User talk:Hilltrot/Archive 1

Archiving stuff so that people don't have go through so much stuff. I'm mainly putting stuff which is not longer relevant here.

June 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russo-Georgian war, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please don't remove reliably-sourced content because you don't like it.  Mini  apolis  19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did give a valid reason LIBEL. Do you support Libel in Wikipedia?Hilltrot (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
Hi, regarding your recent edit in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine - I'm also very doubtful about reliability of Bild reporting on FBI and CIA, but it was reported by Bild that itself is generally considered a verifiable source. The paragraph also contains dementi from German administration, so for sake of NPOV this should be probably left there. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bild is considered a "tabloid". Read WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia follows policies, therefore I think you should familiarise yourself with them. In the case by case evaluation recommended, the allegations you've added are refuted by Der Zeit in an official statement, therefore the length and detail of the claims you added is neutralised by a short sentence at the end of a diatribe (or false balance) from WP:POV sources therefore, in terms of WP:BALASPS, your addition is WP:UNDUE. I suggest you read the relevant talk page (this goes for any article in order to establish whether issues have been addressed before) and take your questions there. Hilltrot has already left a missive on the relevant talk page regarding his removal of the information. I, too, have addressed the issue there, as have other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iryna. You are far better at diplomacy than I am.Hilltrot (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about it, and there's really no reason that Bild and RT aren't reliable. Yes, for now the CIA and FBI is just unconfirmed speculation, but it was a story covered in reliable newspapers. Thus, there's no reason why it shouldn't be here as long as we take extra caution for neutrality. I plan to restore it. (Oh and BTW, please dispense with your anti-Russian POV. I'm a westerner just like you, but I do care about Wikipedia's neutrality.) RGloucester  — ☎ 08:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Comment from a sock puppet of L'Aquotique named RGloucaster, not by RGloucester


 * No reason to Believe RT is not reliable? Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are.  RT news had Jack Worthington spend 30 FULL minutes on their LIVE TV as a U.S. expert on Ukrainian affairs and had the gall to introduce him as an Investment Analyst.  LOL ROFL LOL.  You can't get more ludicrous or silly as RT.  And they have gotten worse since their inception - not better.  If you don't know anything and only watch RT, I guess you could get fooled.
 * I was thinking about doing a full blown explanation lasting 300,000 words but I'll try to limit it to one facet at this time. Why do you think the U.S. press would not cover this?  When RT news slandered one innocent American claiming that he single-handedly started the Russo-Georgian War, the U.S. news organizations all looked into it.  The U.S. press love nothing more than a story like this.  It sells newspapers, advertising and makes them tons of money - not to mention the prestige of being the first to confirm the rumor of a secret U.S. military force in Ukraine.  And then they get to rub it into the faces of the other news organizations who wouldn't run the story.  And the size?! 400 troops are impossible to hide in Ukraine.  No bodies have turned up.  No English speaking Americans wearing body armor and carrying weapons.  No prisoners.  No American soldiers visiting the local bar.  Hell, even our Secret Service agents get drunk at bars and hire prostitutes in foreign countries.  Do you really think 400 U.S. mercenaries are better behaved?  Seriously?
 * Not only would there be ample evidence of !?400?! U.S. mercenaries supposedly there for FOUR months now. . . there would be ample reason for one of our 50+ respected newspapers and 10+ separate News networks to not just do one story, but several. I've seen tons of stories on the food we've given to Ukraine. In order to believe that the U.S. has not covered this "true" story, you'd have to craft a conspiracy theory on the scale of the 9-11 conspiracy theories which believe that empty planes were crashed into empty twin towers with mannequins being thrown out the windows.
 * Oh yes, did I mention that RT news regularly published 9-11 truther nonsense. And you believe RT news is valid?
 * There is a very simple reason why no U.S. news organization will touch this story. It not true.  Not only that, it's blatantly untrue.  It's not worth their loss of reputation to reprint this nonsense.  People would stop reading, watching, or listening to them.  This would cause them to lose ad revenue and profits.  They would go out of business.
 * Now a dozen or so mercenaries? That might be a story ignored simply for being too small.  But 400?  Pundits were discussing 200 new troops in Iraq for days.  And these weren't even controversial.  400 secret U.S. mercenaries would merit news coverage in the U.S. and we have tons of news organizations - many who are openly hostile to the President and Ukraine.  Think of it this way.  If I quoted a "reliable" newspaper in India  saying that 400 Russian tanks had crossed over into Ukraine, you'd think what?!  What if the Ukrainian government was the only other source for this information?  Even with the lack of freedom of speech that Russia has you'd think that there would have to be some mention of it.  Now lets say 4 months pass.  No video, no burned out tanks, no tanks rolling through town or the countryside.  No evidence of them being there. None.  Would you still insist that there had to be some truth to the story?  Really?
 * If you think all U.S. press is rosy about the Ukrainians and supportive of our government read this tidbit from Patrick L. Smith. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/11/hypocrisy_incompetence_and_cold_inhumanity_ukraine_heads_for_its_most_gruesome_hour/

