User talk:Display name 99/Archive 5

Congratulations

 * , thank you. I sincerely appreciate your help during the process. Display name 99 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on making it through a very detailed FAC! I think that's one of the most intensive FACs I've seen lately. Hog Farm Talk 04:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Your improvements were incredibly helpful. Let me know if you need me to ever take a look at some of your work, although I'm not sure that I can ever help you as much as you helped me. Longstreet was a great man and one of the best generals in the war. He's been treated shabbily by history, so I'm happy I've done a little to rehabilitate him and make both his faults and his achievements more widely known and understood. Display name 99 (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

James Longstreet
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 11, 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/December 11, 2021. Congratulations for your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

james longstreet
hello, Display name 99! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. the article body states that longstreet resigned in may to join the confederacy, while the blurb and article lead both state that he resigned in june. is this a discrepancy that should be resolved? the wert source states that longstreet submitted his letter of resignation in may, but also that it was only accepted in june, so perhaps when he actually resigned depends on one's interpretation of what constitutes a resignation. (by the way, the wert source appears to provide a different date in may than the article body does, and also appears to suggest that his accounts were settled after he submitted his letter rather than before, though i am not entirely sure i am interpreting the source correctly.)

also, since biographical blurbs generally include a date range denoting the subject's lifespan, while this range appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the blurb draft, adding this range has now pushed the blurb about 10 characters beyond the targeted character limit. i had trouble finding characters to cut from the blurb without possibly changing any intended meanings or nuances, and was hoping for some guidance. would it be appropriate to either replace "significantly contributed to" with "took part in", or "was briefly sent to" with "fought in"? alternatively, is there anything else you would prefer to cut instead? dying (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thank you for alerting me to these problems. Yes, these are inconsistencies. I changed the part in the body of the article from saying that he resigned in May to saying that he submitted his resignation letter in May and that it was accepted in June. I think that the statement in the lead and blurb that he resigned in June should be left alone, as that is when his resignation took effect. I changed the date in the article from May 8 to May 9. I am not sure how that mistake happened. Wert says that Longstreet accepted his Confederate commission on May 1, settled his accounts, and then submitted his resignation letter on May 9. I added more information about this to the article.


 * Thank you for pointing these things out. The rest is beyond my area of concern. Display name 99 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * oh, that's interesting. for some reason, it appears that google is not letting me view the page mentioning that his accounts were settled before he submitted the letter.  however, google is letting me read page 53, where it is mentioned that an auditor found a debt of $116.60 that was eventually resolved before longstreet left the service.  admittedly, i had assumed that this debt was found after the letter was submitted since the debt was mentioned later in the same paragraph, and i would surmise that the reason for the audit was the submission of the resignation.  it also seems possible that he settled his accounts twice, one before submitting the letter, and once after the auditor found the unsettled debt, if the debt was found after the letter was submitted.  in any case, thanks for addressing the issue!  dying (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for James Longstreet (below), introduced: "James Longstreet was one of the leading Confederate generals during the American Civil War. Like many Civil War generals, Longstreet graduated from West Point Military Academy, fought in the Mexican-American War, and served on frontier duty. As a Confederate, he rose to become Robert E. Lee's chief subordinate in the Army of Northern Virginia. Longstreet was present at most major Confederate victories during the Civil War, and he nearly always played a decisive role. Longstreet had a tactical preference for the defensive, which at times contrasted with Lee's aggressive style. Longstreet strenuously disagreed with Lee's strategy at multiple times throughout the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. After the war ended, Longstreet supported Reconstruction, unlike most former Confederates. For this he was lambasted as a traitor, and his detractors scrutinized his war record and accused him disloyalty by sabotaging Confederate victory in the war, at Gettysburg and at other instances. Since the late 20th century, Longstreet's reputation has improved among professional historians and the general public. He is now considered one of the war's greatest military commanders."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologises for my edit
Hi, Display name 99, I would like to apologise for the edit I made on James Longstreet. The reason I changed it was because I thought the title didn't represent the section; I thought a note was a paragraph of text that provided elaboration on something that was mention. I did some research after I saw your edit summary and found out I was wrong, a note is the correct term, and that a citation is a reference that has a quotation.

