{unblock}} is the unblock template you'll need to use the panda ₯’ 19:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Battle indicates that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" or take inappropriate actions when there are disagreements with other. Why is this new guideline issue being raised now since it was never raised in ANI. Present facts to show this is applicable for the current ban or let's move on to a quick resolution.
I previously acknowledged that:
I will condense my verbiage in Talk.
I will not make edits prior to consensus from Template administrators.
I will avoid lecturing administrators.
I will avoid lengthy back and forth discussions.
We seem to have gone from a simple request by Guy and NinjaRobotPirate, which I have previously addressed as acknowledging 4 problems, and agreed to stop it. Are we going to work together to resolve this now or is this simply going to continue? Let's avoid taking up further time by everyone. I am trying to bring this discussion to a mutually agreeable resolution. As previously stated by one of the editors, the ban can be lifted as I have acknowledged my problems, there is "little harm in trying", and my activities can easily be monitored so that we can move forward. Wondering55 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But in your initial response to Guy you indicated that you were only cognizant about concerns over the length of your verbiage. Other editors pointed out other issues, just a few of the many, and you just kept saying "okay, I won't do that either, can you lift the block." Meanwhile, you repeatedly demonstrated that your behavior wasn't changing. And no, there is considerable potential harm in trying. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I indicated that I was cognizant of verbiage and lengthy back and forth discussion. I acknowledged the other 2 when they were pointed out. What other issues are there based on specific facts? Please explain what considerable potential harm can come about based on some type of facts. Wikipedia and its editors are a robust group. Other editors in this talk discussion have indicated to give me a chance. Wikipedia is based on the principle of good faith. Administrators or editors can always notify me if they see something wrong or notify me if they request another block. I am not anticipating problems. Please explain how I have repeatedly demonstrated my behavior was not changing based on specific facts. I have accepted the problems and resolve to stop them. Wondering55 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering55, I think I need to reiterate the problem. You exhibit excessive zeal for your preferred content, you drown every discussion in torrents of words, you overwhelm any attempt to discuss the substantive issue with you, and you lay about with accusations of bad faith when people express frustration with this vexing combination of behaviours.

What you need to do is to consider how you might change this, and what you might do differently (like, perhaps, limiting yourself to a certain number of comments per edit, or finding a mentor). When everyone sees that you have understood the problem and set about finding a way to fix it, then you can ask for the block to be lifted. Nobody doubts your dedication to the project, it's your style that's the problem. Now would be a really good time to display some self-knowledge and self-criticism. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what facts show that I display excessive zeal for my preferred content. The extensive history of editing and facts show that I am very flexible in allowing other versions. The only things that I am interested in is the correct content in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and backed up by reliable sources. There are many ways that can be achieved. I have no monopoly on that and do not display ownership of any documents that I edit. I have previously outlined the problems, including extensive verbiage that I will address. I will look to find a mentor when I am allowed back. Wondering55 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole wall of words on the talkpage of a template that I could point to that would be the perfect example ... in case you'd forgotten how poorly you began and ended that debacle. It was pure "ownership", and you made some pretty bad accusations when you were advised of the errors, and then REFUSED to fix the problem you created. the panda ₯’ 23:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Talk page shows that there was no ownership as I continually made draft changes for my proposed Template template in response to user feedback prior to making any article changes. That Template talk page clearly shows there was no ownership as I also continually solicited and welcomed feedback for further revisions to these draft changes prior to to making article changes. That Talk page showed that I did not refuse anything and that I did not create the problem for the Template instructions caused by others. I had the professional foresight and courtesy to alert article administrators, who were in the best position to easily rectify an existing problem of their own creation so that it could be corrected to how they best saw fit.
It is also interesting to note that this "ownership" issue was never raised in the original ANI.
As I already indicated above, I will no longer make edits prior to consensus from Template administrators and condense my verbiage. Wondering55 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I and everyone else should be looking to move forward and revert the ban based on the lessons that I have learned so that I would not create future problems. This has been the suggestions from various editors in this Talk and in the original ANI. It would show good faith by everyone. Wondering55 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: @Bishonen: @Coretheapple: @DangerousPanda:@De728631: @DVdm: @Figureofnine: @GoldenRing: @JzG/help: @Llywrch: @Liz: @Ncmvocalist: @NinjaRobotPirate: @Origamite: @Snow Rise:

This indefinite block needs to be removed since it was unfairly made based on unnecessary, faulty, inaccurate, and biased assessments, about me and my editing, that are in contradiction to my presented evidence and my history of positive Wikipedia contributions.

If we cannot amicably resolve this, I will publicize this travesty to all Wikipedia administrators and others since this review also involved biased personal attacks against me, and unsubstantiated and grossly misleading assessments that are in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for collaboration, civility, and focusing on the facts and not personal opinions.

If you had ignored my interactions with Coretheapple, who also worked w/Cwobeel inappropriately against my editing, and DangerousPanda, who has been accused by others of bad behavior, you would find I had no problems in my dealings with dozens of users (many supported or thanked me) in a variety of articles this year. Besides Coretheapple and Cwobeel, there were no problems between me and close to 200 other editors in the Fort Lee article.

For anyone who needs supporting details, some examples of problems with this ANI assessment are noted below. Otherwise, skip to the last paragraph.

