User talk:TheGracefulSlick/Archive 4

Ahed Tamimi
Actually, having one's portrait painted, and rather in brilliantly realistic fashion by an accomplished artist, on a mural as controversial as the Separation Barrier girding Bethlehem, is a mark of distinction. I don't think it fair to remove material like that which is deeply disliked by only one party to the dispute. Most bios aren't restricted to a reduction of the subject to one specific action or act in their lives, and every attempt to broaden the perspective by such details suffers excision: only because she is Palestinian. Such removalism should use the talk page and not be preemptive. No doubt, given the reigning POV majority it would have been struck eventually, but due process in this area is crucial. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the sources I found on the issue were more pre-occupied with the arrest than any brilliance or controversy surrounding the mural. I will, however, take another look; regardless, the topic does not belong in the “Analysis” section. Perhaps, if possible, an image of the mural can be added with a caption? It certainly would symbolize the outpour of support Tamimi received after her arrest which is discussed in the article.
 * Source bias is a major plague on Wikipedia esp with anything political. Jorit Agoch is widely known in Italy, a graduate of a tough Fine Arts school, whose murals are financed by any number of major institutions and corporations here, where such high quality street art is regarded as an important assist to the otherwise degraded urbanscape. The Ma'an piece had an excellent photo of his portrait, and that is why I objected to Icewhiz removing it. I haven't the ability to search for images and the like that pass wiki copyright rules. I might add that what struck me about the report was the refuse to allow representation of a national plight even on a wall within territory that is not Israel's, even though, as any visitor knows, that wall is flush with street art. The objection was to her, and it is significant that they were banned from entering Israel for 10 years (when indeed they weren't in Israel at the time. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you know we have done a lot to get the Tamimi article to its current state. I am convinced if we were not as active as we were months ago the article would be calling her a Palestinian “imposter” dreamt up by “Pallywood”. But we worked hard to keep out those blatant BLP attacks because we happen to care about neutrality. I will probably create an article on Jorit Agoch; by then more sources may appear on the mural itself and we can reintroduce the content in its entirety. I do not understand copyright laws very well, but maybe another editor does who can help with an image of the mural.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've stubbed him at Jorit Agoch. Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake, argue on the talk page. Outright reverts of what an experienced editor thinks worthy of inclusion are either moronically lazy or POV pushing. That is a magnificent mural, and remains on one of the most conspicuous features in the Palestinian landscape, and depicts the woman in this article. Whatever your personal feelings, my inclusion  of it was not initially challenged by Icewhiz, though he was amenable to removal. His position is predictable. . . Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. No excuses. Stupid.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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) 22:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to acknowledge that I have received your e-mail. I understand you won't be appealing, but if you do decide to appeal in six months of so, you will have to be transparent about everything. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I, too, received your e-mail (both). I don't reply to user e-mail - not just yours but others as well. I hope you feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . I apologized to Jbhunley for my behavior as well. Even though this was not the best way to do it, I think this will help me get in a right place again. I have received support I never knew I had from editors via e-mail and regret that I did not search for less disruptive alternatives. Take care.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see this, TheGracefulSlick, and I hope we see you back one day. I tried to figure out what happened, but the sockpuppet investigations casepage is from 2017 and ends without any finding of guilt. Please consider updating it for the record. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC).


 * (watching:) Bbb is, - look for the three b in the RfA. I don't know if indef is the right answer to a little oppose under a wrong name (happened twice so far). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose there may be privacy reasons for not updating the SPI. Sigh. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC).