The reason why I didn't discuss it on the talk page or give a reason in my edit summary was because I didn't think my edit was major — I thought I was correcting a mistake – and I had seen other, more experienced, users do the same thing, just stating what they did and just leaving it at that. I had no idea that what I was doing was a big issue. I'm a new-ish user, I'm still learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so I look at some edits that more experienced editors are doing. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Appealing post-1992 Am Pol Topic Ban
Hello. You unblocked me earlier this year with a ban on post-1992 American politics appealable to the community after 4 months, meaning November 5. I would like to make the appeal now. Can you explain how this works? Do I have to start an AN/I thread? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi DN99, you do need to start a thread, although appeals are done at WP:AN rather than ANI, you've certainly been active enough, including an FA. I'd note that it's particularly beneficial for these things to demonstrate efforts specifically in sync with what caused the initial sanctions. Here that would be productive efforts to resolve disagreements. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi There DN99, I was just following up to see if you had appealed this at AN - the creation of an FA, along with a believe a somewhat tough FAC, shows good indication of an excellent rejoining, and not withstanding anything I might have missed, would mean I'd support such an effort. --Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I apologize but I haven't done it yet. I've just been busy. I appreciate your support. I will probably do it this week, maybe even today, just to finally get it finished. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise (even if you decide never to do it!) - just wanted to check because some people view my comment as a polite turning down, so I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

