User talk:Display name 99: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:04, 29 September 2022

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

SEMI-RETIRED

Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accessible source of good information available to anyone, and to maintain impartiality by presenting as fact only things which are widely acknowledged as such. Wikipedia is no longer that. Instead, it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology of the Great Reset. Valuable information is scuttered and impartiality abandoned as articles are made to cater specifically to those with short attention spans and philosophies consistent with the New World Order. Editors who protest are punished no matter how competent they are or how much they have contributed to the site, while almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus.

I have done my best to fight against this, but it has proven to be too much for me. I was indefinitely blocked from the site for not doing any more to advocate for conservative positions than many progressive editors advocate for progressive positions without suffering any consequences. More recently, I have been indefinitely blocked from the Andrew Jackson article, an article that I brought to featured article status and helped maintain, without satisfactory reason being given. Meanwhile, other editors who have adopted a battleground mentality on the talk page, made comments that were uncivil and blatant POV-pushing, edited disputed material without consensus, and frequently disrupted discussions were not punished and scarcely even reprimanded, including after I brought specific attention to many of these violations. I have made repeated unblock requests that have not been accepted, while I have been forced to watch as this article, which I have spent countless hours editing, has been wrecked through the removal of valuable content. Wikipedia is a trash heap that has been disgraced by editors who either do not have a clue how to create good content or do not care about doing so.

I have given the matter some thought and prayer, and decided that it is not worth the cost to my time and constitution to keep fighting these battles and trying to save a place that has grown so corrupt and decadent. I have done my duty and can do no more. So long as I am not completely blocked from the site, I will probably still make some gnomish edits from time to time, or revert some silliness here or there on articles that I have edited which have not yet gone the way of Andrew Jackson, but as far as embarking on any more large-scale projects here, I think I’m finished.

For those who intend to continue fighting for a good, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia, I pray that God’s blessings be upon them. With that, I step away. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Notification

[[File:This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.|25px]]

{{{1}}}

Andrew Jackson revisited

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FinnV3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FinnV3 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FinnV3, you have some nerve to call that uncivil after making this comment. Display name 99 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of one of my entries

Can you identify this for me, please. You are probably right but I don't recall making an entry that is unsupported by its content. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, you added content to the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson articles without mentioning its source. All content on Wikipedia articles, aside from the lead section, must have citations. Additionally, I felt that the mentions were not notable. Important figures like these men have been mentioned innumerable times, and it would be immeasurably tedious to try to chronicle each one. The poem didn't seem important enough even if there was a citation. Display name 99 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say you are wrong on two counts at least. One, the sources were given directly by links to the poems themselves, which are on Wikisource. No stronger citation exists on any entry. Two, they were written contemporaneously with the deaths of the two statesmen and in response thereto by a major American poet. Both died in 1826 and I did cite that they were published in 1827. Esme Shepherd (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, that's not how it works. Content on Wikimedia articles can link to each other, but those articles aren't sources. There has to be a citation for everything. See WP:Verifiability. No, you did not cite that they were published in 1827. You wrote it in the article but provided no source for that or anything else. So what if they were written contemporaneously with their deaths? Do you have any idea how many other obituaries and poems must have been written for them? Just because a primary source exists doesn't mean that it's notable. See WP:SUSTAINED. If an event happens and is not widely talked about afterwards, it's not notable to discuss on Wikipedia. If these were very famous poems that were frequently referenced after they were published and a very wide number of Americans read them, we could include them. However, I'm not seeing any evidence to suggest that's the case here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept some of your points, although I was not referencing a Wikipedia article as you state but linking to a source document in Wikisource, which actually includes on its title page the date of publication, title, author, publisher, etc. There does seem to much out there that falls foul of your stipulations. For instance, in the Frédéric Chopin article under literature it is stated 'The earliest manifestation was probably an 1830 sonnet on Chopin by Leon Ulrich.' It is extremely unlikely that this sonnet was any more widely read or talked about than the poems that I referenced and there is certainly no link to source here. There will be thousands of similar instances. Anyway, you are the arbiter, so I must accept your judgment. Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, thank you for your response, but there are a few things that I need to correct.

