Namarly

Welcome!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Namarly! Thank you for your contributions. I am Vanjagenije and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Vanjagenije (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

my response to Admin Floquenbeam

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hello. Floquenbeam. I'll take what you said and address them one by one (and I'm sure you'll dismiss everything I say because I see how you are as an Administrator, who focuses on the one reported and ignores everything else, and other obvious two-to-tango facts and issues.) But here we go, please read all of it. Thanks. You wrote:

As the block log notes, "edit warring (with a history of edit warring and history of warnings and a previous block),

That can be used wrongly as a poison the well logical fallacy to bias an Admin (such as you though not all are quite like you thankfully in holding past stuff against the person that may not have been totally the person's fault though of course you assume that it is, and "he's not taking responsibility", as if it's impossible for others in the past to have been in error also, at all, provably with facts and matter of removing "I don't like" sourced information, and ongoing problem on Wikpiedia, because WP editors are mostly of a sociological and ideological bent that do not want certain embarrassing or uncomfortable, though sourced, facts anywhere on Wikipedia articles. This has been noticed and complained about for a long time. Even by some Admins. Also, two to tango means very little to you obviously. But stuff from MONTHS AGO and is really irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.

But bias is a human nature tendency, and "Knowledge" bringing stuff up from the past, that may have zero to do with the rightness or wrongness of the position here or of the editor here. But of course you fall for it, and let it bias you, and not care about the real crux of the issue of suppressive editors unjustifiably disrespecting and deleting sourced edits. Why not deal with that?

you wrote:

plus disruptive editing (too many mistakes that are your, not the computer's, fault),

You're assuming that my laptop freezing (horrible timing I know) was not true, or just made up, though I would never make triplicate copies of edits on a section intentionally, lousy timing and luck here, but it's true....or whatever else, and not to mention not really relevant to the specific matter that you're totally ignoring of "nowhere in the article is there mention of the phrase 'Terminate the Republicans' Facebook club, that is mentioned in many reliable sources." Ignore that of course, and focus on more minor issues, and obvious biasing the well here.

you wrote:

continual refusing to listen to anyone,

What do you mean exactly "not listen to anyone"? People who dishonestly say "duplicate" when there was no real duplicate, and people who refuse to listen to my point and position and argument? Two way street, that you're unfairly ignoring. (Many suppressive contributors become Admins, so that's no big surprise...) But I was reading and analyzing their statements, and addressing them. But it's ok if those particular editors were clearly not caring about anything I said and what I said. Also, again, to repeat, the real issue here that you obviously care nothing about is that the sourced information that this perp belonged to a Facebook group called "Terminate the Republicans" was nowhere in the article, and those 2 or 3 editors obviously didn't want it in there. Why are you ok with that?

you wrote:

battleground mentality".

Uh, as I said, Timothy was no saint here but was an obvious insulting uncivil player on the notice board. You'lI ignore or deny that of course. For some reason. Why?? And again, in the matter of the edits and deletions themselves, I was not the one who drew "first blood" and respected someone's sourced contributions, and put nonsense on their talk page of "battle" talk first, they did. You'll ignore that of course, per your obnoxious arrogant biased mentality on this. You'll totally ignore (and even deny" two-way street and two to tango, and put (???) insanely 100% of the onus and issue on me (I'll take your sanctimonious lectures with a grain of salt, as though I do admit I'm not perfect, you can't admit that neither is anyone else in this particular conflict and matter.)

You wrote:

Stop edit warring (yes, you are)

If I'm edit-warring (sighs) it's only because (and of course you showed clearly that you'll either deny or down-play this horrendously) the other editors with their constant deletion and disrespect of sourced material (that was not in the rest of the article) were edit-warring first and also. But you see what happens here. You think that Timothy was not battleground and obnoxious and uncivil in the junk he puked on the notice board? Obviously not. Or the rude constant deletions of sourced information that was NOT really in the rest of the article?? You'll ignore that, but put 100% of the onus and problem on me. And I'm to take you seriously? Funny.... You're not fair or accurate. I'm not perfect, no doubt, but neither are they (also no doubt...regardless if you want to doubt it.)

You wrote:

Be more careful, you've blamed at least 4 times when you've removed someone else's comment on edit conflicts, but it's because you're forcing them thru and ignoring the edit conflict warning)

That you are totally correct on. I was on my desktop and going backwards, on the page, after the page, and made the mistake of not going back again. That was a dumb mistake on my part, and I DO feel sorry about that, and apologize. But I did not (and never would) intentionally mess with another contributor's edits and statements on a page. It was an accident. But I should have been a lot more careful with that. Agreed.