  • No matter what I admitted, or stated I would do, administrators refused to accept it and continued to distort my intentions and made new unsubstantiated claims, which I showed were contradicted by facts.
  • When I presented evidence that contradicted inaccurate assertions about me and my editing and requested responses to challenge these facts, or requested evidence that supported any unsubstantiated claims, these requests were ignored.
  • Extensive, unqualified, derogatory, “psychological type” assessments of me were clearly inappropriate and not allowed in any Wikipedia discussions.
  • Unsubstantiated, misleading claims that I violated specific Wikipedia guidelines were wrong since the facts contradict those claims, and many guidelines were not even remotely applicable, as I frequently pointed out.
  • Outright rejections, of my request to review repeated uncivil and disruptive behavior/comments by Coretheapple, were based on denigrating comments, including inaccurate claims by administrators that my 440 word request was too long, even though I showed similar or longer ANI requests had not been rejected or subjected to insulting comments.
  • Coretheapple’s concerted efforts in the ANI review to make misleading, unsubstantiated statements, which are contradicted by facts, about my editing/talk in Templateg article, where they had no involvement or understanding, and the Fort Lee article.
  • Coretheapple’s repeated use in the ANI review of insulting and inappropriate words to describe me and my edits.
  • Original misleading, and uncalled for, POV comments by Guy & Bishonen for my complete removal from Wikipedia based on their unsubstantiated exaggerations, which were really being created by DangerousPanda based on DP’s inaccurate ANI statements.
  • DangerousPanda and DVdm had a conflict of interest when they reverted my edits and then made false assessments about me and my editing in Talk at Template:Welcomeg during their involvement in this ANI review since they had never been involved in Template:Welcomeg and described these unsubstantiated problems, of their own creation, to try and substantiate their misleading statements in this ANI review.

I am a reasonable, collaborative, professional, who wants to contribute & improve Wikipedia, and has learned some valuable lessons. When I point out what someone did based on the facts, it is not intended as a personal attack, but simply my understanding of what has occurred. Let's set the reset button & move forward to unblock me instead of backward. Let's not rehash old problems since I did not fully present all of the facts that support my claims. Please give me an opportunity. I look forward to reasonable or fact based responses. Wondering55 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I read this, somehow I think you must be looking forward to being forced in a state with no other option than to "publicize this travesty to all Wikipedia administrators and others". - DVdm (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1? Threats are never a good idea, especially when they are unlikely to be carried out (how will you "publicize this travesty" to admins when you are blocked?). Honestly, they just make a user who makes threats like that look childish. We're talking about anonymous editors working on an online encyclopedia, it's not life and death.
Main point: What I or any other editor thinks of your points is unimportant. You need to convey to any admins looking into your block that you will not repeat behavior seen as disruptive (whether or not you think it is right or not). It is very important that you read over Wikipedia:GAB, understand the general ideas it is trying to pass along to blocked users and take them to heart. Editing Wikipedia means that every editor will encounter those who have different opinions and there might be conflict. Any admin who considers unblocking you will have to be convinced that you can handle this collaborative conflict in a constructive way. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To contemplate unblocking, even theoretically, is clearly not appropriate at this time. The lack of self-awareness is obviously permanent. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wondering is accusing others of personal attacks against them without a proof (because it never happened) - which is itself a personal attack see WP:WIAPA
  2. I have "conflict of interest" about a template? Whuh? Why, because I've welcomed thousands of editors onto this project?
  3. Hmm, I thought you promised to reduce the verbosity?
  4. The ONLY reason you have access to this page while blocked is to create an unblock request, which you're still not doing
It's sad that the above "statement" has merely proven everyone on ANI correct and shown that you personally cannot be trusted to return to the project the panda ₯’ 09:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wondering55. You've just proved everyone here right. Also, pinging anyone in the AN/I who disagreed with you? Nice. I just lost sympathy for you, and even though I hope you will learn what you've done wrong, I doubt it. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a formal unblock request[edit]

I agree with your assessments above, DVdm, Liz and Figureofnine, but I think it's proper give the user a chance to post a formal unblock request, in case they wish to. The current proceeding is a little unusual, and doesn't seem to be leading anywhere much, certainly not to a good place. Wondering, feel free to keep on arguing on this page without posting a formal request, if you prefer. But if you would like to appeal formally, which will automatically call an uninvolved admin, somebody who hasn't commented or been involved in any way, to this page to review your block, please add below this post the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Seriously, please read the Guide, take it to heart, and be as concise as you can. Otherwise there won't be much chance. Note that you won't be allowed an unlimited number of appeals (depending on whether they're considered to be disruptive or not), so consider well before you post one. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've been staying out of this matter for the simple reason I see no other outcome than a permanent ban, despite the fact Wondering55 is acting in good faith. I'd rather be proven wrong. I'm more than willing to allow Wondering to make a formal unblock request -- as if anyone could stop her/him. Wondering is welcome to make as many of them as she/he wants. However, my sincere advice is that if the first one is not successful, to take a break from Wikipedia for a while & think about what went wrong here. Because no one is saying you can't edit here, people are simply saying that you can't do it the way you have been doing it. And once you see that, then you'll be able to find someone who will show you how to do it the right way. -- llywrch (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too echo the above two comments fully. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wasn't talking about anybody stopping them, llywrch, but nobody has given them the usual step-by-step instructions for a formal appeal either (even though Dangerous Panda said above that "{{unblock}} is the unblock template you'll need to use" — speaking personally, idiots like me wouldn't know what that meant). I wanted to provide those instructions, and to explain that using the proper form will magically call up an uninvolved admin. I can't see any other outcome than a ban either, even though I agree with you that the user is acting in good faith (I think I said so at the ANI, too), but hanging in limbo like this must be extremely frustrating. Some, any, resolution would surely be preferable. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
User seems to know the unblock request drill—see {{blocked}}, {{unblock}} and [[WP:GAB]]. - DVdm (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "limbo" can't be nice. I'm sure it's horrid. I wasn't going to post here again, I'd given up, until we were all pinged above (in alphabetical order, no less ). So here goes - and it'll be harsh - sorry about that.