I said Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. With an m, not a p. Wikimedia includes all Wiki projects, including both Wikipedia and Wikisource.
For the Chopin article, that says that he was featured extensively in literature. If that's the case, it may be appropriate to mention the first instance. Adams however has not featured extensively in fictional literature.
I'm not an arbiter. True, I'm the main contributor to the article, but editors don't own articles on Wikipedia, so you are still able to contest my actions if you wish. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion. Only you stated I gave no source when quite obviously I did. I quite happy to accept your decision. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, thank you for your acquiescence, what you have said is false. You provided no source. Do not blame me for your sloppiness. Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is, I do not know what you mean. I did at least provide, as I mentioned: the date of publication, publisher, author, title of volume, all in the original, as published. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, mentioning information about the publication in the text of an article is not a source. A source is a citation. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand that what I gave was not information about a publication but that very publication itself. Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand, or refuse to accept, basic Wikipedia practice of citing all sources in citations. I skimmed your edit history and you are not a new editor, which makes this rather alarming. Display name 99 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you and I disagree on a lot of things regarding the article, we may even disagree on a lot of things in life in general but you are not my enemy in any way. I am not in a hurry to get anything done on that article. As @SandyGeorgia pointed out, think long term. Wikipedia is a marathon, not a sprint. I know the atmosphere has been charged around the article lately and its primarily due to very passionate positions, such as mine. I am a principled person but I am also empathetic and I understand you have put in a lot of hard work and continue to do so trying to find a solution. I know you have experienced stress surrounding the discussion. Everything is going to be okay. Nothing has to happen today or tomorrow. It may not happen for years. The point is to have the discussion and continue open dialogue about it. I appreciate you and your contributions to the encyclopedia. --ARose Wolf 13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf, thank you for the message. It's appreciated. I don't see you as an enemy either and appreciate your interest in trying to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Andrew Jackson citation style

Too late to auto-revert, but consider a self-revert of bibliography year-to-date changes incorporating your proceeding minor change, as per CS1 documentation: "year: Year of source being referenced. The usage of this parameter is discouraged; use the more flexible |date= parameter instead unless both of the following conditions are met: 1. The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD. 2. The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator." It's not a change to citation style per MOS, as it's a change to the template source per documentation which doesn't change the style or functionality itself. If it's not changed here it will be changed by bots at some point in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelRiv, I copy directly from Template:Citebook. That template has date instead of year. I see no reason to alter it. I undid the change because it appeared no explanation was provided. So long as the default template of "cite book" uses "date," I think that it is fine to add that to the article. I've used "date" on citations for years on articles that I've edited, and it seems no bot has changed them yet. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm color-blind apparently and got your revision inverted. Date is the correct field. Disregard and/or delete. Sorry. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Andrew Jackson

Wrt your edit summary There is an active discussion on the talk page. Please propose changes there rather than making them directly to the article: Please respond to my contributions on the talk page, made just before and after my edit on the article. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yopienso, please see my post there. The editor who removed the content before you came was in the wrong; disputed content should remain until there is a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Andrew Jackson, Talk:Andrew Jackson

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing, including a perennial lack of WP:CIVIL conduct, edit warring and WP:BLUDGEONING (even at WP:ANI). Enough is enough. Even at a glance, you're approaching the article and talk page with undue entitlement and combativeness, and an overall uncollaborative approach. Assurances from you that this will be corrected is necessary in order to see this block lifted. BTW, I want to preemptively ask that you appeal and otherwise engage the matter here (WP:PING if needed) or at ANI, rather than on my talk page (I say that because that's what usually happens with p-blocks).