-- Robert William Fisher -- Suggestion
Hello. Your reversion of my semantic/stylistic edit shocked me. The article had many such slip-ups. As to the us of "spawned", please explain! I haven't checked as to your literacy, but assume it is fine, and therefore am gobsmacked. Sorry to sound so bent out of shape by this, but it exceeds anything I've encountered in the past.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , it's simple. The original language was fine. Yours made it no better and in my opinion left the article off slightly worse. I found the phrase "staying unidentified" to be particularly awkward, because if his remains were not identified at the time of his death years after his disappearance, and were subsequently buried, it is highly unlikely that they would have been identified later. I wrote most of the article, including the text which you changed. Some of the other changes that you made were helpful, which is why I did not revert them. But this one, in my judgment, was not. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, 99. Given your authorship, your apparent personality type and our differing exposures to English, we may have some trouble communicating. I'd like to take up my reverted changes with you, point by point, in the coming days. So far, you have offered subjective reasons for your reversions. I appreciate your writing the article about this bizarre case; it is well-structured and clearly narrated. My niggles pertain to wording. Trust me, I'm an educated American. Must do my errands now.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Offering subjective reasons for changes is better than offering no reasons for changes, as has been the case with you up until this point. Also, just to set the record straight, you were the one questioning somebody else's education, not me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disappearance of Lars Mittank
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disappearance of Lars Mittank 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 Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disappearance of Lars Mittank
The article Disappearance of Lars Mittank 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:Disappearance of Lars Mittank for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disappearance of Lars Mittank
The article Disappearance of Lars Mittank you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disappearance of Lars Mittank 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 Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FinnV3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , you have some nerve to call that uncivil after making this comment. Display name 99 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of one of my entries
Can you identify this for me, please. You are probably right but I don't recall making an entry that is unsupported by its content. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , you added content to the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson articles without mentioning its source. All content on Wikipedia articles, aside from the lead section, must have citations. Additionally, I felt that the mentions were not notable. Important figures like these men have been mentioned innumerable times, and it would be immeasurably tedious to try to chronicle each one. The poem didn't seem important enough even if there was a citation. Display name 99 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I must say you are wrong on two counts at least. One, the sources were given directly by links to the poems themselves, which are on Wikisource. No stronger citation exists on any entry. Two, they were written contemporaneously with the deaths of the two statesmen and in response thereto by a major American poet. Both died in 1826 and I did cite that they were published in 1827. Esme Shepherd (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's not how it works. Content on Wikimedia articles can link to each other, but those articles aren't sources. There has to be a citation for everything. See WP:Verifiability. No, you did not cite that they were published in 1827. You wrote it in the article but provided no source for that or anything else. So what if they were written contemporaneously with their deaths? Do you have any idea how many other obituaries and poems must have been written for them? Just because a primary source exists doesn't mean that it's notable. See WP:SUSTAINED. If an event happens and is not widely talked about afterwards, it's not notable to discuss on Wikipedia. If these were very famous poems that were frequently referenced after they were published and a very wide number of Americans read them, we could include them. However, I'm not seeing any evidence to suggest that's the case here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept some of your points, although I was not referencing a Wikipedia article as you state but linking to a source document in Wikisource, which actually includes on its title page the date of publication, title, author, publisher, etc. There does seem to much out there that falls foul of your stipulations. For instance, in the Frédéric Chopin article under literature it is stated 'The earliest manifestation was probably an 1830 sonnet on Chopin by Leon Ulrich.' It is extremely unlikely that this sonnet was any more widely read or talked about than the poems that I referenced and there is certainly no link to source here. There will be thousands of similar instances. Anyway, you are the arbiter, so I must accept your judgment. Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your response, but there are a few things that I need to correct.
 * I said Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. With an m, not a p. Wikimedia includes all Wiki projects, including both Wikipedia and Wikisource.
 * For the Chopin article, that says that he was featured extensively in literature. If that's the case, it may be appropriate to mention the first instance. Adams however has not featured extensively in fictional literature.
 * I'm not an arbiter. True, I'm the main contributor to the article, but editors don't own articles on Wikipedia, so you are still able to contest my actions if you wish. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the confusion. Only you stated I gave no source when quite obviously I did. I quite happy to accept your decision. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your acquiescence, what you have said is false. You provided no source. Do not blame me for your sloppiness. Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say is, I do not know what you mean. I did at least provide, as I mentioned: the date of publication, publisher, author, title of volume, all in the original, as published. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , mentioning information about the publication in the text of an article is not a source. A source is a citation. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand that what I gave was not information about a publication but that very publication itself. Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand, or refuse to accept, basic Wikipedia practice of citing all sources in citations. I skimmed your edit history and you are not a new editor, which makes this rather alarming. Display name 99 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson
I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, you and I disagree on a lot of things regarding the article, we may even disagree on a lot of things in life in general but you are not my enemy in any way. I am not in a hurry to get anything done on that article. As @SandyGeorgia pointed out, think long term. Wikipedia is a marathon, not a sprint. I know the atmosphere has been charged around the article lately and its primarily due to very passionate positions, such as mine. I am a principled person but I am also empathetic and I understand you have put in a lot of hard work and continue to do so trying to find a solution. I know you have experienced stress surrounding the discussion. Everything is going to be okay. Nothing has to happen today or tomorrow. It may not happen for years. The point is to have the discussion and continue open dialogue about it. I appreciate you and your contributions to the encyclopedia. -- A Rose Wolf  13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the message. It's appreciated. I don't see you as an enemy either and appreciate your interest in trying to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Change to Andrew Jackson citation style
Too late to auto-revert, but consider a self-revert of bibliography year-to-date changes incorporating your proceeding minor change, as per CS1 documentation: "year: Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged; use the more flexible |date= parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met: 1. The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD. 2. The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator." It's not a change to citation style per MOS, as it's a change to the template source per documentation which doesn't change the style or functionality itself. If it's not changed here it will be changed by bots at some point in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I copy directly from Template:Citebook. That template has date instead of year. I see no reason to alter it. I undid the change because it appeared no explanation was provided. So long as the default template of "cite book" uses "date," I think that it is fine to add that to the article. I've used "date" on citations for years on articles that I've edited, and it seems no bot has changed them yet. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm color-blind apparently and got your revision inverted. Date is the correct field. Disregard and/or delete. Sorry. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert at Andrew Jackson
Wrt your edit summary ''There is an active discussion on the talk page. Please propose changes there rather than making them directly to the article'': Please respond to my contributions on the talk page, made just before and after my edit on the article. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , please see my post there. The editor who removed the content before you came was in the wrong; disputed content should remain until there is a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