"First of all, there is the on-the-record part. Remember those visits CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Biden paid to Kiev in the early spring? It is plain enough now what those conversations concerned. Washington has sent Kiev $23 million in “security assistance,” as a June 4 fact sheet from the White House puts it, since March. Military equipment just shy of weapons is the cleaner phrase. When Kiev’s troops began the civil war against eastern rebels in April, they were wearing American-issue goggles, helmets and other “non-lethal individual tactical gear.” (I simply cannot resist a good American euphemism.)

So we equipped the coup-makers, which is against U.S. law, while pretending to a detached desire for an equitable settlement. This stuff is not lost on the Russians, or the Europeans — only on we Americans."


 * Yes, we have some PoS Ukrainian haters in the U.S. And this was just yesterday.  He's been spewing hate since this thing started.  Now if there was any truth to there being 400 secret U.S. mercenaries in the Ukraine, don't you think he'd mention it.  Don't you?


 * That wasn't even one of our reliable NPOV news sources. This happens to be a left of left-wing web-only opinion piece.


 * I could go on and on, but you from what I can tell from some of your edits, it seems like the U.S. is a different planet to you. Might I suggest watching the movie Lincoln for just a little primer on U.S. government culture?  I think it would help you with your edits and understanding.  And remember that Lincoln had the most powerful presidency in our history.  Hell, I'll recommend the movie to everyone.  Though if you have more time, you can read the book the movie is based on, I guess.  It's a Spielberg movie - unless you're a Jew-hater you gotta love it. LOL.Hilltrot (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I look at many different news sources: CNN, RT, Fox, BBC, just to name a few, so I'm not Russia-biased. Additionally, the fact that it hasn't been picked up by anyone else is irrelevant. In the 70s, the US engaged in secret bombings of Cambodia for months before anybody found out about it, so this is frankly no different. You're trying to police this article like you've got blind loyalty to Obama and the EU, while thinking that Russia and her allies are automatically bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm American too, and I generally sympathize with the US. But I don't worship the western media like some people do, and I don't always agree with absolutely everything our government does. I'm more open-minded than that and I'm just trying to keep the fucking article neutral like Wikipedia policy states that we should. Russia isn't always wrong and the West isn't always right. Get that through your head. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Comment from a sock puppet of L'Aquotique named RGloucaster, not by RGloucester


 * "Russia isn't always wrong and the West isn't always right. Get that through your head." This isn't the right way to convince people. Don't cuss out the article. It never did anything to you. :)


 * The reason why I thought you weren't in the U.S. was because you rewrote my US President to American president. And if you wandered around where there are immigrants and people from the other American countries, calling our president the American president is insulting.  I'm surprised you haven't ever been corrected by someone.  I sure was corrected several times by several different people.  Your change of wording also implied a Parliamentary system as oppose to a check and balance system where the president has power all his own separate from the legislative.  And then there were the corrections to British spellings.  (I know the article is listed as British, but . . .)  I apologize for my misunderstanding.


