User talk:Display name 99/Archive 4

Longstreet statue
Just a day or two ago, someone thanked me for replacing that bad photo of Longstreet with the better one at List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. There are other good ones, including wider ones; choose from:
 * File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (22).jpg
 * File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (23).jpg
 * File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (24).jpg
 * File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (25).jpg
 * File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (26).jpg Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the message, but I'm not sure that I see any of these as improvements. If you still desire to have a new photograph of the monument in the Longstreet article, please attain community consensus to replace the current photograph. Display name 99 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)



Well, compare them. I was there, and my photos are how it actually looks. It doesn't look like the old photo. Not that the number of pixels is everything, but the old photo is 1.3 megapixels; mine are 24 megapixels - that makes a huge difference in the resolution.

Look at how dark the statue is in the old photo, compared to how it actually looks. Look at the low dynamic range in the old photo. Look at the lack of resolution in the old photo.

I've cropped both on the face so you can compare details and lighting. See how fuzzy (and pixelated) the old one is. (If the old photo is a smaller size, click on it and enlarge it to about the same size as the other one.) (Zoom in on any detail, say his face or the sword handle.)

And, composition wise, one of the first things you learn is to not have a tree coming out of someone's head. Also, look at the depth-of-field. The old photo has too much of it, making the background interfere with the subject. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Very well . I will restore the version of the photograph that you added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "church".
Contrary to your false claim, there certainly was a "reason" for my changes to capitalisations of this word when it was not part of a proper name. A perfectly good and valid reason in fact according to modern English style as also reflected in Wikipedia's own Manual of Style at MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I don't think many editors would support the idea that "Church" should be used as short form for "Catholic Church" or any other church. Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , contrary to your false claim, "Church" here does form part of a proper name, that being the name of the Catholic Church, and as such is more properly capitalized. See 1. However, since not all sources agree on this, and Wikipedia MOS is apparently not coherent with the proper formula, I will not object to you undoing my revert. Display name 99 (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There was nothing "false" in my "claim". As per your own provided reference, which clearly contradicts your assertion: "Church / church Capitalize when referring to the universal body of believers, and in the official name of a church or denomination. Lowercase it in general references, second shortened references to a particular church or when referring to the early church." It can't be any simpler than that. Afterwriting (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the statement does not appear to me to contradict what I maintained. The use of the word in the Burke article refers to a universal body of belivers, which this article says should be capitalized. In referencing a "particular church," it seems to refer to a specific church building, which indeed should not be capitalized. I said that you were free to undo my revert. However, you haven't. So do you actually care how it appears in the article or would you rather just argue with me? Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

question re draft
hi. what do you think of this? Draft:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(September–December_2019). --Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think it's mostly okay. But in my view it suffers from the same problem as the timeline article, which is that it is numerous extremely short paragraphs that make for tedious reading. I recommend condensing these. But in general, I think it's fine. I hope you understand that the level of detail that an article on only a few months of the war can have is not going to be the same as a timeline on article on a full 8.5 year war. Display name 99 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reply. thanks!!! re condensing the paragraphs, that sounds fine. I will give that a try.


 * by the way, re your last point, I totally understand. but I would also assume that, in some ways, an article that focuses on only a few months, could provide more detail about that specific time period itself, than the main article could, wouldn't it? again, I really appreciate your reply above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * hi. happy holidays!!! I posted a link in the article history of the main timeline for this topic, to let others see and review the draft. I don't know, it just seemed like a good idea. I enjoy getting a little discussion now and then, anyway. I hope all's well with you. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Display name 99!