For future reference
The discussion at ANI is closed and I am not offended, however, I would like to point out that I am, in fact, not a "he" but a "she" and would appreciate not being misgendered going forward. Thank you. -- A Rose Wolf  16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for that. If and when we have any future interaction, I will attempt to remember it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. -- A Rose Wolf  16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf I don't mind the ANI thread closing, and I was just trying to give Display name 99 advice. However, I do think it deserved to be because it kind of got sidetracked and awfully long. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you told this person about what pronouns to use and they listened. Thanks, Display name 99! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite partial block from Andrew Jackson, Talk:Andrew Jackson
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing, including a perennial lack of WP:CIVIL conduct, edit warring and WP:BLUDGEONING (even at WP:ANI). Enough is enough. Even at a glance, you're approaching the article and talk page with undue entitlement and combativeness, and an overall uncollaborative approach. Assurances from you that this will be corrected is necessary in order to see this block lifted. BTW, I want to preemptively ask that you appeal and otherwise engage the matter here (WP:PING if needed) or at ANI, rather than on my talk page (I say that because that's what usually happens with p-blocks). If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm thinking you should quit while you're behind. You've been indeffed twice. In 2015, you were given a "second chance" before you were indeffed again. Many admins would call that done - indef period. I'm thinking it's a decent chance that any reviewing admin might change this specific block to a broader, [perhaps well-earned] indef block. You're wasting a ton of everyone's time at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I fail to see how. I have asked many times for specific examples of misconduct by me on the pages from which I've been blocked. I received belatedly only one example of an uncivil comment made against an editor who was consistently obnoxious and disruptive. This, in my mind, is not even close to a good enough reason to block me from these articles. Multiple examples of gross misconduct are needed. They have not been provided. Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, how about this, from your own talk page archive? If you recall it was based on your comments in this discussion on Trump.  It would seem that the part where [you were] supposed to give a damn has long since passed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What about it? An incident at an unrelated page from almost two years ago has nothing to do with the current issue. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it shows that your attitude and behaviour have not really changed in two years, so the current issue should not really have come as a surprise to anybody, least of all you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment for any reviewing admin
For any reviewing admin, this might be a relevant read, along with the mess above it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps this one, in which an administrator rejected your vengeful and wildly inappropriate suggestion that my talk page access be blocked and unblocked me. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear - you were only unblocked because you (reluctantly) agreed to stay away from the topics that caused your block in the first place... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. And I have. Your point? Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Point is that your unblock from the admin was unrelated to the suggested blocking of your talk page by an editor, so what's your point in bringing it up? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I am not aware that making a comment about a contemporary statesman in a discussion about an article outside of my topic ban would be considered a breach of that topic ban. An editor argued that admiration for Jackson as an advocate for democracy and the common man was no longer mainstream. I believe that Trump's respect for Jackson is a counterargument. It seems like an unfair handicap for me to not be allowed to mention that. I've stayed away from articles about contemporary U.S. politics. That should be good enough. Telling me that a post-1992 American politics topic ban means that I need to stay away from an article about a president who died in 1845 is a little ridiculous.