 * I do not sympathize with the U.S. in this matter. I sympathize with Ukraine.


 * Cambodia . . . well, I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. The bombing I believe you're talking started on the 18th of March 1969.  On the 9th of May 1969, an article exposing it was printed in the New York Times.  That's less than two months.  Now bear in mind, this was how long it took to find out during an active full blown war with over half a million U.S. troops.  North Vietnam kept silent about the bombing and Cambodia did as well.  In addition, this President had to resign to prevent himself from being impeached for breaking the law.  Plus, this is being done in the middle of nowhere where no one has been before.  I think the U.S. press did a mighty good job considering the circumstances.  I don't see how this is in any way comparable to Ukraine.


 * There are no U.S. troops in Ukraine. If there were 50,000 U.S. troops in Ukraine, I can see how 400 U.S. Mercenaries could get lost in the mix.  But there are no U.S. troops in the Ukraine.  If you've been to Ukraine you'd know that not only is everyone white, everyone's the same shade of white!  Americans stick out so badly it's pitiful.  Did the U.S. mercenaries make sure they only hired certain colored people?  And journalists are all over the place.  This is why we get to see the rebel speeches.  This is why we get to see Ukrainian Soldiers in body armor from the U.S.  This is why we get interview from soldiers from Russia.  I don't think you understand just how difficult it would be to keep this a complete secret.  It is not even remotely the same as Cambodia.  You're saying an apple is an orange.  This is an absolutely clueless comparison.


 * Remember Somalia and how the Marines were met at the shore by a horde of reporters? You have to be completely disconnected from reality if you think that reporters wouldn't be all over Ukraine looking for FOUR HUNDRED U.S. mercenaries if there were any chance of them being there.


 * Next comes why? Why would the U.S. send 400 Mercenaries to Ukraine?  Do you remember our response to Georgia?  Who joined our coalition of the willing in Iraq?


 * U.S. "We don't like what you did. We're going to sanction a couple of people."
 * Russia "We don't like you sanctioning us. We're not going to let you adopt our children anymore."
 * U.S. "Ok, good. That's over with. We were wanting a big Oil exploration contract with you. Did you say wanted to hold an Olympics in Sochi?"


 * You really think the U.S. cares more about Ukraine than Iraq? Obama will sponsor 400 secret mercenaries in Ukraine risking an actual reason for impeachment while sending only 200 additional troops to Iraq?  Iraq which provides the world with a ton of Oil would drop the price of gas at the pump and help in the coming midterm elections?  But he's going to send more troops to Ukraine and he's going to do it in secret which wouldn't stay a secret for long. ..


 * I do not have blind loyalty. You are blatantly lying to try to win a point. I present mountains of evidence.  You presented a small tidbit of skewed information.  I presented three things which showed RT was a lousy source. You responded to none of them.  I told you how U.S. mercenaries would be easily found.  You responded to none of this.  In fact, if anyone is blind, it's you!


 * You have not demonstrated the existence of these fictional soldiers in any way whatsoever. You talk past me. You call me names.  And write only one sentence in refutation.  Are you going to start talking sensibly?Hilltrot (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The NPOV thing. I seen this quite a bit.  The argument goes "Can't I say something stupid as long as I quote someone else denying that it is true?"


 * "Can't I say that experts believe that 9/11 was a hoax and that no one actually died as long as I say that other experts disagree?"


 * "Can't I say that JFK was killed by Cuban Radicals with machine guns on the grassy knoll as long as I say that other experts disagree?"


 * "Can't I say that Russia had proof that the Moon landings never happened as long as I say other people disagree?"


 * "Can't I say that the Holocaust never happened and was made up by the Jewish Conspiracy to discredit Hitler as long as I say other people disagree?"


 * "Can't I say that Obama is a Homosexual Kenyan-Born Muslim as long as I say other people disagree?"


 * "Can't I say all Muslims are terrorists as long as I say other people disagree?"


