User talk:85.67.32.244


 * I'm striking, hatting, or removing your RM comments because they were made in violation of a ban. There's nothing "technical" about this, and it has nothing to do with editing under your real name or not: You were banned by the English Wikipedia community from editing in 2017. Bans apply to all editing, good and bad. No administrator can unblock you right now without your ban being overturned first. If you'd like to appeal your ban, your best course of action would be following the course of the standard offer, which starts with going six months without editing Wikipedia (from an account or IP, overtly or covertly). You'd also need to understand why you were banned and what that ban and the previous topic ban mean. I'll say, I could be wrong about this, but I get the sense that there's a number of users who'd like to see you return someday. But that's not going to happen this way. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That ban was for "making legal threats" five or six years ago, and was indefinite (which does not mean infinite). It was not for anything to do with content. It was a stupid ban in the first place, I was trying to explain that just because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia "anyone can edit" does not mean that users (registered or not) can make legal threats against others. Now I seem to be caught up in that again because of the well-meaning but misguided contributions by User:Redrafting, who then went on to use an IP account. I deliberately removed his "Important" section of my talk page saying what his IP address was, as I felt him naive to go giving that out; I easily found out which ISP etc he was living at, and pointed out to him the essays about anonymous editing (that you're not really anonymous), WP:ANON etc. In short, I have acted entirels in good faith encouraging the editor to follow WP's guidelines and policies and then I get banned. Show me one edit – leaving aside stupid typos etc – where I have made the Wikpedia worse. Sure, somewhat misguidedly a WP:RfD I went to WP:G8 with something, User:Thryduulf politely said at RfD "I am denying that" (I forget the exact word, refusing maybe) because it is under discussion" and my reply was "Fair enough". That is WP:BRD and I didn't think less of Thryduulf for my mistaken G8, actually I thought of Thryduulf well for being so polite, having the courtesy to inform me and the rest of RfD, and we just carried on. That is how it should be. I've been a technical editor for over thirty years amongst other things, and am ruthless with a blue pencil. But I was accused of vandalism and being rude by User:Redrafting. Nobody likes personal attacks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

is where User:Redrafting restored my blanked page. To be clear: I frequently blank my talk page as many other editors do as I get talkback cruft etc and it is routine to delete those after responding. That is all there was on the talk page except Redrafting's personal abuse, and his action on this edit was to revert my talk page to put all the talkbacks and his own comments back again. I could have been less subtle and just deleted his personal attacks on me, leaving the talkbacks, I deliberately to save him shame (I'm confident that user is male, and dislike singular they). This whole furore really is the fallout of his ban. I was happily drafting Draft:SIC (journal) which arose from an RfD about SIC, SiC, sic and so on. So because I am not bad at French, I started translating the article from French (which does have the tag on it, at the bottom, and had from the first draft). I would have been doing a lot quicker with it had I not had the bollox from Redrafting/23.28.64.124. When you get, with the ES Do not delete messages on your talk page., patently that well-intentioned but misguided user has lost the plot somewhere. No, I can't or shouldn't delete messages on other's talk pages, I am perfectly entitled to do so on mine, and I bet all of you regularly clean out your talk pages one way or another, whether it's archivnig them or blanking them or whatever. The user completely misunderstood WP:REMOVE that we shouldn't delete messages from ''other's' talk pages. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In the diff above I want to tell you that your message was deleted because it was rude. Anyway, I will tell you the edit that looks like a test. Please write a message nicely.. I replied, I don't write test edits. I make mistakes but it is not a test edit. Can you please tell me which edit it is. This went on for a few days with him not telling me which edit he believed was a test – ultimately he did say,it's not on either User talk:Redrafting or User talk:23.28.64.124 now, so I'll have to trace the history, but several times I asked politely but firmly not to delete or restore things at my talk page. I have at all times been polite, but firm. I have not accused the editor of anything personal, I have stated matter-of-fact where his actions are out of line with policies or guidelines and pointed him to them. I think as experienced editors it is our duty to do so. What I do not expect is to be banned because of another's bad behaviour.

