User talk:VirtualSwayy

Regarding Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction
Did somebody ask you to contribute to that deletion discussion? (this isn't a hostile "who invited you," this is a serious question - is there somebody who suggested you join the discussion) GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest I'm not sure why you would ask me this. And TBH it does seem quite hostile. What other purpose for this question if not to discount the validity of my participation? I will tell you a few things.

1)I am not the author of the page, and I am also not Jim Honeycutt, although I do know him, as do most Professors in the US who study Comm from a social science/psychological perspective.

2) If I WAS the author of this page, I sure as hell would shout from the highest mountaintop so all my friends would know about this ridiculous flag which threatens deletion of a theory covered in the vast majority of comm theory courses because it isn't a "notable" theory. Due to how meritless the flag is, I wouldn't feel the need to persuade them how to react. It's obviously baseless to anyone even remotely familiar with the field.

3) It makes it seem like you know the flag has no merit, and may harbor a personal grudge towards either Honeycutt, or the author, when instead of addressing the arguments head on you are fishing for procedural reasons to discount them.

4) If someone did contact me, it wouldn't violate the canvassing policy since the guidelines state that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." And I can ASSURE you... me blowing that baseless and poorly researched deletion flag out of the water with a well reasoned, well researched, 1200+ word evidence based arguments about how the guidelines apply to this page... well it most certainly did "improve the quality of the discussion". It couldn't have started much lower.
 * I have no opinion one way or another about the article or Honeycutt, I'm just here to make sure that policy is followed in these discussions. While you have correctly quoted our canvassing policy, the expectation is that these notifications be made on-Wiki - the "stealth canvassing" section specifically discourages off-wiki notification, and other policies address recruiting new editors to join the discussion. I ask again: were you asked to join that discussion? Also, if you have a relationship with the subject of an article, that is considered a conflict of interest and should be disclosed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I'll go ahead and answer your question, mainly because I'm sick of Wikipedia after wasting a significant part of the day making long thoughtfully argued replies to short baseless assertions and I don't want to have to keep coming back. Before I answer, I'd just like to say that as a 1st day wikipedian, I'm uncomfortable with this, and if I had the energy to go back and forth with you about it I would not answer this. I am highly unclear about who you are, why you are attempting to enforce policy, whether you ask this of EVERY single contributor, or if you suspect me of a policy violation, and if so why. At MINIMUM who you are and why you are authorized to enforce policy should be in the communication to me. That being said..

NO. No one asked me to participate.

And you can rest easy, because it is unlikely that I violated the stealth canvassing policy, since it would have literally been impossible to to notify me on wiki, since I had no account prior to learning about this flag on the pone from a friend who is also a communication professor who is entirely unrelated to the discussion other than reading it while making an online course syllabus for the fall. I went and read it and then I DECIDED ON MY OWN to make an account, and object strongly. NO one had to ASK me to be pissed off that someone who obviously knows nothing about the field can blip out a few words followed by a link to a policy they don't understand and accompanied by zero evidence, can get something deleted that I make my freshman students in Into comm read, simply by running out the clock if no one is monitoring it so they can object to the little flags that were thoughtlessly blipped out with 2 seconds of thought (or zero).

Why would anyone have to ASK me to do that. It's a god-damn good deed!
 * People are trying to figure out what's going on because you're being unusually hostile (for example the constant shouting) in the AfD. People make articles all the time. Many people get there articles nominated for deletion. Many of those people even participate in the discussion to keep their creation. But the ones who participate by bludgeoning huge walls of text tend to be editors who are violating some sort of Wikipedia policy or guideline. That's probably the main reason why people keep questioning you.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 04:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AFD
If you're going to WP:BLUDGEON every AFD voter with a lengthy soliloquy would you please be kind enough to actually WP:SIGN your edits? Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

two things:

1) sure. Sorry I didn't know how. I'll learn and start signing.

2) 100% absolutely is not bludgeoning. It's lengthy, but bludgeoning is repeating the same argument and I am not doing that there, i never linked the same eveidence twice or made the ssame argument twice - and that includes across BOTH discussion.VirtualSwayy (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * VirtualSwayy, you've had at least three experienced editors refer you to WP:BLUDGEON. I suggest you read the essay and think about it carefully, particularly the part that says "it is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion."  I believe that your contributions so far have made it significantly more likely that the articles be deleted. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  Sandstein  08:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)