All this talk of "good faith" is what goes wrong here - it's turned, as it often does in situations like this, into a double-edged, "no U", cudgel - that's not what it's for - one needs to, Wondering55, read all of WP:AGF, including the bits that don't support this abuse. See WP:NOTSUICIDE for an example. It's a guideline, not a weapon.
Let's say what we mean here. Wondering is blocked until they convince an administrator to unblock them. Nothing they have said in this (guess what) massive discussion has progressed an inch in that direction. It can't, because nothing has changed. They show no indication of understanding how they ended up here, and therefore no sign that could change. Still the same old diatribes blaming the horrible people for victimising them, "denigrating" them, "attacking" them... It never ends. Why, therefore, would any rational person unblock? They would not.
One of my posts to the ANI discussion said "we're mostly bored with your disruption now", and, "eventually someone will get bored enough to curb it"
Well, they did, and you're blocked.
Here's the cold, hard, reality: work it out, Wondering - look in those mirrors everyone has shown you, and convince someone you can change. Ask us how, if you genuinely don't get it, instead of blaming everyone else and telling them you're a poor victim. And do it now. Or someone will make the same decision about your ability to edit this talk page.
Most of the people you pinged would be willing to help if you showed the slightest sign you could change, or self reflect.
You haven't. Not a glimmer of understanding. That's your problem, and yours alone.You are in charge of what happens next.
Read the bloody stuff people have linked, read WP:GAB, concentrate on WP:NOTTHEM, but read it, understand it, and show some change, or this only goes one way.
It's not all of us, Wondering, it's you.
As for "I will publicize this travesty to all Wikipedia administrators and others", well, maybe consider this: You took a petty dispute to the most visible page on Wikipedia (ANI). Great publicity - that's how all this started. How's that working out? No, really - think about that - deeply. Consider whether drawing attention to, and perpetuating, crap like this is a real good plan. Clue - it's not.
Time to wake up to that if you really do want to continue editing. Sorry, but to say anything else at this point would do you no favours. Begoon talk 15:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No administrator/user presented facts to support their past/current claims or opinions, or presented facts to contradict my extensive positive contributions & their questionable behavior, as requested. It appears administrators/users can't prove their case.
Just because people say something about me does not make it true. Without facts, it is just personal opinions, which Wikipedia frowns upon.
I continually indicated I will change specific behaviors and offered to collaborate with others. Administrators' unsubstantiated responses have been that I should not be trusted and will not change, and to then make more unsubstantiated claims about me.
In their latest responses, some administrators continued with items below. It does not make anyone or this ANI process look professional.
  • More unsubstantiated, accusatory statements, personal opinions, and insulting comments
  • More inappropriate unqualified "psychological type" assessments about what I am thinking or my behavior
  • Petty comments like whether I put names in alphabetical order or dismissing my courtesy to let everyone know where things stand
Administrators in this ANI review continue to not understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground and focus on battling about who is right or wrong. They should have been collaborating to readily resolve this matter based on my valid succinct statements to change behavior and collaborate with others, and honor my requests to avoid unsubstantiated and inappropriate comments.
This is not the first time, and won't be the last time, that the ANI review process and behavior/comments of ANI administrators are legitimately questioned by users.
I will take a look at unblock suggestions to see if there is any way to salvage this situation and receive a fair objective NPOV review from new impartial administrators that can quickly resolve this matter, which has gotten way out of hand as if it is life or death on whether I can effectively contribute to Wikipedia. Wondering55 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A review of your own talk page archive indicates that you were in hot water right after you began editing, systematically removing references from The Record and in particular one of its columnists. (See ANI discussion.) At that time you were of course totally blameless and two other editors, the ones who wanted you to stop, we're the real villains. You were strongly suggested to obtain a mentor. You were also advised about talk page verbosity. So it's not quite correct that all was fine until you ran into the current cohort of people being unfair to you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal suggestions to Wondering55[edit]

  1. Take a good wikibreak. Make it at least three if not six months.
    • You need to detox from the drama.
    • While on the break, ignore this place completely: don't read Wikipedia articles anymore than necessary, don't read talk pages at all, etc.
  2. When the break is over, post an unblock request that shows you've reflected on the issues that lead up to your block.
    • Keep it short: 250 words or three PowerPoint-style bullet points. In this case, less is more.
    • If you find yourself writing too much, reduce it by 50% at a minimum.
    • Make sure everything is in I terms, not they terms. "I did this...", "I accept that...", not "they attacked me...", etc.