 * I could go on and on. There are actually more sources for the above nonsense than the 400 US mercenaries nonsense. The only NPOV way of presenting nonsense is to categorically call it nonsense.


 * Example: Jewish Conspiracy nuts are those idiots who say such nonsense as "the Holocaust never happened and was made up by the Jewish Conspiracy to discredit Hitler."


 * Now, at first, you might think that "Hey that's not NPOV!" But if think carefully, you'll know that it is the NPOV.  People who believe in the Jewish conspiracy are nuts and idiots.  Do you believe that they are sane and intelligent, truthfull, well-educated people?  They do spout nonsense.  Are they telling sensible things?


 * So if this is the NPOV way of presenting nonsense, why present it at all? Is it really worth your effort?  I'm going to write a book about Queen Elizabeth and include a chapter or two of incredible nonsense about her like "She worships the devil" and "She has sex with dogs."  Some Spaniards didn't like her after all and although all evidence shows that it's rubbish, I'll include a special chapter of nonsense like this just because.


 * Just don't include it.Hilltrot (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'll try to keep this brief. I wouldn't have any objections to the inclusion of these allegations if I hadn't examined various reports surrounding them, not simply the "Bild" article. If you care to check, all the reportage is mirroring the "Bild" article which states, The agents were not directly involved in the fighting with the pro-Russian militias in the Eastern Ukraine. Their activity is limited to the capital, Kiev. The FBI agents help the Kiev transitional government in addition to combat organized crime in the country: a corporation specializing in financial investigations group of investigators and analysts of the U.S. federal police to the assets of the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych track. This has lead to articles elaborating on the subject by introducing speculative 'ties' in a slipshod form, such as The Moscow Times; RT, and culminating in the tabloid hysteria of VoR. All roads lead back to "Bild", yet none can point to anything outside of the role being played by the FBI in tracking Yanu's assets.


 * Personally, I'd be stunned and amazed if US intelligence agencies actually were merely following their proscribed agenda. That, however, is not for us to speculate over. If you consider journalism mirroring and turning information from a single source on its head WP:V and WP:RS, add the info. I, however, will not accept it purely because is WP:NOT. I'd rather wait for the scholarly research to come out. (P.S. "Bild" is considered a tabloid. Even there, they did not make the broader, sweeping allegations that have been tossed into the mix).


 * In the meantime, I will keep my eyes open for more convincing reports regarding the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hilltrot: you need to get with the program, my brother. And fast. You have an obvious temper problem, which is causing you to blatantly revert other people's actions in the name of your personal political bias. You can potentially get blocked for this sort of juvenile behavior, so I'd recommend unplugging the computer, taking a walk, and returning after you've read up on our policies regarding edit warring and neutrality. Thank you. 92.222.153.153 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm being impersonated here by a L'Aquotique sockpuppet. I haven't made any comments on this page, and I support Hilltrot's removal as much as anyone else. I'm surprised no one caught that, as it isn't something I'd likely say, and his/her tone is quite different from mine. I'm also British, not American… RGloucester  — ☎ 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Someone from France logged in just to defame you?   Is your ego that big? To be honest, I'd be surprised if Iryna is even reading this anymore.  As I've tried to explain, this page is really meant for people to talk to me.  From my multiple "forgot to sign in" edits, one can easily see I'm not from France.


 * I only was able to pinpoint the sockpuppet to Northern France. You obviously are better at this than I am.


 * I have deleted a single falsehood from your article. That's it.  I had consensus from several people in several articles concerning this particular deletion and multiple "thank you's" from a number of sources.  Sometimes I don't even make the deletion or correction myself.  I just present my argument.  And I have given ample reason for the deletion I have made.  Ample.  I have been patient beyond belief and repeated the same arguments I have made before just for you!


 * You have attacked my single sentence addition with a viciousness I have never seen before. You attack a tense which has been used throughout the article.  In fact, in the sentence right before it.  You insist on "American president Barack Obama" despite the Wikipedia MOS and the actual "common usage" as I've shown in the Wikipedia articles.


