User talk:Tdadamemd19

Airbus A380
Saw your name on A380 talk page. The editors of the Airbus A380 article have suppressed anything negative about the plane for many many years. I assume that it's because of the general feeling of European rivalry in the face of American economic strength, and there is probably active PR from representatives of Airbus. You want to have some fun? look up the articles used in the citations, many of the articles actually contain negatives about the plane, but that's not the fact that is used from the article, and they won't let you fix it. I've tried to fight it a number of times but you will get nowhere. Wikipedia is a cesspool now. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Civility
Please be civil in your edit summaries. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Criticizing previous editors who contributed to a page in edit summaries is not a productive use of time. Millions of Wikipedia articles have large errors in sourcing or prose: errors are the norm, not the exception. Also see WP:SHOUTING — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 17:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * After it was explained that this article was grossly in error, you decided to revert back to that error (in this edit). How is your action not vandalism?  I would suggest that by far the more pervasive issue going on there is editors deliberately inserting deficient info to present to the world as fact, even though it is blatantly wrong.  And then re-inserting it even after it has been clearly explained that it is wrong.  So much so that the reference cited gives this clear explanation as well.


 * As for "shouting", if a person TYPES OUT AN ENTIRE STRING OF WORDS IN ALL CAPS... that is what I see to constitute shouting. But if instead a person does a CAP SHIFT for just one or two words, that is what I see to be a reasonable way to inflect an emphasis.  I have never done the former (except for here just for demonstration purposes).  What I did was the latter.


 * If you see my use of CAPSLOCKing just one or two words in a sentence to be inappropriate, then I suggest you CHANGE the Wikipedia Policy to make it clear that doing so is what this policy means to you. As it is written right now, it is completely ambiguious regarding the distinction I have just explained here.  It does not specify one way or the other.  You can "FIX" that, if you really see what I have done to be an actual problem, and an actual violation of this WP.  But if you were to do that, I would not be surprised in the least if you were to be promptly REVERTED.  Because, again, I happen to see my use of this technique as perfectly reasonable.  Meaning: NOT "shouting".


 * And your interpretation of that policy is problematic for another reason. If you draw your bright line at merely one word being in caps, and you decide to change this WP to reflect this, then...  whoa, look at what I just did here in this sentence.  I "shouted" the letters "WP" at you.  You have taken offense to just a normal capitalization of an abbreviation, which is the standard way to communicate.  Ok, maybe you haven't actually taken offense to that.  Like if I suggest you do this change ASAP.  It could get extremely convoluted in how you specify, in your version of this WP, that things like "ASAP" and "WP" are ok, whereas capitalizing single words like my initial edit summary "This article was WRONG" is offensive.


 * I suggest you reconsider your position on this WP. I described it as being "ambiguous".  But actually, I don't see it to be.  I see there to be a reasonable interpretation of what this policy is guiding us to do, and an extreme interpretation.  I see your interpretation to be extreme.  As in, not at all what was intended by the folks who came up with this policy.  I will close here with one final example...


 * THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE USUALLY MEAN BY EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS LOCK. NOT AT ALL WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN OBJECTING TO HERE.  Or rather, over there, on the article. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the WP on Civility. It says this:
 * "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments."


 * Perhaps it would be helpful if you would cite a specific example of anything I have stated which you see as constituting Incivility. What I have been is BLUNT.  I have made edits, and presented criticism in the hopes that editors might wish to use more care in future efforts.


 * This WP also says this:
 * "Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged."


 * I am open to the possibility that I have crossed some line. But it also seems possible to me that something else is going on. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you broke the policy, it's my personal opinion you were being a bit uncivil. Don't stop if you don't want to, but to me, your summaries were out of the status quo and were slightly aggressive and blameful. I think that pushing less blame on other editors is a more positive way to collectively build an encyclopedia, and spread kindness.
 * Previously, my only qualm with your edits was that you were primarily defining a day as a 360.9856 degree rotation around the Sun, which I found not fully representative of the scope of the topic. I like the new first lead sentence more. Thanks for contributing to a topic that needs it. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for calling me out.
 * I was not spreading kindness. I was not honoring the good faith efforts of those who came before me.  Yourself included.  And after you called me out, my reaction was defensive.  "Perfect Sound" requires harmony.  And I was being far from harmonious.  I was being dissonant.  I owe you and others an apology.
 * I am sorry. I will keep your gentle criticism in mind to help me to do better in the future.


 * Thank you again. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 19:18, 25 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Silicon Valley. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, i see that all your notices seem to be scoldings and such. Just wanted to drop one that wasn't. Hi! Hope everything is going OK, message me anytime you want. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You did far more than scoldings. You did it in a way that had me rolling.  I much appreciate your approach to Wikipedia.  Including your comment here, it makes this site a much more enj...  err, a much less excruciating experience. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)