  3. Wait patiently for an uninvolved administrator to reply to the request. If necessary, post concise, but sufficiently detailed replies to any questions.

Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Wondering55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked since I recognize that I caused some problems in my editing and talk discussions based on feedback in the ANI review. As I originally noted in my responses above, I agreed that: * I will condense my verbiage in Talk. * I will not make edits prior to consensus from Template administrators. * I will avoid lecturing administrators. * I will avoid lengthy back and forth discussions and try to reach mutually agreeable solutions that incorporate alternate viewpoints. If needed, I will use dispute resolution rather than continue endless debates. I recognize that I caused some problems based on my edits and talk discussions with two users in a Fort Lee lane closure scandal article. However, I also indicated that I thought an indefinite block was excessive since I have made extensive positive editing contributions this year to dozens of articles without conflicts. I have reviewed edits of hundreds of users and made follow-up updates and improvements on articles that I watch list without other conflicts. I have engaged with dozens of editors on reaching mutually agreeable solutions and edits without conflicts. I have received many thanks from editors for my contributions. I have made extensive positive contributions to the Fort Lee article and worked with so many of its editors in a collaborative manner. I believe this ANI review should have remained focus on my original complaint and any problems that I was causing for the Fort Lee article. Instead, this review got way out of hand. My editing and talk discussions are not based on who is right and wrong, nor on "owning" any article. It is based on making sure factual content is correctly incorporated based on reliable sources and reasonable, relevant, or fact-based input from users, along with trying to reach consensus. I want to be judged based solely on the facts and my good faith commitment to avoid further problems. I am a reasonable, collaborative professional, who wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia, and have learned some valuable lessons about how to avoid problems. Please give me an opportunity to prove myself and unblock me. Wondering55 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, you posted an unblock request to ask for a review by an uninvolved administrator to review the case, and you've got one. As far as I remember, I have never come across you before, and I have certainly not been involved in this case. I have now spent a consderable time looking at the contents of this page and the ANI discussion. You repeatedly say that you are acting in good faith, and the depressing thing is that that appears to be true. You really honestly appear to perceive everything you do in the way you describe, and seem unable to see the problems, even when other editors have painstakingly pointed them out to you numerous times. The most remarkable thing about the whole case is the way that even in the course of asking to be unblocked, you continue to do exactly the things which you are blocked for, and evidently cannot see that you are doing so. Much as I am a believer in giving second chances, and WP:ROPE unblocks, in this case I'm afraid it really seems that you are unable to see what the problems are, and will therefore be unable to make the necessary changes. That being so, I cannot see unblocking as being beneficial either to the project or to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2014 (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.

@JamesBWatson: Please advise exactly what the problems are based on the facts and not opinions so that I can properly address them. I should be allowed to express my perspectives to clarify and correct any misconceptions or statements that are contradicted by the facts. I thought that administrator reviews were interactive so that we could all understand what is going on. If I am to be accused of items without being able to provide reasonable facts to support my position, it does not seem fair. The overwhelming amount of my editing history, including the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, has involved collaborative positive contributions. I have successfully added value-added contributions to 134 articles. There have been recent problems, which I have accepted and will correct, with two of these articles. I am not perfect and am always looking for ways to improve myself. Wondering55 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I already told you exactly what problems you were failing to address - don't you believe me?
  2. Why are you responding immediately below the unblock notice? Threaded discussion belongs at the bottom of the page
You knew exactly what needed to be addressed for an unblock, now you're confused? What you think is "obvious" apparantly leads admins to a different conclusion - stop banging your head on the wall, and do what you've been advised to do the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A non-admin here, but I'm troubled by the second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs after the bulleted list, and by the general length of the request. Had Wondering55 merged the first and third paragraphs together and jumped to the end of his request, I think it would have addressed both the critique of his "Wall of Text" writing style and addressed the criticisms from other editors. Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally a bit shocked by the statement "I believe this ANI review should have remained focus on my original complaint and any problems that I was causing for the Fort Lee article". No - when you post at ANI, all of your edits fall under scrutiny in order to show patterns of behaviour, or provide proof of other behaviours. ANI's therefore meander to-and-fro, picking up momentum. Perhaps that became one of your issues in that case: my first response was to advise reviewers of your other behaviour, and rather than ADDRESS that behaviour (which would have won you points) you attacked me, and attacked the fact that I dared to raise your personal poor behaviour elsewhere. The old saying "don't point your fingers unless your hands are clean" are a key concept on ANI the panda ₯’ 09:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While cycling in this morning, I was thinking about my statement. I want to clarify: my words are not intended to be against unblocking. They are intended to be words to encourage self-reflection. I do not get the sense that you feel you're personally responsible for everything that has occurred: you seem to instead see things as a series of unfortunate events. You are, however, the genesis of it all - from your interactions with others, your unwillingness to listen to counsel, a chip on your shoulder, rooted in the apparent belief that you're better and more professional that everyone else. On Wikipedia you're just a Wikipedian: you're judged in part on the basis of your interaction style. Please take that to heart as you progress. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cycle in to wikipedia? That's why you're so slim - I just go to the computer in my dank basement - hence the beer belly.
I agree. All anyone wants here is for Wondering to understand what happened, and learn from it. But there is a need for confidence in that, given the disruption to date. Nobody wants to be back here again because the unblock was made before the reasons were understood and addressed.