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Display name 99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can't get the point when my nobody has explained to me my supposed history of combative behavior at those pages. So far all we have is one slightly uncivil comment to an editor after that editor had been wreaking havoc on parts of discussion on the talk page for weeks. That doesn't seem like enough to warrant an indefinite block from the talk page or its associated article. (To any reviewing admin: Please see my first unblock request for appropriate diffs. I was blocked initially after filing an ANI complaint against an editor over a dispute at Talk:Andrew Jackson. Complaints were made about the length and tone of my ANI post, and I was then blocked indefinitely from the Jackson talk page and the article itself despite no specific examples of misconduct being levied against me there. Only one example of an uncivil comment was mentioned later by the blocking admin, which to me does not justify an indefinite block on that talk page or the article. A few days maximum, if that.) Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I haven't discussed El C's original reasoning for the block with him, but here's what I noticed. According to WP:Editing_restrictions, the topic ban from post-1992 American politics, which you agreed to as an unblock condition last time around, is still in effect. Setting aside the sarcastic personal comments you directed towards Cmguy777, you also wound up breaching your topic ban more than once. For example: being conservative doesn't make it non-mainstream. A recent U.S. president lauded Jackson and moved a portrait of him into a prominent place in the Oval office. Trumpism is a mainstream political philosophy espoused by millions of its Americans, and its leader, who occupied the White House for four years recently and may attempt to regain his position in 2024, is an admirer of Jackson. That is a major indicator that it is still within the mainstream to have a favorable view of Jackson. This isn't borderline, it is very obviously about immediately current US politics, and as such is a blatant breach of your ban. Until such time as that topic ban is lifted, you need to stay away from articles like this, or you need to carefully restrict yourself to the historical aspects, and stay a long way away from what recent politicians think about the subjects. Unblock request declined. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(talk page watcher) Display name 99, I'm thinking you should quit while you're behind. You've been indeffed twice. In 2015, you were given a "second chance" before you were indeffed again. Many admins would call that done - indef period. I'm thinking it's a decent chance that any reviewing admin might change this specific block to a broader, [perhaps well-earned] indef block. You're wasting a ton of everyone's time at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, I fail to see how. I have asked many times for specific examples of misconduct by me on the pages from which I've been blocked. I received belatedly only one example of an uncivil comment made against an editor who was consistently obnoxious and disruptive. This, in my mind, is not even close to a good enough reason to block me from these articles. Multiple examples of gross misconduct are needed. They have not been provided. Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this, from your own talk page archive? If you recall it was based on your comments in this discussion on Trump.[1][2][3] It would seem that the part where [you were] supposed to give a damn has long since passed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? An incident at an unrelated page from almost two years ago has nothing to do with the current issue. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shows that your attitude and behaviour have not really changed in two years, so the current issue should not really have come as a surprise to anybody, least of all you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for any reviewing admin

For any reviewing admin, this might be a relevant read, along with the mess above it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps this one, in which an administrator rejected your vengeful and wildly inappropriate suggestion that my talk page access be blocked and unblocked me. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - you were only unblocked because you (reluctantly) agreed to stay away from the topics that caused your block in the first place... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. And I have. Your point? Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that your unblock from the admin was unrelated to the suggested blocking of your talk page by an editor, so what's your point in bringing it up? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I am not aware that making a comment about a contemporary statesman in a discussion about an article outside of my topic ban would be considered a breach of that topic ban. An editor argued that admiration for Jackson as an advocate for democracy and the common man was no longer mainstream. I believe that Trump's respect for Jackson is a counterargument. It seems like an unfair handicap for me to not be allowed to mention that. I've stayed away from articles about contemporary U.S. politics. That should be good enough. Telling me that a post-1992 American politics topic ban means that I need to stay away from an article about a president who died in 1845 is a little ridiculous.