 * There's no rule that an existing SPI has to be updated in these circumstances. My usual practice is to update the SPI (or create one if it doesn't exist) if there is a significant number of socks. Nor is it a privacy issue. Grace is aware of the WP:SO if she chooses to take advantage of it six months from now.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides
The article 2017 Sierra Leone mudslides you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 Sierra Leone mudslides for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ahed Tamimi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ahed Tamimi 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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

John B Magruder
It's appreciated- and when you are unblocked, feel free to put this on your page (Since you nominated the article and put a bunch of work into it):

💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 12:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request
Pinging as the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the thoughts of others and I like the honesty of the unblock request, but I would prefer to wait the standard period of six months, which would be February 5, 2019, before considering an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a little early. But it's a good appeal, and I think we might possibly apply one of the "variations" in the Standard offer essay: "The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner." Bishonen &#124; talk 11:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I saw this earlier and was thinking along the same lines as Bishonen. Usually I'd want to wait for the SO six months too, but I don't think we could ask for a better unblock request than this and I'd be happy to unblock now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay folks, regardless of what the essay says, the six-month period is not set in stone. That said, I do not think TGS should be unblocked without more. How about we let the community decide at WP:AN as we often do after six months have expired? I will consent to the community's consensus. That was my initial thought anyway but I didn't want to prejudice any comments from other administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * if you go that route I will be prepared to answer any questions, if there are any. Thanks for considering my appeal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. I thought of taking it to AN, but I don't know much about the background, and your block notice isn't very detailed. Could you do it, please? Bishonen &#124; talk 08:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I would have been happy to see an unblock just on the basis of this request, but I also don't know the details and so I'd defer and would support an AN request too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a bit unusual for admins to want to unblock a sock without knowing the "details". My block notice is standard. Given how many socks I block, if I used personalized block notices, I'd get even less sleep than I already do. In any event, perhaps it would be best for TGS to explain what she did. It's helpful for you to explain why, TGS, but it's equally important for you to set forth what your various accounts actually did. That would include the most recent sock,, as well as the ones from longer ago: and .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that's kind of what I'm saying (and I meant I would have been happy to unblock if you went along with it). As it is I'll defer to you as you do know the details, and I agree with your AN suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This really needs a community consensus, IMO. Not only was TGS outrageously socking in 2016 (two socks, which were attacking and masquerading as ), even when confronted with clear evidence from Mike V. and  that CU results showed incontrovertibly that the two impersonators were TGS, he kept denying it over and over and over (see this thread and this thread). Not having learned his lesson, he socked again three months ago to cast two votes in an RFA. Although TGS is a good content creator, I'm afraid these violations are quite egregious when taken together, and that TGS has lost the community's trust. I think that three months is too soon to ask for an unblock, and that any unblock request should be put to AN or ANI, or at the very least have the input of parties familiar with the situation. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you call her a he (she says her real name is Grace)? Speaking of whom, @TGS, when you respond to my request, please also (1) identify any accounts you've used and (2) whether you have ever intentionally edited logged out (do not disclose the IP(s)).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TGS has repeatedly maintained that he is a guy, and has repeatedly corrected those who have assumed he was female. I see now that in May 2017 he added to his userpage to state "Grace, born Tyler T.", so I do not know what his current self-identified gender is, I only know that I have never personally seen anyone familiar with the user and his username call TGS anything but he/him. Softlavender (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, well in the absence of TGS telling us what pronoun they prefer, I'll start using the wonderful plural pronoun. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * sorry for the delay. Yes, I was first blocked in 2016 for socking with ABriefPassing and then ALongStay. Those were used mainly to nominate articles for deletion without taking any heat from CrazyAces and a friend Garagepunk66, as well as serve as an “extra vote”. Sad to say Garagepunk and I have not communicated as much as we once had. I will explain why, this time around, I socked again. Let me point out, however, I am not using it as an excuse. What led to my socking was a lack of self-esteem, believing persistent hurtful comments, and—most importantly—not reporting it to admins or others who could help me. I used the sock in hopes of being caught and forced to break from Wikipedia when I could not take the necessary steps to take a break myself. When minor edits failed, I voted at AFDs; finally, I used it at RfA, knowing admins had to be on alert there.