I'm sure they think I've been harsh - I'm sure they think that about you, too, DP - but as I said above, if we didn't care we wouldn't comment. The chip on the shoulder needs to go, yes, the unwillingness to listen, sure - but above all the blaming of others or imagining of some strange conspiracy against them - that really needs to go.
I do see signs that might be happening - maybe I was slightly pessimistic in denying a "glimmer" above - I wish it wasn't such a slow process, though, and the glimmer didn't seem so faint, and fragile. I still feel that blaming everyone else is the default, and not doing so means Wondering is biting big holes in their tongue to say what we want to hear. But, on the other hand, I think they are starting to finally realise that. It's a long term thing, Wondering, we all bite those holes, all the time. My tongue is full of holes. Otherwise we couldn't be here. Any of us.
Imzadi's break idea might be good. It's nice to look at other things for a while, in the real world. Gets back the perspective I think is lost here.
One question though, Wondering, if I may (and no need to answer this - I'm just looking for reasons this all got so heated) - why does so much of your editing seem concerned with matters reported on by that one "Record" columnist? Even the "Fort Lee" stuff seems related at a cursory glance - sorry for asking, but it's apparently a "thing" in your chosen subjects, right through your history here. I'm not a "local", and don't know anything about the significance of this paper and columnist, so maybe that's why I just don't get it... Begoon talk 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to wait for an uninvolved administrator to reply to my unblock request.
Yet, some of the same people are posting rather than wait for an objective administrator to review extensive ANI discussions, including my responses to this block, and my extensive positive Wikipedia contributions. These personal comments only further taint the perspectives on what should be an objective review.
I am not here to debate more unqualified "psychological type" assessments about what I think and more personal opinions. Begoon's opinions attributing my focus to a certain reporter based on the Fort Lee article are without merit. I would be happy to discuss my extensive article preferences after I am reinstated. I am here to discuss the facts that were involved in this ANI review.
When I point out what someone did based on the facts, it is not a personal attack. If I had known how this ANI process worked, I would never have used it.
My unblock request takes less than 1 minute to read. There are many similar or longer ANI requests that were not rejected or commented on based on their length. I previously pointed out some examples. Any outrage was also not displayed when administrators responded in talk above with similar lengths: 311 words & 350 words or in this very posting 378 words.
I admitted my problems, recognized I learned lessons, and indicated I will not do it again.
I would look forward to the next response for an objective review by an uninvolved administrator in order to resolve this matter so that I can continue to work with others. If this is simply going to be a continuation of a debate with the same administrators, then there is a misunderstanding based on what I was told. Wondering55 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering, as an administrator that reviews unblocks, I've advised you as to what is missing from your unblock request - indeed, there are things that do not make it WP:GAB-compliant. This entire discussion - indeed the entire contents of your talkpage - will be used in conjunction with the actual unblock request in order to determine if you should be unblocked. Indeed, if I saw that it was WP:GAB-compliant, I will unblock you myself. Unblocks aren't rocket science - but you're missing key elements. I'm asking you to address them so that indeed, this can be put behind you and you can get back to work. Every single editor on Wikipedia could drop by to comment on whether or not to unblock you, and it would be permitted. I'm certain that we're --> <--- that close to unblocking. Your refusal to respond to neither my points, nor Begoon's points make it appear that you're unwilling to cooperate with the community - or indeed cooperate when an admin who's TRYING to unblock you actually asks a question. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Begoon that the break idea is a very good one. What's missing here is not that Wondering55 say the right words, but that he provide tangible evidence that he understands the problem: which is him, not "them." It has to be sincere, not lip service. I don't see the proximity to unblock that others might see. There is just so much ground to cover on so many issues. His fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPA, for instance, is appalling. I used to monitor the old civility board and never saw anything quite this bad. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere unblock request was based on GAB guideline to "understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". I addressed those issues, including my poor behavior, without personal attacks or anything about "them".
I am not here to make personal attacks. I thought my comments would be allowed by the NPA guideline, which states: "when there are disagreements about content [or my behavior], referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y". I apologize for the way that I presented my concerns about others.
Everyone here is very familiar with ANI. I am not. When I made certain assumptions about how ANI review would work, I should be given some consideration.
Since I live in the NY City metropolitan area and drive a lot, I have focused a lot on metropolitan municipalities, roads, and bridges. I have 134 pages on my watchlist where I made edits. Almost all articles have no involvement with that Record columnist. I began contributing to Fort Lee article way before there were any citations/references for that columnist and made no changes to anything about that columnist in that article. Since that columnist reports on NJ road/transit issues, there is always the possibility that their reporting and my interests will intersect.
I have continually tried to work with ANI administrators to resolve this issue so we can move forward.
