User talk:SashiRolls/Archives/2016/November

Discretionary sanctions alert
Doug Weller talk 16:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

?
SashiRolls, what is the point of that little stab at User:NuclearWarfare on WP:AN? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It was a factual statement to indicate that I am observing the terms of the gag rule he applied to me. I gather I cannot breathe the name of the candidate who made me aware of the inappropriate editing behavior on Wikipedia during the elections, so I'm afraid I can't say any more. SashiRolls (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would like me to redact it, just say so. SashiRolls (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what you gathered or not. You can breathe whatever you like. If you're talking about the Jill Stein topic ban--well, that's great, and yet I wonder why you brought it up at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Perhaps this is cathartic for you, but "gag rule" is of course wholly inappropriate, as was pointed out by, and the only thing it does for us admins is confirm that there mush indeed have been some seriously disruptive behavior. You were advised, above, of the opportunities you have for appealing the block. That is what you can do. What you can not do is continue to complain about the admin or the topic ban, esp. not in terms of "censorship" or "gag rule". was just doing their job and if you think they did a poor job, appeal it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the only way to successfully appeal such action is to admit that I was terribly wrong and to apologize profusely for working to undo the hack job on the JS page during the month of August. Since you, a member of ArbCom, say that I can breathe whatever I like and that there is no gag rule, I will count on the truth of that statement and say this: Recently, the editor widely identified as responsible for the hack of the page engaged in copyright violation to introduce negative information into the BLP page (Jill Stein) sourced only to the Daily Beast (four users, including Tryptofish and Neutrality, suggested the text should be included in the page in an RfC, despite the clear copyright violation). When I had to invoke WP:IAR to protect Wikipedia from WP:COPYVIO (Talk:Jill_Stein), the user didn't even apologize for it, but rewrote the sentence "A,B" as "B,A" in order to try to get around the rules. There is no ambiguity; this was not an innocent mistake.  Now I have to go do my day job, Drmies, thank you for suggesting that I appeal, but please understand that I am not paid to edit Wikipedia and that I have a day job -- as you do: if I remember correctly we do similar things for a living -- which I should be devoting more time to, rather than trying to fight for net neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You willfully misunderstand. I did not tell you to appeal. No one says you have to admit you were terribly wrong etc. There is no "gag rule", but there is a topic ban, which is not a gag rule, and if you discuss Jill Stein or anything related to her one more time I will block you on the spot. You can call that a gag rule if you like, but if you do, you open yourself up to a block as well for reasons I have explained above. If those reasons are somehow not clear to you, then you should play it safe by no longer talking about this matter at all. If your "fight for net neutrality" and a crusade against a perceived copyvio means editing disruptively, against consensus, then you'll have to take that fight elsewhere: this place may not be for you. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that comment was a serious demonstration of non-comprehension of what actually happened at the Jill Stein page, which can be easily seen at the Talk:Jill Stein. (I am commenting because I was referred to negatively here, and I am pinging as a courtesy.) Such a characterization, along with the very fact that SashiRolls was clearly watching the page despite the topic ban, does not bode well for what will happen when the topic ban expires. Nor does referring to the other editor as having "hacked" the page, and most certainly nor does responding to that editor by doing this:, , and  (thus ). I'm saying all of that more for the administrators watching here, than for SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting. Let me give an example.  Just two days ago here you go to a page that you never had interest in before (Reconquista), in order to follow around an editor you dislike  and remove his extremely well-sourced copy (which is cited to a 2016 study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Growth).  You claim that the reason for your revert was "grammar errors" - but of course you could have simply fixed any grammar error that existed and moved on.  You also claimed that you "couldn't verify the text" behind a paywall - even though a simple check of policy (WP:PAYWALL, part of Verifiability) would have shown you that your lack of access of academic databases is not a valid reason for removal. In a second edit, you claim that the article is not "a good source or a useful addition" &mdash; which makes no sense whatsoever (it's a peer-reviewed source, recent, directly on point to the article subject).  The edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project.  This is part and parcel of your M.O.: constantly accuse or intimate that other editors of being wrong, "paid shills," etc., in an attempt to antagonize them. This kind of content is exactly why you got topic-banned.
 * I'm tagging and  for the sake of completeness.  Neutralitytalk 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi gang. No, insofar as I could not verify the reference for Snoog's first ever participation in the article "Reconquista" I politely asked the editor to fix it him/herself given my total lack of confidence in this editor.  Trypto provides a "diff" but does not provide the context for the "diff":  instead of correcting two subject-verb agreement errors in a single sentence, I politely asked Snoog to do so.  Only after being thoroughly insulted and seeing that Snoog cared so little about WP that s/he was not going to change the errors s/he introduced on his/her own did I act to correct the error.
 * Regarding your voting for inclusion of a copyright violation (and clearly not a "perceived" copyright violation), I think this speaks for itself. Trypto & neutrality, please, when you have "clean hands" then you can criticize.  As it is, I'm afraid you do not.  Insofar as just above your comments, I am asked not to speak about anything, I would ask you both to drop the stick and make no further contributions to my talk page since you see I am not at liberty to defend myself.  You made a mistake; mistakes are human.  You act as if you don't see your mistake, that is more troubling. SashiRolls (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also,, those who actually click on the link in your text: "In a second edit, you claim that the article is not "a good source or a useful addition" will see that what you aver is not at all what I said:  "[I] corrected your S-V agreement error, but make no claim this [is] a good source or a useful addition to the project." (since I could not myself verify the citation).  No reply is necessary or desired. SashiRolls (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Haiti
Hi SashiRolls, due to your interests in some Haiti-related articles, thought I'd extend to you an invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore
Hi SashiRolls, incorrupt means incorruptible, as in clean government. I note you came in as she is showing defiance in restoring the tags. I'm probably wrong, but just wondering if you are showing some support for her? Wrigleygum (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * incorrupt /ɪnkəˈrʌpt/ adjective (especially of a human body) not having undergone decomposition.  I'm not expressing support or opposition, just fixing problems with MOS:OVERLINK as I said in the edit summary.  Somewhat amused to find Wrigleygum as a very active editor on the Singapore page given the illegality of such stuff in S'pore. ^^  (any further comment should be on the article's talk page, please)  SashiRolls (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I bring some in. Your edits are fine so far and not an issue with me, nor am I in a hurry with CMD's edits as I'm just discussing with him on a cordial approach when I do. Will discuss on SG talk. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I just got threatened with ANI by  for allegedly trying to engage in WP:PROMO on the Singapore page. I wonder if that strikes you as correct?   I'm kind of in shock, he deleted his threat, but didn't retract it, nor did he recognize that his claim was entirely without merit.  I'm not sure what I'm meant to conclude.  Feel free to provide diffs, Jytdog, of any PROMO you think I've been engaged in. SashiRolls (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I retract/retracted it; you have not been editing promotionally at Singapore that I have seen. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)