Chaheel Riens, the other editor linked to his post advocating that my talk page access be blocked. That's why I brought it up. I'm a little bit annoyed by an editor coming to my talk page once asking for an unblock request to be declined and my talk page access to be blocked, and then showing up over a year later without any interaction in between to talk about a broad indefinite block. It's not all too different from what you're doing. Display name 99 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:TBAN? Please do so, and then let me know if you think you didn't breach your ban. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I probably have. But it's been a while. Now that I've looked at it, I see that I did breach it. It was not intentional, but I will not make that mistake again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging that. This is one of the issues that people with editing restrictions sometimes run up against - you start out discussing one thing, and the discussion shifts its ground leaving them exposed. If you find that happening, you need to know when to step back and leave the discussion to others. While the TBan remains in place, any discussion about politicians who have been active since 1992 - including their likes and dislikes, who they admire, their recent tenure and whether or not they are planning to seek office again, is entirely off limits. The same goes for what everyday adherents of their political views think (since the ban applies not to politicians, but to the whole area of politics). Be cautious about approaching the limits of your ban; WP:Broadly construed is worth looking at. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me - you're "a little bit annoyed"? I missed the part where I was supposed to give a damn about that... Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, in that case, what are you still doing on my talk page? Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't give a damn about the fact you're annoyed for me bringing up another example of your behaviour and attitude. I'm here because I thought it was an interesting and relevant window into the fact that what's happening right here and now has been an issue in the past as well - although I have to admit just from your talk page, it was pretty obvious. In a very loose sense, WP:IRL is applicable here - you shouldn't be annoyed that something you did in the past is coming back to bite you, especially if past behaviour is not dissimilar to current behaviour. Anyway, I'm done here, feel free to respond with the last word if you wish. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also told the user to reconsider their behavior, I mean, they shouldn't dismiss criticism if it's not on the same level as a sentence like "you suck, go fuck off douche". Notified of it disappoints me - if they also are gonna attack other people in WP:ANI and then claim replies towards their behavior are "defaming", how many times am I gonna say "dude, please rethink yourself"?? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get Display name 99 had this behavior go on for 2 years, but that's no excuse to continuously act like this, attack other editors, get into a dispute and become self-defensive. As much as I don't trust defending yourself from tame criticism, changing is the best idea in this very site.

Just my two cents regarding this situation. Until further notice, this is just what I think. I'm not taking sides, I just agree with people and think dismissing criticism just... hinders improvement, you know? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WannurSyafiqah74, the ANI thread began with my criticism of an editor involved in a content dispute. Although some of my initial post was worded too harshly, none of it was on the same level as "you suck, go fuck off douche." And yet I have been widely criticized for it and blocked from editing the article and talk page on which the dispute originated. In that case, instead of criticizing me, you should probably be defending me and encouraging other editors to listen to what I have to say. Display name 99 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost on the ANI thread, but judging by what you said, I'm glad you confessed you were harsh. I'm not gonna be defending you yet if it means you're saying this to me. Plus, I'm struggling with what to say here, since growth comes from learning from your mistakes.

Yes, being harsh once can be a mistake. But you need to be wary of yourself before you convince others to know you're worth defending. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|reason=I was indefinitely blocked from editing the Andrew Jackson article and talk page as a result of this ANI thread. I am respectfully asking that the block be lifted. I have been editing the Andrew Jackson article for several years. I brought it to featured article status and have helped to maintain it at what I believe to be a high quality ever since. In late July, an editor made a change to the lead that was challenged by another editor and myself, and this has led to a content dispute at the article which has now spiralled on for about one and a half months and involved dozens of editors.