 * , the other editor linked to his post advocating that my talk page access be blocked. That's why I brought it up. I'm a little bit annoyed by an editor coming to my talk page once asking for an unblock request to be declined and my talk page access to be blocked, and then showing up over a year later without any interaction in between to talk about a broad indefinite block. It's not all too different from what you're doing. Display name 99 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:TBAN? Please do so, and then let me know if you think you didn't breach your ban. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I probably have. But it's been a while. Now that I've looked at it, I see that I did breach it. It was not intentional, but I will not make that mistake again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging that. This is one of the issues that people with editing restrictions sometimes run up against - you start out discussing one thing, and the discussion shifts its ground leaving them exposed. If you find that happening, you need to know when to step back and leave the discussion to others. While the TBan remains in place, any discussion about politicians who have been active since 1992 - including their likes and dislikes, who they admire, their recent tenure and whether or not they are planning to seek office again, is entirely off limits. The same goes for what everyday adherents of their political views think (since the ban applies not to politicians, but to the whole area of politics). Be cautious about approaching the limits of your ban; WP:Broadly construed is worth looking at. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  09:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Goodness me - you're "a little bit annoyed"? I missed the part where I was supposed to give a damn about that...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , in that case, what are you still doing on my talk page? Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean I don't give a damn about the fact you're annoyed for me bringing up another example of your behaviour and attitude. I'm here because I thought it was an interesting and relevant window into the fact that what's happening right here and now has been an issue in the past as well - although I have to admit just from your talk page, it was pretty obvious. In a very loose sense, WP:IRL is applicable here - you shouldn't be annoyed that something you did in the past is coming back to bite you, especially if past behaviour is not dissimilar to current behaviour. Anyway, I'm done here, feel free to respond with the last word if you wish. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I also told the user to reconsider their behavior, I mean, they shouldn't dismiss criticism if it's not on the same level as a sentence like "you suck, go fuck off douche". Notified of it disappoints me - if they also are gonna attack other people in WP:ANI and then claim replies towards their behavior are "defaming", how many times am I gonna say "dude, please rethink yourself"?? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I get Display name 99 had this behavior go on for 2 years, but that's no excuse to continuously act like this, attack other editors, get into a dispute and become self-defensive. As much as I don't trust defending yourself from tame criticism, changing is the best idea in this very site.
 * Just my two cents regarding this situation. Until further notice, this is just what I think. I'm not taking sides, I just agree with people and think dismissing criticism just... hinders improvement, you know? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , the ANI thread began with my criticism of an editor involved in a content dispute. Although some of my initial post was worded too harshly, none of it was on the same level as "you suck, go fuck off douche." And yet I have been widely criticized for it and blocked from editing the article and talk page on which the dispute originated. In that case, instead of criticizing me, you should probably be defending me and encouraging other editors to listen to what I have to say. Display name 99 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm lost on the ANI thread, but judging by what you said, I'm glad you confessed you were harsh. I'm not gonna be defending you yet if it means you're saying this to me. Plus, I'm struggling with what to say here, since growth comes from learning from your mistakes.
 * Yes, being harsh once can be a mistake. But you need to be wary of yourself before you convince others to know you're worth defending. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

unblock|reason=I was indefinitely blocked from editing the Andrew Jackson article and talk page as a result of this ANI thread. I am respectfully asking that the block be lifted. I have been editing the Andrew Jackson article for several years. I brought it to featured article status and have helped to maintain it at what I believe to be a high quality ever since. In late July, an editor made a change to the lead that was challenged by another editor and myself, and this has led to a content dispute at the article which has now spiralled on for about one and a half months and involved dozens of editors.

I have been accused by several editors of displaying an attitude of WP:Ownership, uncollaborativeness, and uncivil behavior. I believe that these charges are mostly lacking in foundation. For an editor who has a problem with ownership, things have to be the way that they want and there can be no compromises. That has not been my attitude at the article at all. During the controversy, as results in the RfC deadlocked, I proposed two compromise solutions on the talk page. In both cases, I gave up substantial ground in the interest of respecting the views of other editors and finding a solution. The proposals did not gain consensus, and I made no attempt to force them into the article. That is not indicative of someone displaying ownership behavior. I filed an ANI report against an editor who I believe repeatedly interfered with discussion on the talk page and made disruptive edits to the article. I have acknowledged that some of the language that I used towards that editor was inappropriate and intemperate. I regret that, but I do not believe that any of it rises to the level of warranting an indefinite block from the article and the talk page.