What you can do is lift the indefinite ban on User:SimonTrew. It's been five years or six since I was banned on that name, surely that is enough. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * See here at the banned user's page: . I swore never to be anonymous in Wikipedia nor other websites, as being anonymous can make lots of confusion, I do not wish to cause any suspicion. People who are Anonymous are known as suspicious people who may cause trouble. In Wikipedia, using IP address is similar to being anonymous since you didn’t verify yourself. This is in my perspective and I’m not trying to encourage people to create a account. In section "Redrafting is not anonymous", I dunno if I can do a section link from a permalink. Immediately below, "Redrafting will never change his username": OK, but edit on an IP address instead, and elsewhere say you have had eight usernames? All the while I kept good faith, but come on, that is pushing it. He personally attacked me exactly because I was the first IP he had seen, I dealt with it. Are you surprised I do not have an account when I get this abuse from a registered editor? Who then goes on to edit anonymously against exactly what he stated at his user page? Who then, which is pure WP:VANDALISM, removes his (no, sorry, the anonymous IP that he said he won't use) comments from my talk page, and when I restore them, removes them again? I told him that Wikipedia keeps a history of every edit, he didn't seem to understand that. I make small edits, and together with another editor we put together the essay WP:OWNFEET and his counter-argument to that, both in good faith (he contributed the picture to my essay) and we both contributed to each other's. For me to be accused of vandalism, being rude, by an editor only registered sixteen days ago, is pushing it. I took that as a personal attack, which it was, and responded politely but firmly. Show me any edit I have made is vandalism. I make typos and mistakes, other editors may disagree, that is WP:BRD. I have never been a vandal here, nor in real life. I don't swear even in real life. I had parents who would wash my mouth out with soap and water if I said a "dirty word". 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There were two Simon Trews in the UK, the first an eminent military historian at Sandhurst, mentioned in many military articles, such as Operation Goodwood. As far as I know, he and I were the only two Simon Trews in the UK: I added a lot about Hungarian military history and someone asked me "you're not the Simon Trew are you", of course I replied that I wasn't but that I know how you mean. He is patently notable, sometimes rarely he is on telly on military programmes. I phoned him once, got his secretary, I said "Hello I am Simon Trew, may I speak to Simon Trew please" and she had a double-take :) but that was just to confirm he was who we have at articles, he has published many books in his name, but keeps a low profile, so I was going to do a bio at Simon Trew but really found nothing beyond his published works, which are many. In Hungary, I am the only Simon Trew and I know that as a fact, having had to go through various paperwork to establish my immigrant status. (With Hungarian names I am "Trew Simon", pronounced "Trev Shimon", but I am not Trevor and Simon either.) This whole farrago is because that well-meaning but misguided editor has made my life a misery for a week. I've given you plenty of evidence. I have been using this IP since about June last year, when I moved here to Törökszentmiklós, (which User:Eubot did not get around to making Toeroekszentmiklos, I presume you know the debate about those well-intentioned but misguided mass creation of redirects, assuming every "ö" was a germanic umlaut – this is why I got banned by User:Thryduulf I think for mass listing them at RfD, we had with User:Tavix a discussion about whether we needed a speedy delete criterion for them, and I actually opposed that, said we can handle it: I was wrong, as they're still cropping up now every week or so at RfD).

I'm pretty sure my IP is a static IP and so are the WHOIS lookups etc. (They say "Likely static IP"). The modem does not go through DHCP, I can't be entirely sure, neither can the lookups, but it is very likely that my ISP has assigned me a static IP address. I do not think I can be accused of sockpuppetry, since every edit I have made (except for a couple of very minor edits from my mobile phone when I have been passing the time on the train: at home it connects to my WiFi) has been on this address, as WP:ANON says, IPs are not very anonymous. I would happily edit under User:SimonTrew were it not for the stupid ban five years ago, which I remind you says "indefinite", not "infinite". Were I want to be a sockpuppet, I could just use my mobile phone and get a new IP address every time. That is exactly what I don't do. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For example my thanks, to User:Sonic678. Now that has been reverted. I don't know if User:Tamzin has reverted that or User:Sonic678 did, but if Tazmin did it is out of order, if Sonic did it was fine. Sonic had changed his signature (not his username) to be "Soenic" after some Eubot redirect we were dicussing that had changed "ö" to "oe" when it was not Germanic, and I found that very funny and said so very briefly. I can understand Sonic reverting/removing that as cruft, as it was just a passing remark: but if Tamzin has removed it as part of this dicussion, it's out of order. I'm probably getting on my high horse, but now I have any contribution I have made to make Wikipedia better being struck out without any say-so by non-admin User:Tamzin. That is starting to look like bad faith, I'm sorry to say so. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sheer hypocrisy. I edit under a stable IP address that is easily traced, WP:ANON and all that. I could (but won't, except to prove a point) log in under my mobile phone address. What has happened with editing under IP is exactly what WP:ANON says, I am MORE visible than those editors who have registered accounts. There are arguments for allowing IPs to edit etc, and against. Wikipedia policy is to respect IP editors. I moved to IP not because I was banned, but because I moved to a new house with a static IP. I have very much hinted that I am SimonTrew, my writing style etc makes that fairly obvious really. I have been personally attacked on my IP address for the last week, and have had to deal with that which has stopped me from doing what I want to do, make wikpedia better. It's bloody good, and all of us know we can make it even better. Now I am getting the fallout from someone who explicitly says he has had eight accounts then will edit under IP after his user page explicitly says he regards IP editors as vandals. (I presume that is how he first found my edit, it was a minor edit to an article and I can't remember which, but it was a very minor edit changing a spelling or grammar or something; as IP I can't mark edits as "minor"). I have been open and honest, whereas User:Redrafting has not, yet I have to suffer his sentence? That's not fair. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK explain to me why you deleted Draft:SIC (journal). The bot says my edit is unconstructive. I don't know why my translation, about a third done, and in draft, is unconstructive. Deleting it is unconstructive. I spent days here on there on that and it is about third finished, it was tagged from the outset with  with the permalink version numbers for version and insertversion. I could have just copied and pasted it over mainspace SIC (journal) which we discussed at RfD, well not the journal/review (SIC (review) would probably be better but not perfect). Now without any say-so you have deleted my hard work translating a French article, on the basis I am banned. I'm appealing that ban, so restore it. It is evidence of my good faith. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have come here with clean hands. I mentioned the article I was drafting, what happens, it gets deleted. THat took me hours and hours to get into any kind of shape that would be suitable for English Wikipedia, because French Wikipedia waxes lyrical and we are more concise. Translating the words is not difficult, translating the meaning somewhat harder. What you have done is destroyed my work, simple as that. I have come, as with User:Redrafting, in good faith. Now I find my work being destroyed. It did not go through WP:CSD or WP:PROD or anything, it went because in your own opinion I am a banned user, I am appealing that ban, so stet let it stand. It is not doing any harm in Draft space, and I put it there so any other editrix could contribute, I did not put it in my own User pages as we used to do. This is quite frankly "beat Simon Trew to death" which I had five years ago. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You asked a question of me here, so I will answer. Simply put, WP:CSD is quite clear. Articles written by blocked users who are evading their block are not accepted.
 * If you can get your original account unblocked, let me know and I'm happy to un-delete the article you wrote. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * you didn't say so. I'm appealing the ban. I have worked very hard on that draft, I know it is not finished in any way, not good enough yet for EN:WP. I'm translating but the quotations are very much in the French literary style, so I am quoting the French text verbatim and then my translation under. I'd like to make it clear the English is my translation, not from a reliable source etc (I think in one or two places it is, but not many) and I don't know how to make that distinction, but to put the French without the English would confound many readers, and that's what we're here for.
 * I still feel your action is a bit trigger-happy: I am appealing the ban and this is evidence of my good work and good faith, now you have deleted it. I'm guilty until proven innocent, and you and other editrices who are deleting my work as "banned editor" are taking away all my evidence of making Wikipedia better. This was in draft space, I would have moved it over SIC (journal) in article space once I felt it was worth other editrices to cast an eye over. What you have done is made Wikipedia worse. That is not what I come here for. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And all my improvements to Wikipedia are being deleted. OK, then, delete my stuff off of WikiMedia comons. I stated this at the 2015 argument, you cannot have it both ways. I release my stuff by CC-SA-3.0. Thet explicitly says I own it, this was the whole business back in 2015 when I was banned for making legal threats. Check the licence. I'm licencing Wikipedia, or the Wikmedia Foundation or whatnot, to use my material, I still have ownership of that material. This is why I got banned for legal threats, for saying exactly what the Wikimedia licence says. I am licensing Wikipedia to use my material, the Wikipedia Foundation does not own it, Jimmy Wales does not own it and has said so explicitly. My original work may come under WP:OR and there's the crux, to make Wikipedia better we must write some words about something. We reference it from WP:RS but we must paraphrase it to make it good English in a running sentence. It's ridiculous to assume that I am not doing the same at the deleted draft for Draft:SIC (journal), it is very much in