Happy New Year! Display name 99, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Coronavirus information
I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works, thank you! The problem here is that someone has unilaterally decided to change the source of data from Worldometer to JHU. In my haste, I didn't notice. MattSucci (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've noticed that the source continues to change back and forth. JHU had been the source until it was switched out. I'm not sure why. It would be easier for everybody if we just use the same source consistently. Anyhow, please consider the matter over. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert refresh
O3000 (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Suggest you read this list. Washington Examiner is not high-quality material, in fact there is no consensus that it is reliable. If you want a right-leaning source, I suggest the Wall Street Journal.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Carlo Maria Viganò
I noticed that you changed the "June 2020 Letter" section on Carlo Maria Viganò's page to broader discussion about COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter. I understand why this makes sense, but do you think these sections deserve to be further broken out? That is, two sections: one on COVID-19 and another on his June 2020 letter/BLM? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briggs108 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello . When you add a new section on a talk page, please add it to the bottom of the page, not in the middle between old sections. The reason why there should be only one section is because Vigano's letter on June 7 to President Trump speaks about them both as being interconnected, as they are both being used to attack the Church and to promote a New World Order. Vigano sees the COVID-19 restrictions and BLM protests as ultimately having the same goal. Hence, they need to be in the same section. Display name 99 (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * The sources at Hydroxychloroquine make it pretty clear that actual scientists were already certain that hydroxychloroquine doesn't help and have only been doing further research to patently demonstrate that as well as determine whether or not it's actually harmful. Hence, this notification about medical discretionary sanctions.
 * Also, the sources at Donald_Trump are also quite clear that the administration's response to the virus were (especially compared to other governments) not only slow and inadequate but that the administration tried to block efforts that worked in other countries. Sources at Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump further show that Trump said back in February "This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flu" and then in March "I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic."  In light of this your edits to the Donald Trump article border on vandalism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the Trump biography has been hijacked by progressive editors in order to reflect as negatively as possible on Trump's actions as president with complete disregard for Wikipedia policies on a neutral point of view. Numerous other articles have also been slanted towards the progressive perspective. This edit was a form of protest. I knew that I would be reverted and do not intend to make any more such changes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you were pushing a right-wing POV that requires disregarding this community's standards for reliable sourcing to ignore the sources present in the article, in a way that requires ignoring the foundational site policy WP:Assume good faith. It's best that you never make changes to that or related articles again if you can't see that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the information that I added is correct and verifiable to good sources, unlike what was in there before. The Donald Trump article, like most aticles on Wikipedia about contemporary politics, has been wrecked by liberal editors who could not care less about maintaining a neutral point of view. They are the ones who should not be editing those articles. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up
I draw your attention to this request.

Would you please consider going to Talk:Abigail Spanberger to discuss your edits? Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WRT your age
I wrote about the contributions of contributors too young to legally release their contribution, in Legal incompetency, due to age. Short version - when we suspect someone is a minor I advocate letting them continue to edit, so long as they edit as competently as adults.

You are an adult now, so the issue is moot for you now... Geo Swan (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , what is your point? Please explain how this has anything to do with anything. Display name 99 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Display_name_99 describes how your initial contribution was as a minor. It seems to be written in anticipation of future criticism.  I went on record as supporting editing of individuals who edit competently, even if there are reasons to speculate they were under the age of consent.  I thought that was relevant to User:Display_name_99.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , this obviously isn't true. It asks people to remember when checking my block log. Obviously, the fact that I got myself into trouble eight years ago while editing as a minor has no bearing on what I do now. Please stop wasting my time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or may be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * , I missed the part where I was supposed to give a damn. Display name 99 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

John C. Breckinridge scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the John C. Breckinridge article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 16, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 16, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--&mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked
As you've presumably noticed, I've indefinitely blocked you for this comment, which I assume you realize was beyond the pale by any standard. As I've said at ANI, and made clear in the block log as well, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "for an indefinite period" not "for ever", and as soon as you can convince anyone that tempers have cooled down I give leave to anyone to lift this block.

To be clear, I am blocking you for your political views. Wikipedia is a broad church, and support for Donald Trump is certainly not a fringe view (as 70-ish million voters testify). Indeed, even if it a fringe view it would still not be block-worthy; we have numerous editors who are open supporters of terrorist groups, violent nationalist/separatist movements, groups which are widely considered racist, left- and right-wing extremism, and so on. What differs here is that these editors appreciate that they're sharing the site with people who don't share their opinions.

In my view, the comment linked above, and the other comments mentioned at the ANI thread, cross over a line. In my view they're potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and what's more important you were that they were potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and as such are unacceptable.