I have been accused by several editors of displaying an attitude of WP:Ownership, uncollaborativeness, and uncivil behavior. I believe that these charges are mostly lacking in foundation. For an editor who has a problem with ownership, things have to be the way that they want and there can be no compromises. That has not been my attitude at the article at all. During the controversy, as results in the RfC deadlocked, I proposed two compromise solutions on the talk page. In both cases, I gave up substantial ground in the interest of respecting the views of other editors and finding a solution. The proposals did not gain consensus, and I made no attempt to force them into the article. That is not indicative of someone displaying ownership behavior. I filed an ANI report against an editor who I believe repeatedly interfered with discussion on the talk page and made disruptive edits to the article. I have acknowledged that some of the language that I used towards that editor was inappropriate and intemperate. I regret that, but I do not believe that any of it rises to the level of warranting an indefinite block from the article and the talk page.

Although a few things that I said were in poor judgement, I believe that the block was inappropriate. The block cites “perennial disruption at both the article and talk page.” No specific examples were cited. At the ANI thread, I asked for examples, and eventually, the blocking administrator gave me one example of an uncivil comment on the talk page. No other examples of misbehavior on the talk page, and not a single example of a disruptive edit to the article itself, were given. While the comment that was cited was improper, that by itself is grossly insufficient to verify the charge of “perennial disruption at both the article and talk page.” Additionally, I feel that I have been treated unfairly in the ANI discussion. The contributions of the editor whom I accused of disruptive editing were not investigated, as most editors preferred to fixate on a few ill-advised remarks that I made towards that person that were the result of weeks of frustration in dealing with their unconstructive behavior. Uncivil comments and blatant POV-pushing comments made by other editors at both the article talk page and in the ANI thread were ignored when I brought attention to them. The editors who rejected compromise proposals that were representative of the split views in both the sources and the RfC and thus prolonged the dispute were not reprimanded. While it is within their right to reject these compromises, the fact that I proposed them and they rejected them undermines the charge of ownership against me, and makes my punishment more unfair.

In sum, I used some language in a few places that I understand was not good. But I believe that my conduct is not the main problem at the article, and that, in general, my approach has been one of collaboration and cooperation with other editors. I ask that I be allowed to once again be able to participate in contributing to the article that I have brought to featured article status and helped maintain. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: please review my earlier decline when considering this new request, and the discussion I had with DN99 afterwards. The comments they made in the discussion that led to their block were a clearcut violation of an active TBAN (and I'm not sure that it would have been possible for them to engage in that discussion without breaching the TBAN). I personally think that they would have done better to address that in their unblock request. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, you may be right that it would not have been possible for me to engage in that discussion without violating the topic ban. However, that is the first time in years in which I can recall contemporary politics being discussed at the article. Should such a situation come up again, I will withdraw from the discussion. But because that subject arises so rarely, I think that it should be seen as a minor issue. Display name 99 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it was not that discussion itself but the ANI thread that directly led to the block. The blocking administrator made no mention of my unintentional breach of my topic ban. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these additional comments. I will now leave it for another admin to review. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unblock request template after almost three weeks without a response, but left the post here as a record. Display name 99 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

The discussion at ANI is closed and I am not offended, however, I would like to point out that I am, in fact, not a "he" but a "she" and would appreciate not being misgendered going forward. Thank you. --ARose Wolf 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf, I apologize for that. If and when we have any future interaction, I will attempt to remember it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. --ARose Wolf 16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf I don't mind the ANI thread closing, and I was just trying to give Display name 99 advice. However, I do think it deserved to be because it kind of got sidetracked and awfully long. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you told this person about what pronouns to use and they listened. Thanks, Display name 99! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Cox

Sorry about that, the link should, of course, have been to David Cox (artist) as indicated by the plate itself 'Artist: David Cox. Engraved by W. Taylor'. I have corrected this in Tehri Garhwal district and added a citation. Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd, I have no idea what you're talking about or why you brought that to my attention, but okay. Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 ::Additionally, it was not that discussion itself but the ANI thread that directly led to the block. The blocking administrator made no mention of my unintentional breach of my topic ban. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 :::Thank you for these additional comments. I will now leave it for another admin to review. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 22:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
+::::I removed the unblock request template after almost three weeks without a response, but left the post here as a record. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99#top|talk]]) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 == For future reference ==