Although a few things that I said were in poor judgement, I believe that the block was inappropriate. The block cites “perennial disruption at both the article and talk page.” No specific examples were cited. At the ANI thread, I asked for examples, and eventually, the blocking administrator gave me one example of an uncivil comment on the talk page. No other examples of misbehavior on the talk page, and not a single example of a disruptive edit to the article itself, were given. While the comment that was cited was improper, that by itself is grossly insufficient to verify the charge of “perennial disruption at both the article and talk page.” Additionally, I feel that I have been treated unfairly in the ANI discussion. The contributions of the editor whom I accused of disruptive editing were not investigated, as most editors preferred to fixate on a few ill-advised remarks that I made towards that person that were the result of weeks of frustration in dealing with their unconstructive behavior. Uncivil comments and blatant POV-pushing comments made by other editors at both the article talk page and in the ANI thread were ignored when I brought attention to them. The editors who rejected compromise proposals that were representative of the split views in both the sources and the RfC and thus prolonged the dispute were not reprimanded. While it is within their right to reject these compromises, the fact that I proposed them and they rejected them undermines the charge of ownership against me, and makes my punishment more unfair.

In sum, I used some language in a few places that I understand was not good. But I believe that my conduct is not the main problem at the article, and that, in general, my approach has been one of collaboration and cooperation with other editors. I ask that I be allowed to once again be able to participate in contributing to the article that I have brought to featured article status and helped maintain. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admin: please review my earlier decline when considering this new request, and the discussion I had with DN99 afterwards. The comments they made in the discussion that led to their block were a clearcut violation of an active TBAN (and I'm not sure that it would have been possible for them to engage in that discussion without breaching the TBAN). I personally think that they would have done better to address that in their unblock request. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , you may be right that it would not have been possible for me to engage in that discussion without violating the topic ban. However, that is the first time in years in which I can recall contemporary politics being discussed at the article. Should such a situation come up again, I will withdraw from the discussion. But because that subject arises so rarely, I think that it should be seen as a minor issue. Display name 99 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it was not that discussion itself but the ANI thread that directly led to the block. The blocking administrator made no mention of my unintentional breach of my topic ban. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these additional comments. I will now leave it for another admin to review. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the unblock request template after almost three weeks without a response, but left the post here as a record. Display name 99 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

David Cox
Sorry about that, the link should, of course, have been to David Cox (artist) as indicated by the plate itself 'Artist: David Cox. Engraved by W. Taylor'. I have corrected this in Tehri Garhwal district and added a citation. Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea what you're talking about or why you brought that to my attention, but okay. Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Just following a link I was given. Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I saw the box...
Wikipedia has become a "toxic place"? It's just a long paragraph mentioning how you've been restricted from editing Andrew Jackson. I can't blame other users for quitting based off of others doing disruptive edits, but blaming it for its toxicity regarding how its editors are handling things are too much of a stretch. If they're "POV-pushing", I'd word it more that they need to do things better.