These are heated times, and given your history I have no reason to doubt that you're here in good faith and that recent events have been a one-off episode stemming from frustration rather than malice on your part. While I can't speak for the other participants in that thread, I certainly don't want to lose you provided you're willing to tone it down and respect other people's views even when you disagree with them. ‑ Iridescent 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message . I'm not sure if we've ever directly interacted before, but I recognize your username from somewhere. I have not been trying to intimidate anyone from participating in discussions. Rather, that very thing has been what happens to any editors who happen to express conservative views on Wikipedia. I'm not a supporter of Trump; I disapprove of many of his policies and I voted write-in in the recent election. But I am a paleoconservative nationalist, and while I do not need to get into specifics, many of the beliefs that I hold are indeed fringe. Your statements to the contrary not withstanding, many editors in the thread stated that they did not want people editing Wikipedia who held fringe views, even if they completely avoided modern political topics. Your position is that which is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but theirs has a large following.


 * Nearly every editor who voted in the discussion who did not support an indefinite block called for a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. As stated, this is something that I would refuse to abide by. It would be an insult to edit Wikipedia under such a sanction because I have not done anything wrong. I had assumed that making this statement would lead editors who had supported a topic ban to change their votes to supporting indefinite blocks, and an adminstrator would then follow the consensus and block me. Of course, things turned out a little differently than I had planned, that of course being my fault, but I was still blocked in the end, which I don't mind at all considering that the alternative was to edit under an insulting and dishonorable sanction.


 * I have no intention of ever editing Wikipedia again. I would rather leave on my own terms, as I feel I have done, than be indignified with a restriction which I did nothing to deserve. Display name 99 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know you
DN99, I don't think we have ever interacted. I hate to see a long time editor who clearly has an enviable editing record get chewed up and spit out. I think something that is being left out of many discussions is that real people on all side of the political spectrum are very frustrated these days. I think this is made far worse with COVID and the impact it and the restrictions have had on all our lives. I looked at your offending comment. I don't agree but I can certainly see how a person could feel that way. Anyway, I would hate to see an editor who's record far surpasses my own burn out and leave. I hope that a bit of time will help heal all this and we can pull some of the emotions back and people can be a bit more dispassionate about these topics. Take a break, don't do anything you wouldn't do in person* or will regret later. I hope you aren't going for good. *I say that but I doubt I would be willing to make a comment like this in person. As someone told me, stay safe and stay sane. The latter is probably the harder one. Springee (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your note. I appreciate you taking the time to write it out. I have no intention of returning to editing. There were a considerable number of people, I'd say slightly under half of all respondents, who were calling for an indefinite block even before I made the comment which ultimately resulted in me getting one. Nearly everyone else wanted a topic ban. I recognize that I likely could have saved my editing future by promsing to abide by a topic ban. I would not do that because it would be a humiliation to edit under an unjust sanction. Perhaps I even could have avoided the topic ban with an apology or a voluntary promise to step away from political articles for a while. However, I did not feel that I had done anything to warrant that. Accepting an indefinite block and stepping away is the only way to keep my honor in tact. I have no intention of asking for it to be lifted. Best, Display name 99 (talk)


 * Per what said. We've never interacted, but I've seen it all too well. I'm sure you have also. Long-term constructive editors blocked for something so trivial. Just one small outburst from you and then blocked indefinitely. It seems Wikipedia isn't much of a safe place anymore for people who's views differ from others. Anyways, thank you for all of your contributions. Goodbye friend and please do keep safe and sane. I'm sure you can do it, after all, you did last this long editing. Jerm (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you . That said, as I already explained, I was headed towards an indefinite block even before the outburst. This is because a large number of editors believed that expressing controversial opinions on talk pages was grounds for an indefinite block with no prior warning, and even those who didn't mostly thought that it was grounds for an immediate topic ban. My coffin was already built; my quickly-deleted outburst was just the nail. I appreciate the message and I wish you all the best. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for John C. Breckinridge, who "was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state. He was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln. He eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war."! -- Bad timing, it seems. I didn't follow the above story, saw only the top of the iceberg. I'd miss you, but perhaps check in in a year. I gave up my pride and appealed after two years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note . I didn't even realize that the Breckinridge article was today's featured article. That's interesting timing indeed... Display name 99 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hello. I would appreciate it if you would please read over the following message, and, if it is the appropriate venue, post it to AN/I on my behalf for the community to respond to. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"I am requesting that the Wikipedia community consider lifting my block.