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, I have never intentionally edited logged out, though there was an incident where a relative did edit on my IP. I passed the situation on to Arbcom and they accepted the explanation. Drmies, I believe, was the one who replied to my e-mail at that time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TGS, there are many things that trouble me about your behavior, but why did you lie about the two sock accounts in 2016? There is a disturbing pattern of deceit and poor judgment that goes back years. Why should we believe anything you say?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I lied in 2016 to try and protect my friendship. Notice how the two accounts were inactive for nearly two months prior to being blocked? It came as a surprise and I thought denying it would save that friendship; I was wrong. I cannot change my prior actions and you understandably should be hesitant. Sharing my mental health at the time is not easy for me to do. It is difficult to prove to you the time I spent rebuilding my self-esteem and finding genuine enjoyment in writing again. Perhaps only the new attitude I bring to Wikipedia will convince you of my honesty. I am open to criticism and discussion, but will no longer be in it for the competitive nature this place sometimes brings about or the insults. I still value the intent of this place, but I never again will value it over my own health. In short, I just see no reason to lie because I have nothing to gain; it has only worsened my situation in the past and reflects poorly on who I actually am.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping. I'm happy to see the openness and willingness to participate in a post-mortem of what happened and acknowledging of that. I normally wouldn't even be persuaded to consider your unblock request, but it's one of the ones that addresses all the points needed in WP:GTAB, which is a rarity, and shows at minimum you understand your mistake. Right now, i'm considering the possibility of the three months being commuted, but I also think that it's so early that it would be inappropriate to not consult the community. That being said, regardless of the unblock, I am here via email if you wish to talk about mental health. I have struggles of my own along with some strategies that may help. Feel free to inbox me. Also please ping me in any reply you want me to see. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I will always remember your offer when I need help on how to approach a situation better. I know in the future I need to pause and accept counsel more often. Many times in the past I always thought I needed to handle things myself, but now I know that is far from the truth. I would be happy to have the community’s input and will accept the decision regardless of the outcome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Folks, I think I've more than flushed out all the details. DeltaQuad has stated that we should take this to AN. Do you agree? @TGS, thank you for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Further comment: For TGS to state that he (I am using the user's historic pronouns until they state otherwise) has a "friendship" with is grossly misleading, as he used the socks specifically to attack Garagepunk66 while pretending that the socks were actually CrazyAces489. Furthermore, he continued harassing Garagepunk66 even after the socks were blocked, to the point that Garagepunk66 had to reach out to  to request an interaction ban, and even after that the harassment did not stop. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * look at the countless discussions Garagepunk and I had prior to my block and our shared interests. Me describing that as “friendship” is not meant to mislead anyone; I genuinely felt that is what it was. In response to that diff, Bishonen wrote there were no obvious signs that TheGracefulSlick is posting in bad faith. Garagepunk was at the time, however, understandably upset about my past behavior and perhaps even just by my very presence. I do not deny my socking was harassment, and I tried reconciling with him for that; but as a consequence of my behavior, we no longer speak and I came to terms with that. But, again, I did not intend to mislead anyone by believing our lengthy discussions and collaborations once constituted a friendship.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You ceased to have a "friendship" with him when you created two sockpuppets to attack him. So calling it a "friendship" after your socking was found out by checkusers was simply you trying to prevent being found out by someone who actually thought your friendship with him was sincere. No one creates sockpuppets to attack an actual friend. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What are your qualifications in psychology and/or psychoanalysis? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and copied this to AN, because this talk page is becoming heated and less than ideal for the topic at hand, and I don't think would mind getting it to AN more quickly since that seems to be the rough consensus here as a condition an unblock. As is my standard when I do AN copy appeals: it's on hold and I'm listed as the reviewing admin, but any other admin is free to close the appeal/unblock without consulting me. Note that I have not looked at the CU data here, but am just copying this in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator since Bbb23 has said he would be fine with an unblock if there was consensus at AN. The diff of the appeal can be found here. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , since your comment was seeking a response, I feel I should clarify something. Softlavender is referring to my 2016 block when I did, admittedly, deny any socking, despite obviously being behind it. I do not recall denying wrongdoing with this current offense and described everything I did here at my talk page, per Bbb23’s request. Hope that helps address your concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've copied that to the AN discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * With all due respect,, I think that is one of the few people around here who appreciates the pain which the harassment has brought me.  