I can't believe I have to say this, but it's true. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Or, hell, express disappointment all you want, but "toxic"...? I know Display name 99 did get grumpy at times and targeted other users to the point of making threads about them, but still, concerning behavior - c'mon now. Apparently Girth Summit also mentioned they have wanted to bypass their topic ban more than once, so I'm concerned if they're frustrated with the site... because they focus on their own perspective and not other editors'. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the tone of this post is unfocused and rambling. I can't even tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure that I care, but I just wanted you to know that your messages here are basically incomprehensible. Display name 99 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, so let me sum myself up:
 * "Calling Wikipedia toxic in your box above your talk page seems like a stretch, you had concerning behavior and targeting other users, and I mentioned how Girth Summit said you tried to bypass topic bans."
 * I thought you fully left, so that's why I didn't refer directly to you. Call me cynical all you want, but I hope you realize you can be disappointed, but also need to leave a better impression on this site. I'm not sure if it's because of edit disputes between the one topic you're into, but that's all I ask for. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , You're not making any sense. You say "I thought you fully left, so that's why I didn't refer directly to you." In that case, why are you still on here pestering me and pinging me on someone else's talk page? Go the fuck away. Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm late, but alright. I'll go. I won't bring this up ever again if that's more your thing. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , the fact that you posted anything on my talk page after my last message says a lot about you. Your attitude is incredibly self-righteous and vastly overestimates how much people want to hear you speak. Your dishonesty is also striking. GirthSummit said that I violated my topic ban, but never said that I tried to do so. In fact, it was clear from our discussion above that I said that the violation was unintentional. That editor also never said that I did it more than once but only brought up one specific violation. So in addition to behaving with an incredible sense of arrogance, you are also a liar. Since I apparently wasn't clear enough last time, I'll try again: get the fuck off my talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I was surprised by the box and thought you needed advice. Don't call me names, cause it's not necessary, and besides, I'm just gonna move on from this. See WP:CIVILITY or somethin', and maybe try to talk it out in a calmer manner. Again, bye! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling you names is necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions
Hello, and thanks for the discussion at Adams. An aspect of this is that short descriptions are a relatively new thing, and they have no guideline or policy. The page being quoted as a guideline is a supplemental information page that actually has nothing that it's supplementing (at least that I could find or am aware of). The short descriptor had also been added and then reverted at the Washington, Jefferson, and Madison pages, so either a "decision" at Adams should hold for all of them, or a time-consuming but possibly interesting RfC can be held for the four pages. In any case, thanks for your attention to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also see you were very active on the Andrew Jackson page, thank you for that. The Andrew Jackson navbox is relatively new, can you take a look at it and see if anything is missing, out of place, or any other suggestions, thanks. I enjoyed your opening statement about the site, yes, many present-day pages and even older pages tend greatly towards non-neutrality but there is little to do about them if they are well-guarded by a group of editors. I tend to keep away from these and hopefully time and journalism will correct their approach. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I observed the same problem on the Ulysses S. Grant article. The short description there mentions only his presidency even though he, uniquely among American presidents, was more notable for what he did before he became president than for his time holding that office. That doesn't make sense to me. I agree; if the description is changed at the Adams article, then these other articles should be opened up for change.


 * I did keep tight watch over the Jackson page, as I did over several other pages, but amid a content dispute that erupted at Jackson last year, that sort of guardianship that I exercised was instead labelled "ownership," and so I was blocked from the page. I don't think that I will ever be very active here again. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd thought of Grant, as well as Eisenhower, but couldn't think of how to word them. It's hard to try to keep a major page such as Jackson on track, so not surprising you tried and were blocked - congratulations on your work on it. That's why I asked if you'd check the Jackson navbox from September, 2022 Andrew Jackson, as it might benefit from your knowledge of the topic. I hope you stick around, maybe edit one or some of the American founders pages, which will be coming up on their 250th anniversary dates this year (Boston Tea Party kicks those off in December) and for years afterwards. Hopefully the 250th anniversary of the U.S. will be fully celebrated across the nation. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is appreciated. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Knock it off
Hi - I'm just coming back from a few days away from the project, and noticed this comment on 's talk. Look, WP:ADMINACCT sets out that admins are expected to be accountable for their actions, and to respond promptly to civil queries concerning their admin actions. That is not the same as saying that they are expected to put up with uncivil comments downright abuse from disgruntled editor about something they have done. You obviously still think that the block was invalid, despite the fact that your requests for it to be lifted have been declined multiple times, but you remain at liberty to edit in other areas, and to request an unblock from that page if you believe that you have demonstrated that you can do so once more without causing disruption. Be advised, however, that you are on thin ice: further comments of that nature will likely result in your block being converted into a site-wide one. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , El C's block summary accuses me of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page." On my talk page, he said that I was guilty of, among other things, edit warring. He cited no specific examples of my behavior at the Andrew Jackson article or talk page, and when I asked him to do so, gave only one example of an uncivil comment on the article talk page. This one example was, I have said several times, grossly insufficient to justify the charge of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page," let alone edit warring. Nevertheless, El C obstinately refused to provide any additional evidence to justify his indefinite page block. Indefinitely blocking an editor from an article-especially one which they edited extensively and brought to featured article status-and refusing to provide examples of the reasons given for the block, is an atrocious abuse. Additionally, he admitted that he did not bother to investigate the allegations that I made against an editor in the ANI thread that led to the block, which makes it impossible for him to fairly judge my comments towards that person. I believe that El C arbitrarily employed his power to punish an editor for whom he has conceived a dislike. Most likely, he refused to justify his rationale for blocking me because he cannot do so. Against so enormous a crime, I consider my remarks towards him fully justified.