The editor who started the AN/I thread calling for my block cited a few diffs, and a few more were later added in the AN/I thread. I do not apologize for the substance of my comments in either the diffs that were provided or later on in the AN/I thread that I did not already delete. I continue to feel that a double standard is being used to apply WP:NOTAFORUM, where editors on the progressive left are able to say whatever they want on talk pages, but conservatives are held to a different standard. I stand by the comparison that I made to Black Lives Matter in one of the diffs. With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist. Their leader isn’t even white. He’s Afro-Hispanic. I’ve never heard of a white supremacist group with a black person as its leader.

Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone. Saying things such as “So let me get this straight...How absurd” and making reference to editors living in "fantasy land" is rude, impolite, and not conducive to good discussion. I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing. I didn't help myself very much through my behavior in the AN/I thread. But while I do see that some of my behavior on talk pages has been problematic, I find the idea that it warranted an indefinite block, without even a warning, to be so ridiculous, vengeful, and agenda-driven that I hope I can partially be excused for getting a little bit upset at such an extreme suggestion. Being rude once or twice on talk pages isn’t good, but it shouldn’t get someone thrown off of Wikipedia.

I understand that most editors in the previous thread who did not support an indefinite block did support a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. I don’t think that an editor mouthing off a couple of times on talk pages is something that requires a topic ban just because he has the "wrong" beliefs, especially without a prior warning. So what I instead propose is that I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this. I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project. If a topic ban is imposed as a condition for my return, I promise to abide by it, and I understand the immediate consequences if I do not.

A number of editors argued that based on my supposedly poor grasp of reality with regard to matters concerning the present day that I should not be trusted to edit any articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. Of course, I would dispute their judgment about my grasp of reality, but even if they are correct that I am totally wrong in what I have said about contemporary America, the claim that I can’t be allowed to write about something that happened in the Middle Ages or early American history, which is what most of my featured articles and good articles are about, based on my views on current events cannot simply be made with no evidence supporting it. It must be proven through an examination of my editing record. Therefore, I request that those editors who still wish to publicly hold that position examine my featured articles and good articles to search for evidence that my positions on contemporary matters make me unsuited to writing any article here. I will answer any questions on my talk page about anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia that are raised without the assumption of bad faith. If these editors cannot find anything problematic in my contributions, I think it would be best that they cease to make these arguments.

Thank you."


 * Paging who will not have received a ping to a redirected page  :)  2A02:C7F:BE04:700:38F2:2A7F:2AD5:6711 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Formal unblock request
I will be away from home and without regular access to a computer until late April, so if any administrator ever gets to this, please do not expect me to respond to anything before then. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * : I have little understanding of American politics, but I thought it was important to mention here that has reviewed some of my Buddhist articles on Wikipedia, which is rather unusual for someone accused of being a racist or supremacist. Especially since he wrote he was a practicing Catholic. Speaking out of experience, I can say that only a minority of Wiki editors of religious articles review articles about other religions. For what it's worth.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you . As I had said, I would be away from my computer until April, and so I only recently saw this comment. I am indeed a practicing Catholic, but I think that it is often good for people to have at least an awareness of the existence and beliefs of other religions. This can give someone a better understanding of the world and to interact with people better. Yes, a white supremacist probably wouldn't be reviewing those articles. Display name 99 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on quickly skimming this, it seems that your unblock request is one of the oldest - while you are not meant to go through UTRS if you still have talk page access, you might try at some point (perhaps your case slipped through the cracks?), particularly given that almost 2 months have passed and your block was meant to be of preventative and temporary nature. Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

