User talk:14.200.91.233

Wikiproject birds edit
Please be more carful when editing to not delete things/ annoy people. I do not agree with these comments. Thanks, Qwerty number1 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Qwerty number1, care to reference what was deleted or how it is "annoying" for you that I referenced the second most popular bird in Australia (as rated by a very large public poll by The Guardian and Birdlife Australia), as being more than of "low importance"? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not complaining about a request to have the status changed. However, I think that you have vandalized the page by threatening to sue Wikipedia if they do not change the status of the article. Therefore, I have removed the section threatening to do this. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's libel mate. I never threatened Wikipedia. If you lack enough comprehension skills that you can't even recognise obvious humor on a talk page and truly believe THIS GUY (@BinChickenSC) is going to sue Wikipedia, then you need to slow down a bit. P.s. The humorous reference was highly relevant, as part of the Bin Chicken's cultural importance IS that he's such a funny bird and the source of endless jokes. Labeling lighthearted banter on a TALK page is content vandalism? Oh Drearypedia. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Even if someone HAD actually made a legal threat (which isn't what happened here), that's not even what vandalism is. It would be an entirely different issue. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Qwerty number1, please *DO NOT* go around editing OTHER people's signed comments on talk pages, without prior consultation with them, consensus, or extremely unambiguous and grave issues specified in WP:TPO. "I think" matters of opinion do not count. You've now falsely attributed something to me, that was NOT what I wrote and signed. It's deceptive and misleads other editors if they later review. Also, when editing your own comments, particularly after other people have already replied referencing them, please follow WP:REDACT guidelines, so your changes are obvious and do not leave misleading impressions and falsify other dialogue.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You also changed the section title, which was annoying. Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

soory, but I have only found links to a magazine, a twitter account and a clip from the bbc(copyright?!)Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your spelling of soory is annoying. There was an accidental double-paste (after proofing it elsewhere pre-edit), that was fixed seconds later. See comment above re the legal threat false allegation. I'll refrain from straight talk, except to say, you make this a rather unpleasant place, not a civilised one. Recommend that you study the subject matter first, before getting so trigger happy. As stated, it's the 2nd most popular bird of an entire continent and relevant. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Please learn to sign your edits, or stop vandalising my talk page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki is NOT meant to be full of jokes. I do not actually believe that somebody was actually going to sue wiki(am I mad?!). It is so that I disagree with it being true that somebody would sue wiki (but the rules exist). I am also confused on why, if you are so sure, you have not just changed the status. Also, I am pretty sure that the BBC has copyrighted the programme, because they have done that with basically evwrything. Thanks, Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Go away. You've just freely admitted, twice, that you didn't believe there was any threat to sue Wikipedia - right after making a VERY serious allegation against me and rudely threaten blocks. You haven't even bothered offering an apology for your repeated defamations. I didn't just change the status without consultation, because Wikipedia operates by consensus, not that I have to explain myself to you. You also know nothing at all about how copyright works. The video linked was PARODY AND SATIRE. The BBC's copyright doesn't apply and it was an externally linked content reference anyway, NOT content added to Wikipedia as you'd falsely have people believe. Please immediately desist from your disruptive behavior and malicious editing. I have fair respect for neurodiversity, but just because you lack any reasonable human capacity for a sense of humor (whatsoever), doesn't make it everyone else's problem. p.s. One *relevant* joke, is not making Wikipedia "full of jokes". I can't believe I'm even replying. Please go away nuisance. You've now made VERY NUMEROUS false allegations and your childish antics are very unwelcome on this talk page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comments were made before seeing on your own user page that you actually have self declared developmental disorder and also dyslexia. Your spelling errors are completely excused, hence don't need forgiveness. The fact that you have such a bad temper towards others for making some similar minor errors though, is frankly surprising and hypocritical. I'll forgive your poor comprehension and incapacity to recognise obvious humor. You say on your user page that you don't want people to act in a hostile manner, yet that is precisely how you've conducted yourself. Please do your best to work on your anger, aggression and quick temper. It's not helpful to yourself or others and it's not conducive to building a productive Wikipedia environment. I do miss the first few years of Wikipedia, before people such as yourself just turned it into a nasty edit-warring trash fire. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So as to stop this escalating and me loosing my temper, I will not reply to any new messages on this discussion. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * GOOD! Except you still owe me that apology. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Resolved amicably on another thread. Apology not required. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