I would like to know if an uninvolved administrator is being requested to address my unblock request and approximately when should I expect a response? If not, are my heartfelt explanations and contrition sufficient to approve my unblock request so that I can work with others to make positive contributions to Wikipedia articles? Wondering55 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I have many of the same misgivings as other editors who have commented here (and the ANI, and the affected articles/templates), I do agree with Wondering at least on the fact that it would be most appropriate if everyone cleared out from here, or at least withheld comment until the formal unblock request process is concluded. Let the responding admin make their determination; they will already have at their disposal voluminous material from which to make a decision. Even if well-intentioned advice, further back and forth here can obviously only serve to create more acrimony, with Wondering's detractors telling him he still doesn't get what is wrong with his behaviour and he responding that his character is being attacked more than anything, ad neauseum. If nothing else, this is Wondering's talk space and as he doesn't seem to appreciate the comments, and as he has the final say on content here, outside of a handful of administrative exceptions, I think everyone should respect that perspective by leaving this matter be for the time being until process has run it's course. Snow talk 04:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He pinged us all to come here[10]. But I agree otherwise. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just trust the administrators, they know what they're doing. The only other advice that I could have is take the WP:STANDARDOFFER and than post another unblock request and they should be willing to give you another chance. The Newspaper (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators previously indicated that I should submit an unblock request now, which is what I have done. They indicated that I should wait for an uninvolved administrator to respond, which is what I am expecting. Wondering55 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if an independent administrator would advise on the status of my unblock request, which was submitted five days ago. When will it be reviewed and when will I receive a response? Wondering55 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting for you: you've been given recommendations on changing it to make it so that it can be accepted as per WP:GAB. You've been given time to make those changes. You've decline to make those changes - what do you expect the result to be? For every declined unblock request it will become harder and harder to become unblocked - why not fix this one now? the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering, I hope your request will be reviewed soon, but it's hard to tell when it'll be. This is the situation: If you look at the bottom of this page, you'll see that it's now in Category:Requests for unblock. It was added to the category by yourself, by your act of posting the unblock request (that's why you have to use a special code for it), and as soon as your request is formally declined/accepted, your page will be removed from the category. Administrators look at the category page (and so can you, by clicking on the category link) and thereby find requests that need review. I agree you've had to wait for a long time, but, as you can see, you're not alone in that. At a guess, also, I'd think some of the admins who patrol the category may be giving your request a wide berth simply because they've been involved in the discussion at ANI, or the discussion here, and therefore aren't qualified to do the review. And some others may see it in the category, come here to look, realize what an unusual amount of work it will involve to review this request, and perhaps unfortunately decide that they don't have that kind of time. (It's what happens when you rely on volunteer admins. Give 'em a rise and they'll work harder!) Obviously, a review will involve, at a minimum, reading everything on this page, and the entire ANI thread. Preferably a bit of review of your contributions in general, too. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, Thanks for the clear reasonable answer to my question and pointing me to the category status link. I figured there might be a time consuming review. Hopefully, the facts will point the administrator in the right direction. I would like to go back to working with others based on mutual respect, along with an acknowledgement of Wikipedia guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: @DangerousPanda: I would appreciate if you can each advise exactly what the problems are based on the facts so that I can properly address them in an unblock request. I should be allowed to express my perspectives to clarify and correct any misconceptions or statements that are contradicted by the facts. I thought that administrator reviews were interactive so that we could all understand what is going on. If I am to be accused of items without being able to provide reasonable facts to support my position, it does not seem fair. The overwhelming amount of my editing history, including the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, has involved collaborative positive contributions. I have successfully provided value-added contributions to 134 articles. There have been recent problems, which I have accepted and will correct, with two of these articles. I am not perfect and am always looking for ways to improve myself. Wondering55 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your unblock HAS been interactive: a few of us tried to hold your hand and fix your request. The next admin was merely going to review your responses. My 3 posts from May 5th told you exactly what needed to be fixed. You refused to fix it, which will now be problematic, as your next unblock request just became harder. Why can't you take good advice when it comes? That's now a newbehavioural issue that will have to be dealt with in your next unblock as it shows a) you hold a grudge, and b) you hold an unwillingness to listen to the community. Stop talking about your "positive" - you need to deal with the negative the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The facts show my unblock request was updated/fixed based on listening to the community and taking good advice/counsel and cooperating with administrators based on fact-based problems. I am not obligated to take advice based on unsubstantiated opinions. My unblock request indicates that I accepted responsibility for the problems that I caused and would not cause them in the future.
The community indicated I should submit my unblock request and wait for an uninvolved administrator to respond. This is what I did.
I know that I have been very interactive in addressing administrator requests and fact-based concerns that have been raised. I have not seen a reciprocal interactive response from some administrators to my requests and concerns.
My unblock request and follow-up responses do not show that I hold any grudges. DangerousPanda needs to provide facts to show where there are any grudges.
If DangerousPanda would like to help me resolve this block, then identify each item that is considered to be a problem from the ANI based on specific facts/events so that I can properly address them in an unblock request. This will avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. The ANI discussions were so wide ranging and changing, it is difficult to figure out where things stand now beyond what I have already identified. I do not see anything specific in DangerousPanda's May 5 response below that identifies any specific problems, which I have not already addressed. Saying "I've advised you as to what is missing from your unblock request" is a general statement without any specifics.