 * I don't feel that my unsuccessful unblock attempts reflect in any significantly bad way upon me. The first administrator to decline my request didn't even bother to elaborate on why he did it, which I regard as a further sign of disrespect. You declined my request for a legitimate reason but one which, in my view, was totally beside the point and which should have been overlooked. And I can't help that nobody even bothered to answer the last one.


 * Disruptive editors and renegade administrators are the problem, not me. Display name 99 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not read the above, sorry. There are appropriate ways to make such a complaint (eg an unblock request, or a thread at AN for example), and there are inappropriate ways (eg random snarky shit on the admin's talk). You are still at liberty to do the former. You have been warned what will happen if you repeat the latter. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , you are totally full of shit. I did do those things. I made an ANI thread about another editor, but that led to me being blocked, and nothing happened when I complained about the block there. And as you well know, I filed three unblock requests. The fact that you responded to my post without even reading it demonstrates you to be someone acting in bad faith and with a high level of disrespect. It seems that you are little to no better than El C. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have already tried those things unsuccessfully. That does not mean that you have license to abuse people on their talk pages. You remain at liberty to have another go at them, and to do a better job of it. Self-reflection, contrition, demonstrating that you can work collaboratively - those are far more likely to work than the righteous indignation and snark that have tried so far.
 * Now, I don't really care what you think of me, and I'm not particularly concerned about you venting at me on your own talk, but you should be aware that your last post contained personal attacks against me of the sort that I would block you for if you directed them at anyone else. You cannot speak to people like that here. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've just recently met you and don't want to lose you as a fellow editor so quickly. Please calm down about Jackson even though you may be right about a misblock. Combative language usually boomarangs as people then don't even take the main points into consideration but just jump into the combat. I came by to ask if you'd like to go ahead with the short descriptors at Grant and Eisenhower, maybe start a discussion at the Grant talk page? Or maybe just go with "American Civil War general and 18th president" and see if it sticks or is reverted? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see you here, . I don't believe we've ever interacted, but yours is a name I recognise and respect. I hope that DN99 will be responsive to your good advice, and that your positive example will inspire him to be collegiate in his interactions with others. I also do not want to lose him as a contributor, I just want him recognise that leaving abuse on admins' talk pages - even when you are in dispute with them over their actions - is not OK. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, good to hang out with you too. If you respect me you are mistaken (ha!), but thank you. And right back at you. Display name has done some recent good work at some of the first president's pages, and hopefully knows there's much more than Andrew Jackson to edit. Even Jackson-related pages would be open for him to edit I think. I don't know what happened at Jackson, but is it possible for Display to list changes that he thinks are needed in the Jackson article somewhere (here, there, anywhere) so others can consider them? Thanks. Abusing an admin? Unheard of, he would be the first! Ha. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have said elsewhere (no reason why you would know this, just reiterating the fact that I have not set out to muzzle this editor) that DN99 is subject to a partial block, not a TBan. As such, he is at liberty to make suggestions about improvements to that page, provided that those suggestions do not transgress his TBan from AmPol. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  23:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please keep discussions civil and do not make personal attacks like against. It seems you have been warned about this many times already. &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late, but thank you. That's a reason I'm not contributing here anymore, unless something important, related or otherwise happened. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)