, I do not fully understand your reasons for the procedural decline of my unblock request. I believe that I answered all of the questions that you laid out.
 * I stated that I would edit constructively in the future and avoid the type of behavior that led to my block.
 * I made it clear that I understood what I had been blocked for: "I was blocked after allegedly supporting racist extremist groups on talk pages and using talk pages as a forum to advance my personal political ideology." I added that inflammatory comments that I had made on the AN/I thread contributed to my block and expressed regret for them.
 * I said that I will not continue to cause damage and disruption: "Again, while I don't apologize for the substance of any still-existing comments, I do apologize for my tone...I will work to avoid it in the future should I be allowed to continue editing...I make a promise to behave more civilly on talk pages and to focus on articles that don’t relate to contemporary American politics, with the knowledge that a topic ban may follow if I do not do this."
 * I said that I would make useful contributions by not focusing on articles about modern American politics: "I have one article that I plan to nominate for featured article status, and that can be my next major project." My entire last paragraph was about how I can still make useful contributions in spite of what I had been blocked for.

Please either take another look at my request or explain in greater detail why it was inadequate. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) , to be clear, I am not demanding that you reverse your decision. But I am a little bit confused as to how exactly my wording is inadequate. I would like for you to explain a little bit more so that I will be better prepared to make another request. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Second unblock request
You say, "With regard to accusations that I supported a white supremacist organization, I am unaware of anything that would classify the Proud Boys as racist or white supremacist." Note that my country, Canada, has designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organisation. That's not the same thing and doesn't directly contradict your statement, but I would certainly not unblock someone supporting what my government believes is a terrorist organisation. I want to be clear, though, I'm not reviewing your unblock request and I'm also explicitly not claiming you support the Proud Boys; I haven't looked at your edits so I can't tell one way or another. It's also entirely plausible that another admin would decide it is reasonable to lift your block with a topic ban around post-1932 American politics. I can easily imagine that being an appropriate course of action here. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My last unblock request was denied but I felt that the reasons given for denial were unclear, and my request to have them clarified was ignored.

To be honest, there wasn't anything to clarify. Your request was open for more than two weeks and no admin felt it appropriate to unblock you or deny the unblock outright. Admins were likely reluctant to spend their time on the matter because you already indicated you would be unavailable to discuss it for more than a month. NinjaRobotPirate declined the unblock on procedural grounds, so you could submit a fresh request when you were available.