It continued even after the first block, and I have humbly resigned myself to the likelihood that it will probably never stop. I think my guarantee of protection from harassment (by the editor in question) should certainty be a condition in whatever potential unblock arrangement happens or does not happen, and, yes, I would like very much to become more active in Wikipedia again, so I think it is important.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that the socking was harassment and you did not like how I viewed the Garage rock article a year ago, but how can you say the harassment will “probably never stop”? It was wrong of me to not share my honest opinion of the article. But I vividly recall apologizing to you, and we tried to work things out after the garage rock debate, but I stopped communicating with you when it was apparent you were no longer interested in speaking to me. How has harassment continued in any capacity when we have not interacted with each other for months? I hope you can find a way to return to regular editing if that is what you wish to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the last time we spoke was October 2017, when I offered to review articles for you. It is sad that it has been so long since we had our last discussion on music, the 1960s, etc.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason I did not want you to review my article is because of your chequered past with those sockpuppets at AfD, as well a certain interoperate remarks at the Garage rock article talk and elsewhere coming just off the heels of the last block. Furthermore, in the apology you alluded to in your prior remark: it did not seem to be a sincere acknowledgement of the pain the situation caused me, nor showed any real sense of remorse —you appeared more intent on arguing with me about how I used my words when I spoke out boldly (on that prospective RfA talk page) about the fact that you harassed me (which was indeed the case—it had to be said).  And, there were other incidents after that which  has alluded to which continued and I have every reason to expect more to come in the future.  Right now you seem more intent on thwarting any stipulation guaranteeing future non-harassment on my part, which I find troubling.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but we not spoken for over a year; I also was regularly editing subjects outside of music. What reasons do you have to expect harassment suddenly in the future? And I am not trying to “thwart” anything; pledging to not harass you or anyone else is a stipulation I gladly accept.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I certainly agree that  understands the past events better than most, but I think speculation on the thinking processes of other people should be avoided - we should stick to what people do and say, and avoid speculating on what and how they might be thinking and on their motives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact, I will agree to continue avoiding you as I have been for over a year, or—as I would prefer—finally settling this together. That is entirely your decision and I will respect it. I apologize, again, for what was blatant harassment with the sock puppets and for being overly assertive, as well as hiding my true criticisms when Ilovetopaint proposed drastic changes to an article you worked passionately on; I wish I had expressed this to you sooner and honestly miss working with you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TGS, best of luck to you. I'm glad it worked out.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for allowing it to go to AN in the first place. I will make sure not to disappoint.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate your thoughtful words above. I still have the utmost respect and can only wish you well.  If I have taken some harsh stances with you in recent times, they have only been to defend what I consider my own well-being and work as an editor, not as an attack on you or anyone else.  I appreciate your acknowledgement of how hard I worked on the GR article.  I realize that hard work on an article does not make me or anyone else immune to criticism.  But, what happened in that split discussion at the GR article was that a proposal was made that was way too drastic and would have damaged the article.  Keep in mind that I had just recently been involved in a another much longer debate with that same editor (on another article talk page) that went on for what seemed like eternity and was very exhausting.  Also, this came right off the heels of the Long Stay ordeal.  It all came as quite a shock just when I needed to have a "cooling down" period.  Suddenly, I was now having to worry that all I had worked GR article would be blown apart—so yes I was very on the edge.  What I needed at the time was constructive criticism that was measured, not inflated.  I interpreted some of your comments in that first GR thread (after the split proposal) as a bit extreme and not particularly specific or helpful.  Criticisms are best when they are indisputably reasonable and predicated on specifics in the article, hopefully provided along with constructive advice for practical solutions.  Criticism of people's work in articles should not be presented in a way can be construed as a unilateral ultimatum, but given with the realization that there may be a host of pro and con viewpoints to be considered as well.  This is the way I strive to function when I offer criticisms of other people's work. I like anyone else deserve that same that same consideration from others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Racial Hygiene cover 1988.jpeg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yoel Adler
Hello, you recently voted in favour of the deletion of Yoel Adler. I just wanted to inform you that this person was not the original subject of the article. The article was completely changed to a non-notable topic the day before it was filed for deletion.

Could you please look at the new arguments put forward on its AfD page, and consider changing your vote for an immediate end of procedure? Emass100 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the article back; I should have done that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hello  and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Reem Kassis


A tag has been placed on Reem Kassis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)