April 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated on your Nick-D talk page, please provide evidence of the falsehoods in my statements, which is necessary to establish a claim of defamation. Also, I find it unlikely that you're here again by random chance when I edit so very rarely.  So if you could, please do allow other editors (and not a cabal friends), to participate also.  It might more accurately reflect the diversity of society that funds Wikipedia, containing a range of political backgrounds and perhaps even different prejudices than your own.  I edit extremely rarely and yet it's always you who's apparently here. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your complete failure to even cite said alleged 'disruptive editing' here Nick-D, let alone to justify your case of why you considered the single edit defamatory (a single edit 'disruptive'?!) and failure to identify even a single falsehood that could justify calling that edit defamatory in the first place, shows bad faith and bad editorship. Your claims that I'm a disruptive editor are slanderous libel. Either state your case, or kindly remove your comments, or I shall remove it for you. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Yassmin Abdel-Magied, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Iryna Harpy, Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires to "document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence" as part of the Five Pillars. Five pillars. Thankfully now, there is a section on "Media controversy", since the ANZAC day subject did happen, did in fact offend many people and was notable (including due to its media coverage). The edit war against people trying to have that section and a major point of view included on the page, is against Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:WELLKNOWN and "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". The effort to censor such the content, instead of even just removing it, denies opportunity for others to assess the facts. Making false allegations without evidence (as has happened towards me), is personal attack and defamation. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What does the above diatribe have to do with your article talk page comment which I removed as the blatant personal attack against an editor/admin that it was? Wikipedia's guidelines regarding such behaviour is clear. You are also sailing close to the wind in suggesting that the removal and warning is 'defamation'. I suggest that you pay attention to what you have been warned about before attempting to read the riot act to me, or to any other editor. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would be nice if the lack of due process and policy failures in the original (prior) matter had received the same degree of attention Iryna Harpy. This conversation was avoidable in more ways than one. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Including whether allegations of disruptive editing had had any basis in fact. Nowhere had a "pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" been substantiated in any way, nor was the original claim of a defamation and neither were those statements retracted, or intervened by another editor. Do you think WP:5P4 was shown regarding how the disagreement was handled, given the tone used above on my page? Without courtesy of an explanation and with a threats of banning, without any warning and on the first occurrence; once again in breach of Wikipedia's editor policy? Would appreciate the original facts to be considered, before any subsequently causative matter in isolation. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. It appears you did not declared your conflict of interest in this matter Iryna Harpy, in breach of Wikipedia policy. As a "Researcher on multicultural and various socio-political issues for the Parliament of Australia". The subject of the page that was edited is and/or has been, employed by the Australian Government in roles related to Parliamentary committees, which have a vested interest in maintaining appearances. It looks suspiciously like you're acting as a paid editor and conducting professional astroturfing. Either way, you should certainly be excusing yourself from engaging in such matters, that leave a strong perception of COI, bias and manipulation of Wikipedia content for political ends.

Discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Be proud of yourself causing more preventable diseases, by blocking high quality NIH-funded university research (replicated by multiple independent international research teams, passing expert peer-review panels and cited in reputable sources including covers of WP:MEDRS exampled "core clinical journal"), from reaching the public's eyes. When you answer the question "What did I do today?", you can say, "I helped make more people cripple and destroyed their quality of life!". May you get what you give. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how hard some will fight to NOT just say something simple like, "NIH has funded research into whether EGCG could be a potential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis". Even though every research program and team who's study it, has strongly concluded that it is in fact a VERY promising treatment and has remarkable results in every animal model study. There is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV exercised by editors reviewing. Just systemic bias towards synthetic, prescribable, patentable, commericalised drug companies and doctors protecting their prescribing monopoly on treatments (against safer alternatives). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats
Your recent edits to User talk:14.200.91.233 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There never was any threat. The opening sentence was about a "connoisseur of bin juice" and tone was blatantly and *OBVIOUSLY* humor, including by reference to THIS, link to the satirical BIRD who you think is threatening to sue Wikipedia. Please just stop with this nonsense. A satirical  BIRD  is NOT going to sue Wikipedia over the eminence of their species page status. Please find something useful to do, that actually improves Wikipedia, rather that just making threats and unpleasant atmosphere. Some people actually enjoy occasionally reading something that makes them smile on a talk page, when so many are otherwise filled with malicious editors. Maybe try looking up that perfectly legal external link to a parody video that another editor (who doesn't understand copyright law) redacted over false claims of copyright breach. Some occasional practice at laughing may help your grokking ability. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. To make clear and avoid any false impressions, I'm deliberately not bothering to even reply to your other irrelevant comments. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Forgot to add: Please Velella, [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] and think before just jumping on someones' page to threaten blocks over a clean joke, while you non-ironically try to cite WP:CIVILITY at me. Courtesy and careful reading will go a long way. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