As to the rest of your unblock request... well, that statement is a pretty good way to ensure you won't get unblocked. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you read the reason for decline? It never mentions the issue of my availability but says that I did not formulate the request properly. Also, I did not say that I would be unavailable until my request had already been open for more than two weeks. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you? It specifically says:
 * This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action.
 * I was offering a reason why admins probably didn't take action on your request. Yes, your initial request was open for two weeks, but this is a volunteer site. And, to be quite honest, your statement was not all that reassuring. And then, at that point you said (emphasis mine):
 * I will be away from home and without regular access to a computer until late April, so if any administrator ever gets to this, please do not expect me to respond to anything before then. Display name 99 (talk) 9:05 am, 2 March 2021
 * You claimed the reason for the decline was unclear, I clarified for you: no Admin had felt it appropriate to approve or deny your request based on your statement, and then you saying you'd be gone for another month meant Admins were unlikely to bother responding while you were unavailable. So after 2 months NPR closed it. By letting you file a new request, that puts you back at the top of the list for consideration, so they did you a favor.
 * Also, NPR never said you failed to formulate the request properly, they said you would need to substantially reword your request. That's because just filing the exact same appeal is normally closed without consideration, you need to provide a new explanation for your understanding of what you did wrong & what you will do in the future. At this point, you either need to be patient and wait for an admin to review your request, or go through WP:UTRS if no one takes this up again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , again, no mention was made by NPR about my availability, so all of that is conjecture on your part. What I felt was unclear was why my previous explanation of what I will do differently was insufficient and what guidelines I should utilize when rewording it. This is what I asked to have clarified. You are not helping to do so. Please do not comment here again. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, IIRC the "procedural decline" message is not a custom, typed decline, but a template that is used fairly widely.  Java Hurricane  04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . However, I do wish that I had received a response when I asked why my block received a procedural decline. If there was something wrong with how I worded my request, I would like to have known. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's look at this a different way. I don't know why anyone did whatever they did but it was entirely reasonable for it to be procedural declined because it had been open for 2 months without anyone reviewing it. It's very common for unblock requests which have been open for months to be procedurally declined and while the reviewing admin may not have explicitly offered any clarification, it's dumb waste of everyone's time, and frankly not helping you in anyway to try an get an explanation for why it was procedurally declined when there were good reasons for it to be procedurally declined i.e. open for 2 months with no action. As to why it was open for so long ultimately no one can answer that. Realistically if it's been open for so long, I'm fairly sure a number of admins have come across it. You will need to get each one to say why they didn't take any action. By this stage, there's a fair chance many of them will have forgotten. Some may have even forgotten if they reviewed it. They could look at it again but it's quite likely their feelings now won't perfectly mirror how they felt at the time their reviewed it. Then you'd need to look into why those who didn't review it, didn't review it..... In other words, trying to work out exactly why it was open for so long is not only basically impossible, but even if it was it would be even more of a waste of time.  However the above comments offer some good reasons why it's likely no one bothered. An additional point no one seems to have mentioned. You can maybe tell by this I often offer long replies and comments. However I do understand that means the number of people who read them tends to go down quite significantly. Your unblock request was quite long. Perhaps it needed to be, but in any case it likely reduced the number of admins willing to review.  This also ties into the point others made about you being away. If someone was thinking of tackling you request and then found out you were away. so if they had any questions they couldn't expect to receive a response and by the time you replied they may have to refamiliarise themselves with the details, well their willingness to get involved is likely to go down any more.  Ultimately since as I said, I think we can be fairly sure some admins did at least look at it in part. So it likely also means none of them felt the case was clear enough for a rejection. Although this may not be as positive as it seems, it may simply be they were fairly sure the answer was no, but given the length of your request and the need to review the previous discussion etc to be fair to you, they couldn't bother.  It may also be that people find the organisations you support and views you espouse distasteful enough that they feel they cannot be objective and so left it to others. Or that they're confident you don't belong but in fairness to you feel you need some kind of explanation and again, at least a cursory review of what you said, and they don't want to waste their time. In other words, there can be lots of reasons. As I said, expecting a detailed summary of why your request languished for so long is silly. No one owes you an explanation for why they didn't do something.  Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TL;DR version of the above, if your unblock request has been open for 2 months, don't be surprised if it's procedurally declined. If it's been open for 2 months with no real comment or if it's procedurally declined, it likely means it was not enough to convince any admin who read it to unblock you, but also not enough to easily decline. You can ask for further guidance but if you get none, it's no one's fault. You will need to read the guide to appeals, any discussion leading up to your block, and our policies and guidelines and try and work it out yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , it's pretty amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment for any reviewing admin
I believe this is thread on ANI that led to this editor being blocked.

I'll throw in my $0.02 for any reviewing admin:

We've had enough drama and it's clear that this user stands by their WP:BATTLE mentality. Based on their prior edits and the comments in the unblock requests, it is clear that they are not here to contribute collaboratively with respect for other users.

I think this editor's plea for a community-based unblock forum is just an attempt at finding some populist support and maybe even WP:Wikilawyering. I think his/her edits pushing their POV speak for themselves. I think the community would be much better served if we skipped any requests for a drama-laden community discussion and the admins did their job as they have with previous unblock requests.

Please decline this latest unblock request and remove talk page access for this user. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I will say for the record that yes; that was the thread. Also, I did not make a plea for a community-based unblock forum. I only thought that because my block was imposed after community consensus that any reviewing administrator might decide that the decision as to whether or not I should return should be left up to the community. I think that it is ultimately the decision of whoever the reviewing administrator is as to whether they make the decision themselves or open it up to community discussion. I did not ask for one or the other. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing
Hi there,

I've thread the ANI thread, the long unblock request, the comments about process, and the comments by the user above.

In regards to why it was procedurally closed, I suspect that it was a combination of length but also what I might call "viable appeal, non-viable tone" - in effect, the unblock comes across that while it covers the minimum bases, it screams that the editor will cause further problems down the line.

DN99, I'd like to ask whether you think this edit was purely a tone issue, a "content" issue, and also the soapboxing concerns.

Additionally, a majority of editors in the ANI thread specifically opposed an indefinite block but ultimately backed Iri's due to your interaction during the block discussion. The blocking admin didn't feel you were a systemically problematic editor, but there are major concerns on how you'd handle conflict in the future - which may include attempts by several politically-opposing editors to bait you.