You wrote:

Stop treating everyone as a mortal enemy

Sure if they wouldn't with me (which again you're ignoring or denying or down-playing unfairly), then it would be easier not to do the same, but (again) something you don't care to see or admit, they drew first blood, and dissed and dismissed and deleted proven and sourced additions that were nowhere in the rest of the article. And going on my talk page with enmity nonsense. If they were not being rude non-WP kosher (what they did was against WP policy on No Own and I don't like, which I'm sure you'll probably deny) and not being disrespectful enemies with me first, then it would not go the other way from me. Understand?

You wrote:

STOP YELLING AT EVERYONE IN ALL CAPS

Here's a wrong assumption on your part. You're assuming that occasional all-caps were meant as "yelling" when it was simply meant as emphasis, as you notice (which you're ignoring) that it was just small portions that were all-caps, not the whole comment. But yes, people can take it the wrong way, so I should have been more careful with that. And used the italics or bold maybe a bit more instead, especially in that context...(but you saw that I used bold also.) I'm sure you'll probably want to put me on permanent block over my blunt remarks here, that won't shock me, but I'm simply stating facts. If they're not, please show me just how they're not. Thanks. Regards... Namarly (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to get into a novel-writing contest with you. If I can borrow one passive-aggressive tactic from you, I know you are not going to honestly listen to this response. But I'm required by policy to explain further when asked. So, short and sweet replies:

Edit warring: it's not poisoning the well, it's taking into account that previous warnings and blocks haven't altered your behavior.
Mistakes: it's not that you made that one mistake; that would be understandable. It's your repeated removal of other's comments in addition to that mistake: you're going too fast, not paying attention, arguing with people when they tell you you've removed someone else's comments, and making work for people who have to come along and fix it (or fix your fix). If you get an edit conflict notice, it's your responsibility to fix it, not someone else's.
By "not listening to anyone" I mean not listening to Writ Keeper on his talk page (and several others at the ANEW page) telling you to slow down because you were making lots of mistakes, and recommending how you could resolve the dispute without violating our edit warring policy.
Battleground mentality: your response above is a textbook example. If you cannot see that, I fear that you aren't going to last very long here. When you get into a dispute with 6 other people, you have to at least consider the possibility that they are not FACT SUPPRESSORS, but that you might be wrong. Or at least acting sub-optimally. Of particular concern is that, while reviewing your past behavior, I see that this is how you approach every interaction you have here.

This is the end of my interaction with you. If you want, you can request another admin review this block by following the instructions in the block template you removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your response was no big surprise. Why did you ignore the specific fact that the words "Terminate the Republicans Facebook group" are nowhere in the article, and that it IS suppressing and removing that information? Also, why do you say that I myself might be wrong, and give NO possibility to the fact that they might be wrong on this particular matter? I knew you were that type of Admin, and put all the onus on one person, wrongly and unfairly, and zero on the other two-to-tango players and fact-specific crux-specific issues. They removed sourced information, repeatedly, with no real rationale, but a dishonest one of "duplicate" when it provably was nowhere else in the article. Keep dodging that point and that fact. But where exactly and how specifically was I myself so wrong regarding that, that you're assuming? And as far as "battleground", you think that the negative disheartening insulting condescending bad-faith assuming well-poisoned nothing-positive 100% onus on me statements that you posted on my talk page then and now is not a type of battleground in a way, or the stuff that Timothy wrote, with uncivil bad-faith-assumption remarks about "temper tantrum" etc? And also the very reverting and removing in the first place that you assume that I have to be wrong about, without explaining just how. Ok, Floquenbeam, tell me just how I was so wrong about that sourced information and specific words that were nowhere in the article before? I won't hold my breath of course waiting for specifics.

You wrote: Stop treating everyone as a mortal enemy And as I said before about "mortal enemy".... Sure if they wouldn't with me (which again you're ignoring or denying or down-playing unfairly), then it would be easier not to do the same, but (again) something you don't care to see or admit, they drew first blood, and dissed and dismissed and deleted proven and sourced additions that were nowhere in the rest of the article. And going on my talk page with enmity nonsense. If they were not being rude non-WP kosher (what they did was against WP policy on No Own and I don't like, which I'm sure you'll probably deny) and not being disrespectful enemies with me first, then it would not go the other way from me. Understand? Regards.... 18:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)