infancy and that is why it is in draft. Deleting it made Wikipedia worse. My intent was once I had it even vaguely in English raher than French, to move it over in mainspace. That was not some kind of subversion of WP:AFC, there was a discussion at WP:RFD about "Sic", "SIC", "Sic" etc and I thought WP:BOLD, I'll translate it from FR:WP. The translation right now is shit, which is why I didn't move it into mainspace but kept it in draft. You were wrong to delete, User:Tazmin (a non-admin) was wrong to strike out every contribution, this is "Beat Simon Trew to death day" or what? I use an IP because I got personal attacks at User:Simon Trew, now in the last week I am getting personal attacks from banned User:Redrafting. I have to take the fallout of his nonsense? THat is pure hypocrisy. If you don't like me, say so. Check my edit history, I have done nothing wrong. I encouraged, welcomed, Redrafting into our community. User:Tavix didn't. User:Tamzin didn't. User:Thryduulf didn't. I did. And what is the result? I get banned for his bad behaviour. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete draft articles that I put the link to in my nomination. That is queering the pitch. You deleted my draft article, a translation I was only halfway through, and I put that as part of my argument why I should not be banned. By deleting it you have pulled the rug from under me and are acting in bad faith. Oh yeah WP:G5, excuse me I a contesting a ban. One bit of good-faith evidence is I spent days translating that draft and am nowhere near finished before it is good enough for main. WHat you have done is deleted something I specifically put in my nomination so that now no other editor can read what i did there. If that's not bad faith I'm a dutchman. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:G5 This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block. Did you read it? I am editing under IP because I had personal attacks from User:Redrafting. I did not edit and never have in violation of the ban or block. The block was for making legal threats, unjust as it happens but somehow I said Wikipedia is ultimately responsible for its actions, and someone on the legal team didn't like it. (It is true, in British law the publisher is resonsible, that is why we have libel tourism). I made a plain point that the Wikimedia Foundation is not above the law, and for some weird reason got banned for it, and when I appealed, i got totally cut off. That is what happens, when you suggest in any way the Wikimedia Foundation is doing an unlawful act in some jurisdiction you get banned. Guilty until proven innocent, and deleting or scrubbing my text – which I can't restore – is just a witch hunt. Wikipedia, the encylopaedia that a few people can edit. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * deleting a page that I had in my unblock is bang out of order, that is bad faith and you bloody well know it. I know it is "Piss off Simon Trew Day" or something, that is bang out of order. I provided many references to articles I have made better, that draft was a draft and I didn't think anywhere near good enough for main, to delete it is making Wikipedia worse. That was absolutely against WP:AGF, when I had put that very draft in my argument to be unbanned. That is stupid. That is silly. I could say much more. It is ridicuolous now I have to defend myself when you deleted my evidence. Guilty until proven innocent... show me any evidence beyond typos that I have ever made Wikipedia worse. In real life I would swear and punch, it is absolutely ridiculous that I can't even quote mzself as it is being systematicallz deleted, making articles worse. Wikipedia, the encylopaedia that hoi polloi cannot edit. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Review it again. I had personal attacks all last week that prevented me from finishing translating Draft:SIC (journal). I have acted all the while in good faith. Now I am being punished for another editor's bad behaviour. That is not fair. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well whaddaya know, an administrator refused the ban without reading what I said. I am disgusted at Wikipedia admins who don't read what is written. G5 does not apply, since I have not ever created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block. How could I? IP editors cannot create pages. What I have done, is to use my IP address instead of my account, to avoid getting personal attacks from User:Redrafting. That iis not in violation of any WP policy and I am entitled to protect myself againt what I saw as personal threats. They probably weren't, that user has been banned indefintely, but I am the fall guy for his bad behaviour. That's not fair. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very angry now. Other editrices are deleting anything I added, without thought. THat makes the wikipedia worse. Try banning them. I didn't realise that simply by pretty much stating i was User:SimonTrew I would have t his hassle. I use IP because I have had over the last week personal attacks from User:Redrafting later iater as IP ed, and I said so in my nomination. To find my evidence being deleted is just not right, not fair, well I will say in my cockney, a pile of bollocks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Edits made by blocked/banned users are not allowed to stand, as doing so would defeat the purpose of the block. If you want your edits to stand, you need to stop the block evasion and request unblock under your original account. I am now removing access to this page. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The ban is on you as an individual, not just your account. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)