Wondering, as an administrator that reviews unblocks, I've advised you as to what is missing from your unblock request - indeed, there are things that do not make it WP:GAB-compliant.  This entire discussion - indeed the entire contents of your talkpage - will be used in conjunction with the actual unblock request in order to determine if you should be unblocked.  Indeed, if I saw that it was WP:GAB-compliant, I will unblock you myself.  Unblocks aren't rocket science - but you're missing key elements.  I'm asking you to address them so that indeed, this can be put behind you and you can get back to work.  Every single editor on Wikipedia could drop by to comment on whether or not to unblock you, and it would be permitted.  I'm certain that we're -->  <--- that close to unblocking.  Your refusal to respond to neither my points, nor Begoon's points make it appear that you're unwilling to cooperate with the community - or indeed cooperate when an admin who's TRYING to unblock you actually asks a question.  the panda  17:55, 5 May 2014

Wondering55 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I really really don't know how I can "advise exactly what the problems are based on" except by repeating things which you have already been told over and over again. I'm not trying to be awkward or unhelpful: I honestly cannot think of anything that I can say which would help you understand other than things which you have already been told, many times. I am not going to waste both my time and yours just copying out what other editors have already said to you. Unfortunately, I don't agree with the panda when he/she says "You knew exactly what needed to be addressed for an unblock", because it seems to me that you honestly have an inability to understand anything you are told that doesn't fit your preconceptions, and an inability to see your own actions objectively. In other words, you have been told exactly what needed to be addressed, but you have failed to hear what you have been told, so that you honestly think you have not been told. If I am right about that, then I see no way of communicating to you what the problems are, so any attempt to do so would be wasted. If I am wrong (and I hope I am) then I don't need to tell you, because all you have to do is read the things which have already been said to you by numerous other editors: they have already told you what is wrong with your editing, and why you are blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I said "3 posts" not 1. And we all know what I typed, no need to violate copyright by copy/pasting it :-) I am not going to tell you the exact WORDS to use - I told you quite clearly what you were not addressing. the panda ₯’ 09:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I read all 3 posts prior to my previous post for DangerousPanda. And we all know there is no violation of copyright, which is such a picayune issue to even raise, as I was simply making it easier for everyone to read what DangerousPanda wrote in their final and third post. I thought I would give DangerousPanda an opportunity to gather their thoughts, provide any useful updates, and be helpful to me. I believe everything is covered based on my unblock request and there are no other legitimate claims based on DangerousPanda's quoted items below from their previous posts.

  • "I do not get the sense that you feel you're personally responsible for everything that has occurred"
My unblock request clearly indicated that I was responsible for all the problems that I previously admitted to in the ANI discussions.
  • "you seem to instead see things as a series of unfortunate events."
I did not indicate anywhere in my unblock request or in the ANI discussions that this was a series of unfortunate events. That is simply DangerousPanda's projections of their personal opinion on to me.
  • "You are, however, the genesis of it all - from your interactions with others"
Agreed. My unblock request clearly addresses my problems with interactions with others and how I will address it.
  • "your unwillingness to listen to counsel"
My unblock request and ANI discussions clearly show that I was willing to listen to counsel based on legitimate fact based issues. My entire path to my unblock request, which was updated based on administrator feedback, reflects that counsel based on those legitimate issues.
  • "a chip on your shoulder, rooted in the apparent belief that you're better and more professional that everyone else.
This is DangerousPanda's personal opinion of me that has absolutely no validity or basis in fact. I have never stated or even remotely implied these absurd notions in this ANI discussion or anywhere else.
  • "you're judged in part on the basis of your interaction style."
Agreed. My unblock request clearly addresses my problems with interactions with others and how I will address it. Wondering55 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: It is not clear why you cannot "advise exactly what the problems are based on" since so many administrators have indicated that these problems should be able to be easily identified in a concise manner (some even said in less than 50 words). Certainly, it should be able to be easily accomplished in a pittance of the time that it took to review the ANI discussions.
I am not sure what is the basis for your personal opinions about me and my thoughts without any presentation of objective supporting information. I would not have been able to request an unblock and identify problems that I caused without an ability to hear and understand things that are told to me that do not fit my preconceptions. I am able to see my own actions objectively, including suggestions based on presented facts.
Wikipedia guidelines consistently advise users and administrators that issues need to addressed and resolved based on the facts, and not just personal opinions.
As an objective NPOV administator, please identify each problem from the ANI based on specific facts/events so that I can properly address them in an unblock request. It certainly will not waste my time or your time. This will avoid unnecessary misunderstandings in any follow-up for an unblock. I have done my best to identify and address noted problems. Other administrators have indicated that I should be given a chance. I was looking to you, as an uninvolved objective administrator, for assistance in resolving this matter based on a fresh point of view. I have consistently indicated that I am looking for ways to satisfactorily resolve this situation so that I and everyone else can be satisfied with what we accomplished and go back to working with others. Wondering55 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about this, and see if I can give you the help that you ask for. However, to do it properly will take some time, and I am unlikely to have enough time over the weekend, so it will probably not be done for a couple of days. I am sorry to have to give you yet more delay, after you have already waited so long, but I will deal with it as soon as I can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention whatever of spending my time telling you yet again what you have already been told at ANI, as you ask me to do. If you can't yourself "identify each problem from the ANI", then there is no point in my doing so, because all I would be doing would be repeating what is already said there, and I see no reason to suppose that you would be any better to understand just because I repeated the same information that you have hitherto failed to understand. The only thing which I think just may be worth trying to clarify for you is the status of your statement "I deserve to be reinstated based on my acknowledgements of the problems I caused and that I would not do it again". In effect, you are saying that, whatever past mistakes you may have made, you now acknowledge them, understand them, and will not do them again. However, it is clear that, despite what you say, you still do not see what you are doing, and, while apparently in good faith trying to show that you have learnt, you are in fact even in the course of asking to be unblocked, showing that you have not learnt. To that end, I shall give a few illustrative examples from what you have said on this page in the course of asking for an unblock. I make no attempt to make a full or comprehensive documentation of the problems involved: I am merely giving a few examples to illustrate the fact that the problems are still here.