!IMPORTANT!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been archived. Qwerty number1 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note the discussion is now closed and the uniform consensus of Administrators was (correctly): that the edit you created an issue over was "clearly a joke", "Jokes to carry an otherwise serious point are not vandalism" and "you're making mountains out of molehills and need to back away until you can handle this calmly". P.S. You saying: "So as to stop this escalating and me loosing my temper, I will not reply to any new messages on this discussion"; then intentionally escalating it by directly raising it as an ANI instead, just makes it increasingly difficult to take your behaviour as acting in good faith. See also WP:AN's advice that, it is "rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here". That applies even more so for such UNIMPORTANT matters as this. ANIs should only ever be used with the greatest of discretion, for matters of genuine importance, such as serious misconduct. Not just because your feelings got hurt over being wrong. ANIs are not to be used for wasting peoples' time and to spread false allegations and rubbish like this. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

All my edits are made in good faith. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll believe that when you: (A.) retract your rude and very numerous false accusations that I was: (1) not conducting "carful (sic!) editing", (2) making "unconstructive edits", (3) conducting "vandalism", (4) committed "copyright infringement", (5) made legal threats against Wikipedia/Wikimedia; and (B.) retract your rude threats of "loss of editing privileges", i.e. to have try and have me blocked; and (C.) Give an apology for the above and deliberately escalating to ANI and wasting everyone's time, even worse, after saying you would refrain from continuing commenting (i.e. refrain from continuing to make such false allegations) and right after stating that you would not escalate the matter further. Better you just log off and leave Wikipedia, rather than harassing people for no good reason. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I nearly forgot... also when you apologise for: (D.) editing other people's signed comments against Wikipedia policy, without consensus and without justifiable due cause, which creates misleading and deceptive impressions of other people's contributions and misleads reviewers. (E.) editing your own comments on talk pages, that were already replied to, without following WP:REDACT, again misleading other viewers/editors/Administrators. (F.) generally being a hypocrite for criticising other's for very minor, immediately corrected errors, while making vastly more yourself. (G.) Just being unpleasant and not making Wikipedia a fun and enjoyable place for others. Good bye. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I did NOT edit that thread any more. Your comments made me feel sad, because some of them seemed rather personal to me, like when you accused me of making Wikipedia into a 'nasty edit-waring trash fire' and accusing me of making Wikipedia not a fun or enjoyable place and saying that I am 'just unpleasant '.Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just reset. Perhaps you just initially misread and thought there was some genuine threat against Wikipedia, acted a bit hastily thinking you had to defend it, then it became too uncomfortable to withdraw. Look, all I'm saying is, nobody likes to be threatened with blocks, especially as part of opening discussion/dialogue about something you want to raise, as YOU perceive it's an issue and they don't (and sometimes isn't, as was the case here). I just get very tired of trying to do anything at all to contribute content and improve Wikipedia now days. Almost any edit made, no matter how okay, will have people jump on it to complain and threaten. Especially if using an IP only, not a logged in account. Everyone should be entitled to use an IP, if they prefer anonymity for simple privacy reasons that they like less personal tracking, without being targeted and assumptions of bad faith. Some people edit with IPs just because they like content to stand on its merit, not because of who people think is making the edit. Anyway, I'm over it. I'm not angry and no longer care if you apologise or not. Just please be a little less trigger happy. If you're an admin or have additional user privileges, try not to use it to hang threats over people, unless absolutely necessary and as a last resort. Don't be sad. I'm trying to create a learning moment, not to harm or insult you. Just try to work on the passive-aggressive approach. Things will be okay. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have understood that perhaps it was partly my fault, though I was not annoyed you were using an IP. Please can we just be friends now, because I see how your intentions were probably good. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly Qwerty number1. Thanks. Let's move forward! :-) 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thx! Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Idea!
[] You wanted fun? If I am right, you complained about this? I hope this link works then, because this has pages which are meant to be funny and make people laugh! Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)