As a further note, I don't see anything by this user that suggests that Talk Page access should in any way be restricted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . The issue there was content. It was written out of frustration with editors who, in my opinion, were advocating unduly harsh penalties in order to kick out a productive editor simply because they disagreed with his views. The post was designed to goad editors who had voted for a topic ban to change their votes to supporting an indefinite block, which at the time I felt was better than receiving a topic ban. I no longer feel that way, and even as I did, it was wrong and stupid to post something like that. As far as future conflict is concerned, the main issue would be for me to moderate my tone and keep a level head, which I failed to do in the diffs cited by the person who opened the AN/I thread. I do not feel that a post-1932 topic ban should be imposed because I do not think that what I have done wrong rises to that level of severity. However, I would abide by one if it is imposed. But even if it is not imposed, I intend to voluntarily limit myself to primarily editing non-contemporary political articles for a time, which lessens the potential for conflict. Display name 99 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd agree that removing TPA here is not appropriate.
 * I'd support an unblock, maybe (very weakly) paired with a topic ban on post-1932 politics. I believe that this would eliminate the potential for disruption.
 * Frankly, it seems like Display Name 99 regrets the behavior that led to the block, understands why it was wrong, and agrees not to repeat it. Not sure what we're preventing at this point. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  02:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since January, WP:AP2 has only covered US politics as far back as 1992 (rather than 1932). I'd be in favour of unblocking, with a TBan covering that topic area; I imagine that with a decent spell of uncontroversial editing after an unblock, the TBan could be successfully appealed. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi DN99, I'm inclined to agree that a TBAN (American Politics, 1992 onwards) - not 1932, as indeed that has changed recently. Would you agree to such a restriction? There's no actual obligation for us to use round numbers, and since SQL thinks the need is less than critical, I would say it could be appealed to the community at WP:AN after 4 months, assuming significant productive editing in other fields. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would reluctantly agree to such a restriction as a condition for my return to editing. Display name 99 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * [Processing unblock - will take about 5 mins]: The user has agreed to a Post-1992 American Politics TBAN, appealable to the Community after 4 months (5th November 2021). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much . As a side note, modern American politics is not my area of most interest. That would actually be early American and medieval history. But it was the area that was causing problems. I hope to edit productively in my other areas of interest and that I will not cause you disappointment. Display name 99 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

revert
Hello Display name 99, Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting. What do you suggest? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , my problem is that the second set of age-enhanced images turned out far too large after your edit so that it covered most of the page. The text is supposed to be the main part of an article; an image that big becomes a distraction. We can see the images perfectly well on the smaller size; they don't need to be that big. Large images are more difficult to load, and that can be a problem for users on slower connections. My problem isn't using px or another the upright setting. But if you're going to use upright, don't make them so large. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert William Fisher
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert William Fisher you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert William Fisher
The article Robert William Fisher you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Robert William Fisher for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert William Fisher
The article Robert William Fisher you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert William Fisher for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 16
Do you have some time to look at my current FAC, above? I'm under pressure to get some reviews from the coordinators. Link is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Yeah, I can get on that. This is right when I'm finally having some activity on the Longstreet review, but in the next day or two I'll hopefully post a review. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Longstreet
You said you were working to clear up the prob of "several cites at the end of a stretch of text" etc. Should I pause before continuing the refs review? ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that I have adequately resolved that problem for the paragraph at the start of July 1-2 as well as the final paragraph of July 3. Can you check to see if there is anything else where you think there is still a problem? There is one stretch of text in the middle of the final paragraph of July 1-2 that is followed by four citations. But all four citations verify the content in the sentences before them. There is now no other spot in the article with more than three citations together. Furthermore, in most places where sources are cited, there are fewer than three. Has this problem been resolved to your satisfaction? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno yet if everything is OK, 'cause I haven't looked. :-) But I will. And I will plow ahead with the plan I described in the first few sentences of my review. But I am getting a little busy now IRL so this may take days. Sorry. &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , please take your time. Your review is helping quite a bit. Display name 99 (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)