You wrote to me "It is not clear why you cannot 'advise exactly what the problems are based on' since so many administrators have indicated that these problems should be able to be easily identified in a concise manner". However, that is a total misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say that I could not "advise exactly what the problems are based on": I said that I could not "advise exactly what the problems are based on" except by repeating things which you have already been told over and over again, which is a totally different issue. Thus, in the course of asking me to explain what the problems are, you brilliantly illustrate one of the main problems (perhaps the main prolem) yourself: you persist in managing to completly misread, misunderstand, and misrepresent what others say to you.
You make statements which simply do not fit the observable facts. To give just one example, you wrote "I was not expecting this [block] since I have not been following the Wikipedia Administrator board and did not have an opportunity to provide any input." From 16:41 on 12th April to 20:25 on 19th April you made 16 posts to the ANI discussion. By that time it had explicitly been stated that if anyone was to be penalised, it would probably be you. Between then and the time of the block, you made 129 edits to other pages on Wikipedia, so it is difficult to see why you "did not have an opportunity to provide any input".
You show a blindness to the nature of your own actions: for example, you wrote that you "do not make inappropriate comments about other editors or their editing based on their good faith efforts", and that you have "worked with dozens upon dozens of editors without any problems".
You view your own opinions as somehow having a different status than the opinions of others: e.g. "They simply stated their assessments based on their opinions, similar to what they are doing here. I simply presented the facts", which is to say "what someone else thinks is an opinion; what I think is a fact."
You said "I do not say that I am right" Anyone who spends a little while checking your editing history can see that in fact time and time again you do insist that you are right. However, even more significant is what you followed that statement with. A longer version of the quotation is "I do not say that I am right. I simply present facts..." How is saying "what I said is a fact" different from saying "what I said is right"?
Figureofnine referred to "when [Figureofnine] chatted with [you] at ANI a few weeks ago", to which you respond with "There was no chatting with Figureofnine several weeks ago", followed by an explanation that Figureofnine was presenting "opinions", and you "facts", apparently regarding the word "chat" as impying something different. Thus, as often, instead of focussing on the issues, you distract attention onto irrelevancies such as your personal view as to how the word "chat" should be used.
You wrote "I will certainly work to reduce the amount of verbiage and avoid lengthy back and forth discussions. Hopefully, this will not give other editors license to make inappropriate comments about me and my good faith editing that I try to make in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines." So, even when trying to address the issues with your editing, you shift the focus onto how unfair and unreasonable you think other editors are likely to be in the future. Also, you imply that you think that your practice of posting long walls of text is a defence against other people's "inappropriate comments", and that you still do not see it as a problem with your approach.
Despite being blocked, you still have access to editing this talk page, so that you can request an unblock. However, if you continue to post things which, whatever your intention, appear to just give further evidence that you should not be unblocked, it may be that your talk page access will be removed, to prevent waste of other editors' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate JamesBWatson ignored my requests for help so that this unblock request can be quickly resolved and threatened my ability to contribute to Wikipedia without cause. Instead, JamesBWatson decided to spend even more time making more unsubstantiated, inaccurate accusations, without any diffs regarding my editing history, in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines. Other administrators said my problems could be identified in less than 50 words. Yet, JamesBWatson spent 974 words (does that qualify as a wall-of-text??) on their own interpretations, which are not correct, of more new issues rather than previously presented relevant issues. JamesBWatson’s seemed to ignore or contradict several administrators, who indicated that we were getting close to an unblock.
I addressed all of the problems that DangerousPanda identified in order to address an unblock request. I do not understand why JamesBWatson cannot provide any further clarification of relevant problems, along with diffs and facts, that other admins have already addressed if they want to resolve this. That should be what is expected of an objective NPOV admin.
Accusations of misinterpreting or having a difference of opinion about someone's statements is not a reason to impose an indefinite ban on anyone. Otherwise, there would be widespread Wikipedia bans. I would never call for any type of ban for any administrator’s misinterpretations of my statements.
An indefinite ban cannot be justified if there were no other recent complaints in Wikipedia administrative forums, except for one 3RR, by regular users based on relevant problems identified in ANI and Unblock discussions. While I have contributed and collaborated successfully on 134 articles, there have been only 2 articles identified with any recent problems, which has been limited to several users out of hundreds of other editors for those article. That does not justify an indefinite ban.
For any administrator to state I have not addressed the problems in an unblock request, without them also identifying the missing problems, which supposedly were previously identified, is not fair, right, or in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
I want to engage with objective NPOV administrators to facilitate resolution of this situation based on the facts and my sincere unblock request that is compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake, are you a mega-troll, or do you really have some strange inability to understand what is said to you? You have jut posted over 361 words, pretty well EVERY WORD of which denies what anyone with a normal ability to read English can see for themselves. 79.123.82.45 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Wondering55, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wondering55&oldid=1136124959"