 * You misrepresent where you are from and your actual POV. You're not even being truthful.


 * You revert to repeated and unsubstantiated name calling because you can't win the argument. And then you end up threatening me.  Is this how you win arguments?Hilltrot (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Indenting Hilltrot (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the trouble that you've had to endure, but I haven't done any "name-calling". Please don't mistake me for the sock-puppet. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique and MOS:JOBTITLES (with regard to "American"). I'm not saying YOU are a sock-puppet. I'm saying that all the edits on this page that claim to be "mine" are actually from a sock-puppet account, . Do you want to know why this sock-puppet started targeting me? It is because a while ago, I removed the very section on the "CIA and FBI" that you removed again. I support the removal! I've argued for the unreliability of Russia Today to no end at the WP:RS/N. Please don't mistake me for the sock-puppet! RGloucester  — ☎ 03:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * is absolutely correct. Please check the history of your page, as well as the history on the Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique investigations page. The user has been overwriting comments both here and on that page by creating an account resembling mine (Iryna Harpey, then simply cutting and pasting/appending Richard's signature. L'Aquotique is the same person who trolled the RM on the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine talk page. There are always socks re-emerging on Wikipedia, but I've seldom encountered one who is so persistent and prolific in creating new accounts. I'm going to check through for any remaining dupes lurking around (plus a thank you to who is in the process of cleaning up after the sock as I type). Apologies, Richard, for thinking you'd done some sort of 180° over the RT issue! It seemed out of character, but I was taken in (although the later use of an expletive seemed completely out of the blue). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Ukraine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Further note: Wall of text accusations, such as this, are considered tendentious editing practice. Again, it is suggested that you read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Please learn to proscribe your talk page comments by being succinct and commenting on the content, not the contributors. I would also remind you that you need to sign your comments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your query on my talk page, I am discussing this slab of text you added to the Ukraine talk page. What I have presented to you is not convoluted 'wikispeak'. Please read all of the links in the above comments and you will see that they refer to specific policies and guidelines which you've contravened. I'm sorry that there is no quick and easy explanation for you: the fact is that contributing to Wikipedia is a learning curve you obviously need to spend some time on. If you just jump in at the deep end and start arguing, speculating about other contributors and questioning whether they are contributing in good faith, you are not doing yourself, Wikipedia, or anyone else any favours. Your comment, despite your trying to dress it as analysis, deliberation, and assumption of good faith on your behalf is blatant sidestepping around calling people's integrity and commitment to the project into question in a very public forum.


 * Please try to spend some time working on articles in need of updating and tidying (and which don't delve into controversial political, economic, et al areas). That is the best advice any experienced Wikipedian can give to a newbie. It's better to hone your skills and understand that editing here is actually difficult. If you don't get some grounding in the basics before endeavouring to work on complex articles, you will end up being blocked, sanctioned from editing in specific areas, burnt-out and disillusioned. Please understand that, while you may feel that I'm being hard-nosed, I'm actually offering you friendly advice.


 * If you wish to respond, do so from here as I've added your talkpage to my watchlist. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you have not specified anything in my "block of text." Nothing.  I have the read links for which you have posted and have nothing opposing anything in these links.


 * If you dislike something in my post then it's as easy as cutting and pasting the portion you dislike. It takes far less time than the time to write these last two posts.  What you have done instead is write a blanket accusation about the post.  And it's obvious that the entire post is not wrong.  EvergreenFir mentioned me in the very beginning of this post and he mentioned not my content but me personally.  I felt it necessary to apologize first and explain what happened.  Do you feel that this went on for too long?  Should I have shortened or removed the explanation?   Obviously the apology was at somewhat ok because EvergreenFir thanked me for it.  If it offends you in some way I will be glad to remove everything but the first sentence of the apology.  If there is someway my apology was insufficient, then tell me.


 * As for my discussion about Putin POV in the latter part. You need to be very specific if you don't want to look like a bully.  I had to explain how the article had a Putin POV.  I was not interested in the reversion edit wars which this page was going through before I got here.  I don't have some big club where I can threaten to ban someone for disagreeing with me.  I have to actually discuss specifics and explain what why it is Putin POV.  This requires more than 2 lines of text.


 * In no way does does anything I write qualify as a "wall of text." I split things into paragraphs.  I capitalize, use proper punctuation, etc.  I stay on topic.  I don't talk about Chewbacca.  TLDR doesn't make something a wall of text.  In fact the "wall of text" on wall of text in Wikipedia is longer than my "block of text.


 * I'm pretty sure I've gone 9/10ths of the way to trying to make you happy. I'm not a mind reader, you gotta tell me what is really upsetting you.Hilltrot (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read through the talk page guidelines as you've been asked to, redacting/changing other people's comments is an absolute no-go zone and is considered to be tendentious editing... which is why you've been asked to please read through the policies and guidelines properly. If you intend to keep editing Wikipedia, you are going to have to learn our policies and guidelines.


 * What EvergreenFir posted is a standard template comment about the use of talkpages and is not personalised. It's understood that you're a newbie and you're welcome to ask questions, as well as ask for assistance/guidance. In effect, that means that you shouldn't ignore the links we point you to because you find it too complicated and difficult and just want straight answers... You'll eventually get a grasp of why the policies and guidelines exist and why they are the backbone of Wikipedia.


 * As an aside, I just wanted to pull you up quickly on your redaction of the comment on the Talk:Ukraine page here. There are minor copy edits that are appropriate, but deleting large tracts of your own comments on article talk pages is also considered to be bad form. If you've been the elephant in the room, it's better to let it stand or strikethrough (that is strikethrough ) the text you'd prefer to retract. I wouldn't worry about being the elephant in the room, though. We've all done it umpteen times (and continue to do so). We all make silly mistakes with our edits and discussions, which is why we WP:TROUT ourselves and WP:FACEPALM ourselves on a regular basis.


 * Now that I've left you a wall of text to get through, for what it's worth, I believe you are an intelligent and thoughtful person who has all the makings of a good Wikipedian. It just takes a bit of time and getting through the learning curve. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. My objection to the large tract you wrote was that you were inferring that EvergreenFir and other excellent, neutral editors were being POV while couching the accusation in language denying that you were making accusations. You're welcome to consider me POV, but you're not welcome to drag editors I respect (in fact, respected by the community) of such behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will look into how to do strike outs.  If you if you have any other suggestions, I will be glad to listen to them.
 * I still tend to do things 'old school' by typing in markup myself, but there are all sorts of useful features to make markup quick and painless nowadays (you'll find these in your RefToolbar at the top of the editing box).


 * Check into preferences: you'll find gadgets and other sections that you can try out (but stay away from Twinkle and more complex gadgets until you're confident with the basics).


 * Also, I still have a few useful pages bookmarked for recommendation to others such as: Wikipedia abbreviations,talk page help including nifty abbreviations that'll really impress people into believing that you're incredibly experienced while you're still flying by the seat of your pants, edit summary abbreviations, etc. Don't forget about the standards for reference, such as WP:POLICYLIST and WP:MOS.


 * How to use your user space would be great for you. It shouldn't happen, but Wikipedians tend to discriminate against IP users and those with registered accounts who have red links where their user page should be. While some people go OTT with user boxes and so much information about themselves that you couldn't even be bothered trying to work out who they are as people, a little bit of info about yourself goes a long way in being accepted as 'presumed to be working in good faith'. In theory, you shouldn't have to prove good faith but, once you've spent a bit of time here, you'll get a sense of why it's easier to not assume good faith.


 * I think I've given you enough for starters (e.g. a headache). The most important part is HAVE FUN! If you make a moron of yourself, don't beat yourself up about it. I'm a moron and am proud to admit that I've been one when I get it wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is under special sanctions due to disruptive trolling
-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Transgender discretionary sanctions notification
See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)